9.

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

This section presents sample problems to aid the reader in understanding the calculations behind a fuel cell power system. The sample calculations are arranged topically with unit operations in Section 9.1, system issues in Section 9.2, supporting calculations in Section 9.3, and cost calculations in Section 9.4. A list of conversion factors common to fuel cell systems analysis is presented in Section 9.5, and a sample automotive design calculation is presented in Section 9.6.

9.1

Unit Operations

The following examples are presented for individual unit operations found within a fuel cell system. Unit operations are the individual building blocks within a complex chemical process. By analyzing example problems for each unit operation, one can learn about the underlying scientific principles and engineering calculation methods that are applied to various processes. This approach will provide the reader with a better understanding of fuel cell power system building blocks as well as the interactions between unit operations. For example, the desired power output from the fuel cell unit will determine the fuel flow requirement from the fuel processor. This section starts by examining the fuel cell unit operation, and continues on to the fuel processor and power conditioner.

9.1.1 Fuel Cell Calculations

Example 9-1 Fuel Flow Rate for 1 Ampere of Current (Conversion Factor Derivation) What hydrogen flow rate is required to generate 1.0 ampere of current in a fuel cell? (This exercise will generate a very useful conversion factor for subsequent calculations.) Solution: For every molecule of hydrogen (H2) that reacts within a fuel cell, two electrons are liberated at the fuel cell anode. This is most easily seen in the PAFC and PEFC because of the simplicity of the anode (fuel) reaction, although the rule of two electrons per diatomic hydrogen molecule (H2) holds true for all fuel cell types. The solution requires knowledge of the definition of an ampere (A) and an equivalence of electrons.56 H2 2H+ + 2e-

The moles of hydrogen liberated to generate one amp can be calculated directly:
56

One equivalence of electrons is 1 g mol of electrons or 6.022 x1023 electrons (Avagadros number). This quantity of electrons has the charge of 96,487 coulombs (C) (Faradays constant). Thus, the charge of a single electron is 1.602 x10-19 C. One (1) ampere of current is defined as 1 C/sec.

9-1

nH

= (1.0 A )

- 1 g mol H 1 equivalence of e 1 coulomb/sec 2 3600 sec = 0.018655 g mol H 1A hr - A 2 96,487 coulombs 2 equiv. of e - 1 hr

mH

= 0.018655

1 kg kg H 2 kg H 2 2.0158 g or 0.037605 = 37.605x10 -6 hr - A hr - kA hr - A 2 1 g mol H 2 1000 g

g mol H

The result of this calculation, 0.037605 kg H2 per hour per kA (0.08291 lb H2 per hour per kA), is a convenient factor that is often used to determine how much fuel must be provided to supply a desired fuel cell power output, as illustrated in the next example.
Example 9-2 Required Fuel Flow Rate for 1 MW Fuel Cell A 1.0 MWDC fuel cell stack is operated with a cell voltage of 700 mV on pure hydrogen with a fuel utilization, Uf of 80 percent. (a) How much hydrogen will be consumed in lb/hr? (b) What is the required fuel flow rate? (c) What is the required air flow rate for a 25 percent oxidant utilization, Uox? Solution: (a) The solution of this problem will be simplified by assuming that the individual fuel cells are arranged in parallel. That is, the fuel cell stack voltage is the same as each individual cell voltage, and the fuel cell stack current is equal to the current of an individual cell times the number of cells.

Recalling that power (P) is the product of voltage (V) and current (I), P=IxV Therefore, the current through the fuel cell stack can be calculated as
I=
6 P 1.0 MW 10 W 1 VA 1 kA = = 1429 kA 0.7 V 1 MW 1 W 1000 A V

The quantity of hydrogen consumed within the fuel cell stack is lb H 2 0.08291 lb H 2 m H 2 ,consumed = (1429 kA ) = 118.4 hr hr - kA Note that without the simplifying assumption that the fuel cells were arranged in parallel, the same hydrogen mass flow could have been calculated with a few extra steps. For example, if the fuel cell stack was composed of 500 cells in series, then the stack voltage would have been 350 volts [(500 cells)(0.7 V/cell)], and the stack current would have been 2.858 kA/cell [1429 kA / 500 cells]. Because this stack current passes through 500 cells arranged in series, the hydrogen consumption is calculated as

9-2

lb H 2 kA 0.08291 lb H 2 m H 2 ,consumed = 2.858 (500 cells) = 118.4 hr cell hr - kA Thus, the reader may find it more expedient and less error prone to envision parallel arrangement when calculating the mass flow requirement of hydrogen.
(b) The utilization of fuel in a fuel cell is defined as
Uf = H 2, consumed H 2,in

Therefore the fuel flow rate required to generate 1 MWDC can be calculated as H 2, in = H 2, consumed Uf =
H2 lb H 118.4 lbhr 2 = 148.0 hr 80 %

(c) To determine the air requirement, first observe that the stoichiometric57 ratio of hydrogen to

oxygen is 2 to 1 for H2O. Thus, the moles of oxygen required for the fuel cell reaction are determined by lb H 2 1 lb mol H 2 n O 2 , consumed = 118.4 hr 2.0158 lb H 2
1 lb mol O 2 2 lb mol H 2 lb mol O 2 = 29.38 hr

If 25 percent utilization is required, then the air feed must contain four times the oxygen that is consumed lb mol O 2 lb mol O 2 consumed 1 lb mol O 2 supplied = 117.5 n O 2 , supplied = 29.38 hr hr 0.25 lb mol O 2 consumed Because dry air contains 21 percent O2 by volume, or by mole percent, the required mass flow rate of dry air is lb mol O 2 supplied 1 lb mol air 28.85 lb dry air lb dry air m air, supplied = 117.5 = 16,142 hr hr 0.21 lb mol O 2 1 lb mol of air
Example 9-3 PAFC Effluent Composition A PAFC, operating on reformed natural gas (900 lb/hr) and air, has a fuel and oxidant utilization of 86 percent and 70 percent, respectively. With the fuel and oxidant composition and molecular weights listed below, how much hydrogen will be consumed in lb mol/hr? (b) How much oxygen is consumed in lb mol/hr? (c) What is the required air flow rate in lb mol/hr and lb/hr?

57

The stoichiometric ratio is the ratio of atoms in a given molecule.

9-3

(d) How much water is generated? (e) What is the composition of the effluent (spent) fuel and air streams in mol percent?
Fuel Data mol percent Air Data mol percent, dry mol percent, wet

CH4 CO CO2 H2 H2O Total MW

4.0 0.4 17.6 75.0 3.0 100.0 10.55

H2O N2 O2 Total MW

0.00 79.00 21.00 100.00 28.85

1.00 78.21 20.79 100.00 28.74

Solution: (a) To determine the lb mol/hr of hydrogen, first determine the molar fuel flow
lb fuel 1 lb mol fuel lb mol fuel n fuel, supplied = 900 = 85.29 hr 10.55 lb fuel hr

Thus, lb mol H 2 lb mol fuel 75 lb mol H 2 86 lb mol H 2 consumed = 55.01 n H 2 consumed = 85.29 hr hr 100 lb mol fuel 100 lb mol H 2 supplied
(b) To determine how much oxygen is consumed, it is useful to note the overall fuel cell reaction

H2 (g) + O2 (g) H2O (g) Therefore, lb mol H 2 n O 2 , consumed = 55.01 hr

lb mol O 2 1 lb mol H 2 lb mol O 2 = 27 . 51 hr

(c) The required air flow will be determined on a wet air basis, thus

lb mol O 2 n air, required = 27.51 hr

lb mol wet air 100 lb mol O 2 supplied 100 lb mol wet air 70 lb mol O consumed 20.79 lb mol O = 189.01 hr 2 2

lb mol wet air 28.74 lb wet air lb wet air m air, required = 189.01 = 5,433 hr hr 1 lb mol wet air

9-4

(d) Per the overall fuel cell reaction above, the water generated is equal to the moles of hydrogen

consumed
n H 2 O generated = n H 2 consumed = 55.01 lb mol H 2 hr

(e) The composition of the effluent is developed in the table below, by working from the left to

right. The composition is determined by converting the composition to moles, accounting for the fuel cell reaction, and converting back to the desired units, mol percent. (Note: mol percent is essentially equivalent to volume percent for low pressure gases.)
Spent Fuel Effluent Calculation
mol percent Gas CH4 CO CO2 H2 H2O Total FC inlet 4.0 0.4 17.6 75.0 3.0 100.0 FC inlet 3.41 0.34 15.01 63.97 2.56 85.29 lb mol/hr FC reaction FC outlet 3.41 0.34 15.01 8.96 2.56 30.28 mol percent FC outlet 11.27 1.13 49.58 29.58 8.45 100.00

-55.01

-55.01

In the PAFC, only the moles of hydrogen change on the anode (fuel) side of the fuel cell. The other fuel gas constituents simply pass through to the anode exit. These inert gases act to dilute the hydrogen, and as such will lower the cell voltage. Thus, it is always desirable to minimize these diluents as much as possible. For example, to reform natural gas, significant quantities of steam are typically added to maximize the reforming reactions. The wet reformer effluent would commonly have a water composition of 30 to 50 percent. The reformate gas utilized in this example has been dried to only 3 percent moisture via condensation in a contact cooler. The spent oxidant composition is calculated in a similar manner. Note that in both the PAFC and PEFC, the water is generated on the cathode (air) side. This can be seen from the cathode reaction listed below and the following table listing the fuel cell reaction quantities. O2 + 2H+ + 2e- H2O
Spent Air Effluent Calculation
mol percent FC inlet 1.00 78.21 20.79 100.00 lb mol/hr FC reaction 55.01
-27.51 27.51

Gas H2O N2 O2 Total

FC inlet 1.89 147.82 39.30 189.01

FC outlet 56.90 147.82 11.79 216.51

mol percent FC outlet 26.28 68.27 5.44 100.00

9-5

Example 9-4 MCFC Effluent Composition - Ignoring the Water Gas Shift Reaction An MCFC operating on 1,000 lb/hr of fuel gas and a 70 percent air/30 percent CO2 oxidant has a fuel and oxidant utilization of 75 percent and 50 percent respectively. With the fuel and oxidant composition and molecular weights listed below, (a) How much hydrogen will be consumed in lb mol/hr? (b) How much oxygen is consumed in lb mol/hr? (c) What are the required air and oxidant flow rates in lb mol/hr? (d) How much CO2 is transferred from the cathode to the anode? (e) What is the composition of the effluent (spent) fuel and oxidant streams in mol percent (ignoring the water gas shift reaction)? Fuel Data CH4 Mol percent 0.0 Air mol percent, wet 0.00 Air + CO2 Mol percent, wet 30.00

Oxidant Data

CO CO2 H2 H2O Total MW

0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 10.42

CO2 H2O N2 O2 Total MW

1.00 78.21 20.79 100.00 28.74

0.70 54.75 14.55 100.00 33.32

Solution: (a) To determine the lb mol/hr of hydrogen, first determine the molar fuel flow
lb fuel 1 lb mol fuel lb mol fuel n fuel, supplied = 1000 = 96.02 hr 10.42 lb fuel hr

Thus, lb mol H 2 lb mol fuel 80 lb mol H 2 75 lb mol H 2 consumed = 57 . 61 n H 2 consumed = 96.02 hr hr 100 lb mol fuel 100 lb mol H 2 supplied
(b) To determine how much oxygen is consumed, it is useful to note the overall fuel cell reaction

H2 (g) + O2 (g) H2O (g) Therefore, lb mol H 2 n O 2 , consumed = 57.61 hr

lb mol O 2 1 lb mol H 2 lb mol O 2 = 28.81 hr

(c) The required air flow will be determined on a wet air basis:

9-6

lb mol O 2 n air, required = 28.81 hr

lb mol wet air 100 lb mol O 2 supplied 100 lb mol wet air 50 lb mol O consumed 20.79 lb mol O = 277.11 hr 2 2

The oxidant flow rate will be calculated knowing that air is 70 percent of the total oxidant flow:
lb mol wet air 100 lb mol oxidant lb mol oxidant n oxidant, required = 277.11 = 395.86 hr hr 70 lb mol wet air
(d) Per the overall fuel cell reaction presented below, the quantity of CO2 transferred from the

cathode to the anode side of the fuel cell equals the moles of hydrogen consumed:
1 H 2, anode + 2 O 2, cathode + CO 2, cathode H 2 O , anode + CO 2, anode

Therefore,
n CO 2 transferred = n H 2 consumed = 57.61 lb mol hr

(e) The composition of the fuel effluent is developed in the table below, by working from left to

right. The composition is determined by converting the composition to moles, accounting for the fuel cell reaction, and converting back to the desired units, mol percent.
Spent Fuel Effluent Calculation
mol percent FC inlet 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 lb mol/hr FC reaction Mol percent FC outlet 0.00 0.00 50.00 12.50 37.50 100.00

Gas CH4 CO CO2 H2 H2O Total

FC inlet 0.00 0.00 19.20 76.82 0.00 96.02

57.61 -57.61 57.61 -57.61

FC outlet 0.00 0.00 76.82 19.20 57.61 153.63

The oxidant effluent composition is calculated in a similar manner. Note that in the MCFC, both oxygen and carbon dioxide are consumed on the cathode (air) side. This can be seen from the cathode reaction listed below and the following table listing the fuel cell reaction quantities. O2 + CO2 + 2e- CO3=
(MCFC cathode reaction)

9-7

Spent Oxidant Effluent Calculation

mol percent FC inlet 30.00 0.70
54.70 14.6 100.00

Gas CO2 H2O

N2 O2 Total

FC inlet 83.13 1.94

151.71 40.33 277.11

lb mol/hr FC reaction -57.61

FC outlet 25.52 1.94

151.71 11.52 190.69

Mol percent FC outlet 13.38 1.02

79.56 6.04 100.00

-28.81 -86.42

Example 9-5 MCFC Effluent Composition - Accounting for the Water Gas Shift Reaction For the above example, determine the composition of the effluent (spent) fuel stream in mol percent including the effect of the water gas shift reaction. Assume an effluent temperature of 1200 F and that the water gas shift reaction proceeds to equilibrium. Solution: For convenience, the water gas shift reaction is presented below:

CO + H2O CO2 + H2 The double headed arrow is used to indicate that the reaction is in equilibrium. That is, the reaction does not proceed completely to the left or to the right. Instead, the reaction proceeds to an equilibrium point, where both products and reactants remain. The equilibrium composition depends on the initial composition and final temperature and pressure. Fortunately, the equilibrium concentrations can be determined by a temperature dependent equilibrium constant, K, and the following equation:
K=

[CO 2 ][ H 2 ] [ CO][ H 2 O]

The quantities in brackets represent the thermodynamic activities of the reacting species. Because the reaction is equimolar, the quantities in brackets are also equal to the mole fractions of the respective components. At 1200 F, the equilibrium constant is 1.96758. A check of the compositions from the preceding example shows that those concentration levels are not in equilibrium.

[CO 2 ][ H 2 ] = [ 0.50][ 0.125] = [ CO][ H 2 O] [ 0.0][ 0.375]

58

1.967

Equilibrium constants can be calculated from fundamental chemical data such as Gibbs free energy, or can be determined from temperature dependent tables or charts for common reactions. One such table has been published by Girdler Catalysts (1). The following algorithm fits this temperature dependent data to within 5% for 800 to 1800 F, or within 1% for 1000 to 1450 F: Kp= e(4,276/T -3.961). Kp(1200 F or 922K) equals 1.967.

9-8

Because the numerator contains the products of the reaction and the denominator contains the reactants, it is clear that the reaction must proceed more towards the reactants. By introducing a variable, x, to represent the extent of the reaction to proceed to the right and rewriting the equilibrium equation as:
K=

[CO 2 ][ H 2 ] = [ 0.50 + x][ 0.125 + x] = 1967 . [ CO][ H 2 O] [ 0.0 - x][ 0.375 - x]

This can be solved algebraically as follows:

K=

[CO 2 + x][ H 2 + x] [ CO - x][ H 2 O - x]

can be written as
K[ CO - x][ H 2 O - x] = [CO 2 + x] [ H 2 + x]

which can be expanded as

K x 2 - [ CO] + [ H 2 O] x + [CO] [ H 2 O] = x 2 + [CO 2 ] + [ H 2 ] x + [CO 2 ] [ H 2 ]

{ (

which can be combined to

2 (1 - K) [CO 2 ] + [ H 2 ] + K [ CO ] + [ H 2 O] x + [ CO 2 ] [ H 2 ] [ CO] [ H 2 O]K = 0 x + a c b

)}

This is in the standard quadratic form of ax2 + bx + c= 0 which can be solved by the quadratic formula
x= b b 2 4ac 2a

Substituting the appropriate values for K and the concentrations yields two roots of -0.0445 and 1.454. The larger root is physically impossible; it wants to react more CO and H2O than are initially present. The remaining root of -0.0445 is used to compute the equilibrium gas composition, which is shown in the following table.

9-9

Spent Fuel Effluent Calculation

mol percent FC outlet w/o shift. 0.00
50.00 12.50 37.50 100.0

Gas CO
CO2 H2 H2O Total

Lb mol/hr, assuming 100 lb mol/hr basis FC outlet effect of FC outlet in w/o shift shift rxn shift equil. 0.00 4.45 4.45
50.00 12.50 37.50 100.00 -4.45 -4.45 4.45 0.00 45.55 8.05 41.95 100.00

Mol percent FC outlet in shift equil. 4.45

45.55 8.05 41.95 100.00

Example 9-6 SOFC Effluent Composition - Accounting for Shift and Reforming Reactions An SOFC operates at 1800 F on 100 percent methane (CH4) and a fuel utilization of 85 percent. What is the composition of the effluent (spent) fuel in mol percent? Assume that the methane is completely reformed within the fuel cell, and the moisture required for reforming is supplied by internal recirculation. Solution: There are many different ways to approach this problem, some of which may seem rather complex because of the simultaneous reactions (fuel cell, reforming, and water gas shift reactions) and the recycle stream supplying moisture required for the reforming reaction. The solution to this problem can be simplified by focusing on the fuel cell exit condition.

First, write the relevant reactions:

Recycle

Fuel Feed

SOFC

Point of Interest

CH4 + 2H2O 4H2 + CO2 H2, anode + O2, cathode H2O, anode CO + H2O CO2 + H2

(Steam Reforming Reaction) (Fuel Cell Reaction) (Water Gas Shift Reaction)

Next combine the reforming reaction and the fuel cell reaction into an overall reaction for that portion of the fuel that is consumed (i.e., 85 percent). The combined reaction is developed by adding the steam reforming reaction to 4 times the fuel cell reaction. The factor of four allows the hydrogen molecules to drop out of the resulting equation because it is fully utilized.

9-10

CH4, anode + 2H2O, anode 4H2, anode + CO2, anode 4H2, anode + 2O2, cathode 4H2O, anode CH4, anode + 2O2, cathode 2H2O, anode + CO2, anode

(Steam Reforming Reaction) (Fuel Cell Reaction) (Combined Reforming and FC Reactions)

For ease of calculation, assume a 100 lb/hr basis for the methane. lb CH 4 n fuel, supplied = 100 hr
1 lb mol CH 4 16.043 lb CH 4 lb mol CH 4 = 6.23 hr

Thus, 85 percent, or 5.30 lb mol CH4 /hr, will be reformed and consumed by the fuel cell. The remainder will be reformed but not consumed by the fuel cell reaction. These changes are summarized in the following table:
Spent Fuel Effluent Calculation
mol percent FC inlet 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 lb mol/hr Ref / FC rxn Reforming -5.30 -0.93 0.00 0.00 5.30 0.93 0.00 3.74 10.60 -1.87 10.60 1.87 mol percent FC outlet 0.00 0.00 33.33 20.00 46.67 100.00

Gas CH4 CO CO2 H2 H2O Total

FC inlet 6.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.23

FC outlet 0.00 0.00 6.23 3.74 8.73 18.70

This intermediate solution reflects only two out of three reactions. Now apply the water gas shift reaction to determine the true exit composition. Use the quadratic equation listed in Example 9-5 to determine how far the reaction will proceed, where x is the extent of the reaction in the forward direction as written:
x CO + H 2 O CO 2 + H 2
b b 2 4ac 2a

x=

The equilibrium constant, K, at 1800 F (1255 K) is K = e (4276/1255-3.961) = 0.574

a = (1- K) = (1- 0.574) = 0.426

b = {[CO 2 ] + [H 2 ] + K ([CO] + [H 2 O])} = 0.3333 + 0.2000 + 0.574 * (0.00 + 0.4667) = 0.8012

c = [CO 2 ] [ H 2 ] [ CO] [ H 2 O]K = (0.3333)(0.20) - (0.00)(0.4667)(0.574) = 0.0666

9-11

x=

0.8012 (0.8012) 2 4(0.426)(0.0666) b b 2 4ac = = - 0.0873 and - 1.794 2a 2(0.426)

The only root that is physically possible is x = -0.0873. The following table summarizes the effect of accounting for the water gas shift equilibrium:
Spent Fuel Effluent Calculation
mol percent FC outlet w/o shift.
0.00 33.33 20.00 46.67 100.00

Gas
CO CO2 H2 H2O Total

Lb mol/hr, assuming 100 lb mol/hr basis FC outlet Effect of FC outlet in w/o shift shift rxn shift equil.
0.00 33.33 20.00 46.67 100.00 -(-8.73) -8.73 -8.73 -(-8.73) 0.00 8.73 24.61 11.27 55.39 100.00

Mol percent FC outlet in shift equil.

8.73 24.61 11.27 55.39 100.00

Example 9-7 Generic Fuel Cell - Determine the Required Cell Area and Number of Stacks Given a desired output of 2.0 MWDC and the desired operating point of 600 mV and 400 mA/cm2, (a) How much fuel cell area is needed? (b) Assuming a cell area of 1.00 m2 per cell and 280 cells per stack, how many stacks are needed for this 2.0 MW unit? Solution: (a) Recalling that power is the product of voltage and current, first determine the total current for the fuel cell as
6 P 2.0 MW 10 W 1 VA 1 kA I= = = 3,333 kA 0.600 V 1 MW 1 W 1000 A V

Because each individual cell will operate at 400 mA/cm2, determine the total area as
Area = I 3,333 kA 1000 mA 1000 A 2 = = 8,333,333 cm 400 mA / cm 2 1 A 1 kA Current Density

b) The number of required cells and stacks are calculated simply as

No. of Cells =

(8,333,333 cm ) 1m 10,000 cm (1 m per cell)

2 2 2

= 833 cells

No. of Stacks =

( 280 cells per stack )

(833 cells)

= 2.98 stacks 3 stacks

9-12

9.1.2 Fuel Processing Calculations

Example 9-8 Methane Reforming - Determine the Reformate Composition Given a steam reformer operating at 1400 F, 3 atmospheres, pure methane feed stock, and a steam to carbon ratio of 2 (2 lb mol H2O to 1 lb mol CH4), (a) List the relevant reactions; (b) Determine the concentration assuming the effluent exits the reactor in equilibrium at 1400 F; (c) Determine the heats of reaction for the reformer's reactions; (d) Determine the reformer's heat requirement assuming the feed stocks are preheated to 1400 F; (e) Considering LeChtelier's Principle, indicate whether the reforming reaction will be enhanced or hindered by an elevated operating temperature; (f) Considering LeChtelier's Principle, indicate whether increased pressure will tend to promote or prevent the reforming reaction. Solution: (a) The relevant reactions for the steam reformer are presented below:

CH4 + H2O 3H2 + CO CO + H2O CO2 + H2

(Steam Reforming Reaction) (Water Gas Shift Reaction)

A third reaction is presented below; this reaction is simply a combination of the other two. Of the three reactions, any two can be used as an independent set of reactions for analysis, and can be chosen for the user's convenience. CH4 + 2H2O 4H2 + CO2 (Composite Steam Reforming Reaction)

(b) The determination of the equilibrium concentrations is a rather involved problem, requiring significant background in chemical thermodynamics, and will not be solved here. One aspect that makes this problem more difficult than Example 9-6, which accounted for the steam reforming reaction within the fuel cell, is that the reforming reaction cannot be assumed to proceed to completion as in the former example. In Example 9-6, hydrogen was consumed within the fuel cell, thus driving the reforming reaction to completion. Without being able to assume the reforming reaction goes to completion, two independent equilibrium reactions must be solved simultaneously. The solution to this problem is most easily accomplished with chemical process simulation programs using a technique known as the minimization of Gibbs free energy. To solve this problem by hand is an arduous, timeconsuming task. The ASPEN computer solution to this problem is provided below:
Inlet Composition (lb mols/hr) 100 0 0 0 200 300 Effluent Composition (lb mols/hr) 11.7441 64.7756 23.4801 288.2478 88.2639 476.5115 Effluent Composition (mol fraction) 2.47 13.59 4.93 60.49 18.52 100.00

CH4 CO CO2 H2 H2O Total

9-13

(c) This problem is rather time-consuming to solve without a computer program, and will therefore be left to the ambitious reader to solve59 from thermodynamic fundamentals. As an alternative, the reader may have access to tables that list heat of reaction information for important reactions. The following temperature-dependent heats of reaction were found for the water gas shift and reforming reactions in the Girdler tables (1). CH4 + H2O 3H2 + CO CO + H2O CO2 + H2

Hr(1800 F)= 97,741 Btu/lb mol Hr(1800 F)= -13,892 Btu/lb mol

Note: a positive heat of reaction is endothermic (heat must be added to maintain a constant temperature), while a negative heat of reaction is exothermic (heat is given off). (d) With knowledge of the equilibrium concentration and the heats of reaction, the heat requirement for the reformer can be approximated. Knowing that for each lb mol of CH4 feed, 88.3 percent [(100-11.7)/100= 88.3 percent] of the CH4 was reformed, and 26.6 percent [23.5/88.3= 26.6 percent] of the formed carbon monoxide shifts to carbon dioxide, then the overall heat generation for each lb mol of methane feed can be developed from

(1 lbmol CH 4 )

88.3% CH 4 reacted Btu Btu 97,741 = 86,300 lbmol reformed CH 4 lbmol CH 4 feed 100% CH 4 feed

(1 lbmol CH 4 )

88.3% CH 4 rxtd. 1 lbmol CO 26.6% CO shifts - 13,982 Btu Btu = - 3,300 lbmol CH 4 feed 100% CH 4 feed lbmol CH 4 rxtd lbmol CO feed lbmol CO rxn

Summing these results, the heat requirement for the reformer is about 83,000 Btu/lb mol of CH4 fed to the reformer. Because this value is positive, the overall reaction is endothermic and heat must be supplied. This approximate value neglects the change in sensible heat in taking the reactants from 1400 F to the reference temperature of 1800 F, and then the products from the reference temperature (1800 F) back to 1400 F. (e) LeChtelier's Principle simply states that "if a stress is applied to a system at equilibrium, then the system readjusts, if possible, to reduce the stress". In this reforming example, LeChtelier's Principle dictates whether higher or lower temperatures will promote the reforming reaction just by knowing that the reaction is endothermic. To facilitate the application of the principle, write the endothermic reforming reaction (which is the dominant heat of reaction) with a heat term on the left side of the equation. CH4 + H2O + Heat 3H2 + CO

59

The reader can refer to Reference 2, Example 4-8 for the solution of a related problem.

9-14

Consider that raising the temperature of the system is the applied stress; the stress will be relieved when the reaction proceeds forward. Therefore, the reforming reaction is thermodynamically favored by high temperatures. (f) To solve this application of LeChtelier's Principle, write the reforming reaction in terms of the number of gaseous molecules on the left and right sides. CH4(g) + H2O(g) 3H2(g) + CO(g) 2Molecules(g) 4Molecules(g) Now imagine the reformer at equilibrium, and increase the pressure (the applied stress), then the reaction will try to proceed in a direction that will reduce the pressure (stress). Because a reduction in the number of molecules will reduce the stress, elevated pressure will tend to inhibit the reforming reaction. (Note: reformers often operate at moderate pressures, for operation at pressure will reduce the equipment size and cost. To compensate for this elevated pressure, the designer may be required to raise the temperature.)
Example 9-9 Methane Reforming - Carbon Deposition Given the problem above, (a) List three potential coking (carbon deposition, or sooting) reactions, and (b) Considering LeChtelier's Principle, indicate whether excess steam will tend to promote or inhibit the coking reactions. Solution: (a) Three of the most common/important carbon deposition equations are presented below.

CH4 C + 2H2 2CO C + CO2 CO + H2 C + H2O

(Methane Coking) (Boudouard Coking) (CO Reduction)

(b) Considering LeChtelier's Principle, the addition of steam will clearly inhibit the formation of soot from the CO Reduction reaction. The introduction of excess steam will encourage the reaction to proceed towards the reactants, i.e., away from the products, of which water is one. Since water does not participate in the other two reactions, excess steam does not have a direct effect on either the Methane coking or the Boudouard coking reactions except that the presence of steam will dilute the reactant and product concentrations. Because neither reaction is equimolar with respect to gaseous species, the effect will be ambivalent; the Methane coking reaction will be driven forward while the Boudouard coking reaction will reverse. In addition, the reverse reaction of CO-reduction stimulated by excess steam will increase the presence of CO, driving the Boudouard coking reaction forward. Overall, the addition of steam is useful at preventing soot from ruining the expensive catalysts used in reformers and fuel cell systems. Too much steam, however, simply adds an unnecessary operating cost.

9-15

Determination of the minimum steam to carbon ratio that will inhibit carbon deposition is of interest to the fuel cell system designer. The interested reader is referred to references (4), (5), and (6). The quantity of steam that would preclude the formation of soot based upon thermodynamic equilibrium could be calculated based on minimization of Gibbs free energy. However, it may not be necessary to add as much steam as is implied by this method. Although soot formation may be thermodynamically favored under certain conditions, the kinetics of the reaction can be so slow that sooting would not be a problem. Thus, the determination of sooting on a kinetic basis rather than equilibrium basis is of significant interest. The interested reader is referred to reference (6). When temperature drops to about 750 C, kinetic limitations preclude sooting (7). However, above this point, the composition and temperature together determine whether sooting is kinetically precluded. Typically, steam reformers have operated with steam to carbon ratios of 2 to 3, depending on the operating conditions in order to provide an adequate safety margin. An example calculation presented in reference (6) reveals that conditions requiring a steam to carbon ratio of 1.6 on a thermodynamic basis can actually support a steam to carbon ratio of 1.2 on a kinetic basis.

9.1.3 Power Conditioners

Example 9-10 Conversion between DC and AC Power Given a desired output of 1.0 MWAC, and an inverter efficiency of 96.5 percent, what DC output level is required from the fuel cell stack? Solution: (a) The required DC power output level is found simply as the quotient of AC power and the inverter efficiency as demonstrated below.
1 MWDC MWDC = (1.0 MWAC ) = 1.036 MWDC 96.5% MWAC

9.1.4 Others
Numerous other unit operations and subsystems can be found in fuel cell processes. These operations and subsystems are well documented in many references (2,8,9,10). For convenience, the unit operations that are commonly found within fuel cell power system are listed below:

9.2

heat exchangers pumps compressors expanders

intercoolers direct contact coolers gasification gas clean up

System Issues

This section covers performance issues such as higher heating value (HHV), lower heating value (LHV), cogeneration efficiency, heat rate, and cogeneration steam duty calculations.

9-16

9.2.1 Efficiency Calculations

Example 9-11 LHV, HHV Efficiency and Heat Rate Calculations Given a 2.0 MWAC fuel cell operating on 700 lb/hr of methane, what is (a) the HHV60 thermal input of the methane gas, (b) the LHV thermal input, (c) the HHV electric efficiency, (d) the LHV electric efficiency, and (e) the HHV heat rate? Assume the higher and lower heating value of methane as 23,881 and 21,526 Btu/lb respectively. Solution: (a) The HHV thermal input of the methane gas is 23,881 Btu, HHV 1 MMBtu HHV Thermal Input = (700 lb/hr CH 4 ) 10 6 Btu = 16.716 MMBtu/hr 1 lb CH 4 or 1 MW HHV Thermal Input = (16.716 MMBtu/hr ) = 4.899 MWt 3.412 MMBtu

(b) The LHV thermal input of the methane gas is

LHV Thermal Input = 700 lb/hr CH 4

21,526 Btu, LHV 1 MMBtu = 15.068 MMBtu/hr 10 6 Btu 1 lb CH 4

or
1 MW LHV Thermal Input = (15.068 MMBtu/hr ) = 4.416 MWt 3.412 MMBtu

(c) The HHV electrical efficiency is

Output 2.0 MW AC Electrical Efficiency (HHV) = Input, HHV = 4.899 MWt, HHV = 40.8% HHV

(d) The LHV electrical efficiency is

Output 2.0 MWAC Electrical Efficiency (LHV) = Input, LHV = 4.416 MWt, LHV = 45.3% LHV

Note: Because a fuel's LHV is less than or equal to its HHV value, the LHV efficiency will always be greater than or equal to the HHV efficiency. (e) Heat rate is the amount of heat (Btu/hr) required to produce a kW of electricity. Alternatively it can be thought of as an inverse efficiency. Because 1 kW is equivalent to 3,412 Btu/hr, a heat rate of 3,412 Btu/kWh represents an efficiency of 100 percent. Note
60

Heating values are expressed as higher or lower heating values (HHV or LHV). Both higher and lower heating values represent the amount of heat released during combustion. The difference between the HHV and LHV is simply whether the product water is in the liquid phase (HHV), or the gaseous phase (LHV).

9-17

that as the efficiency goes up, the heat rate goes down. The HHV heat rate for this example can be calculated easily from either the HHV efficiency or the thermal input. Both methods are demonstrated below:
3412 Btu/kWh 3412 Btu/kWh Btu (HHV) Heat Rate (HHV) = = 8,360 Efficiency, HHV = kWh 40.8% or Input, HHV 16,716,000 Btu/hr Btu (HHV) Heat Rate (HHV) = = 8,360 Output = kWh 2,000 kW

Note: The LHV to HHV ratio of 90 percent for methane (21,526/23,881 = 90 percent) is typical for natural gas, while this ratio is roughly 94 percent for fuel oils. Common coals typically have a LHV to HHV ratio of 92 to 96 percent depending upon the hydrogen and moisture content61. Typically, gas turbine based cycles are presented on an LHV basis. Conventional power plants, such as coal-, oil-, and gas-fired steam generator/steam turbine cycles are presented on an HHV basis within the U.S. and on an LHV basis throughout the rest of the world.
Example 9-12 Efficiency of a Cogeneration Fuel Cell System Given the system described in Example 9-11, what is the combined heat and power efficiency assuming that cycle produces 2 tons/hr of 150 psia/400 F steam? Assume a feedwater temperature of 60 F. Solution: Before calculating the cogeneration efficiency, first determine the heat duty associated with steam production. This requires knowledge of the steam and feed water enthalpies, which can be found in the ASME Steam Tables (11) as indicated below:
Temperature (F)
Steam Feedwater 400 60

Pressure (psia)
150 180

Enthalpy (Btu/lb)
1219.1 28.6

The steam heat duty is calculated as

Heat Duty = (mass flow )(Change in enthalpy ) = (4000 lb/hr )(1219.1 28.6 Btu/lb )

1 MMBtu = 4.762 MMBtu/hr 10 6 Btu

Alternatively, this heat duty can be expressed as 1.396 MWt, [4.762 / 3.412 = 1.396 MW]. Thus, the combined heat and power efficiency is calculated as

61

The difference between the LHV and HHV heating values can be estimated by (1055 Btu/lb)*w, where w is the lbs moisture after combustion per lb of fuel. Thus, w can be determined from the fuel's hydrogen and moisture content by w= moisture + 18/2 * hydrogen. [e.g., for a fuel with 10% moisture and 4% hydrogen, the LHV to HHV difference is 485 Btu/lb, [i.e., 1055*(0.10 + 0.04*9)=485.]

9-18

Combined Heat & Electrical Efficiency (HHV) =

2.00 MWAC + 1.396 MWt = = 69.3% HHV 4.899 MWt, HHV Input, HHV Output

9.2.2 Thermodynamic Considerations

Example 9-13 Production of Cogeneration Steam in a Heat Recovery Boiler (HRB) Given 10,000 lb/hr of 700 F cycle exhaust gas passing through a heat recovery boiler (HRB) (a) How much 150 psia, 400 F steam can be produced? (b) How much heat is transferred from the gas in the HRB? (c) What is the exhaust temperature of the gas leaving the HRB? and (d) Sketch the T-Q (temperature-heat) diagram for the HRB. Assume a gas side mean heat capacity of 0.25 Btu/lb-F, an evaporator pinch temperature of 30 F, a feedwater temperature of 60 F, and an evaporator drum pressure of 180 psia to allow for pressure losses. Solution: (a) Develop a solution strategy by examining a typical HRB T-Q diagram presented below. From this diagram, observe that the pinch point (the minimum temperature differential between the gas and saturated steam) limits the steam production. To produce more steam, the lower steam line would be stretched to the right until it "bumped" into the hot gas line. At the point of contact, both the hot gas and saturated steam would be at the same temperature. This is thermodynamically impossible, because heat will only "flow" from a higher temperature to a lower one. In practice, the temperature approach at the pinch point is kept large enough (15 to 40 F) to prevent an unusually large and expensive evaporator. Because the pinch limits the steam production, the sensible heat available in the exhaust gas from 700 F to the pinch point will determine how much steam can be produced.
Tg, 800 700 600 TS 500 400 300 200 Feedwater 100 0 Q 00 Q1 20 40 60 Q 80 Q2 100 Q3 120 QSH QEvap QEcon TF Temperature Superheated steam Saturated steam Tsat Tg,1 Pinch Exhaust Gas

Tg, Tg,

The governing equations for the heat available in the gas down to the pinch point (Tg,0 to Tg,2), and the corresponding heat absorbed by the superheated and saturated steam are presented below.
gas Q SH + Evap = (m gas )(C p )(Tg,0 - Tg,2 )

steam Q SH + Evap = (m steam )(h superheated - h f )

9-19

gas steam Q SH + Evap = Q SH + Evap

gas Calculate Q SH + Evap based on the steam saturation temperature from the steam tables. By using the ASME steam tables (11), determine the saturation temperature and enthalpies of interest:

hsuperheated (150 psia, 400 F) = 1219.1 Btu/lb hf (180 psia, saturated water) = 346.2 Btu/lb Tsat (180 psia, saturated steam/water) = 373.1 F Tg,2 = Tsat + 30 = 403.1 F
gas Now solve for Q SH + Evap

lb Btu Btu gas o Q SH 0.25 o 700 - 403.1 F = 742,000 + Evap = 10,000 hr hr lb F

Substitute this heat value into the steam side equation to solve directly for the steam mass flow rate:
m steam =
steam Q SH + Evap

(h superheated - h f )

742,000

(1219.1 - 346.2

Btu hr Btu lb

= 850

lb hr

(b) Knowing the water/steam mass flow rate, the HRB heat duty can be calculated using the following equations: hfeedwater (60 F) = 28.6 Btu/lb
Q steam Total = (m steam )(h superheated - h feedwater ) = 850

lb hr

)(1219.1 - 28.6 Btu lb )

= 1,012,000

Btu hr

(c) The gas temperature leaving the HRB (Tg,3) is now easily calculated, because the total heat transferred to the steam is equivalent to that lost by the gas stream: Q gas Total = (m gas )(C p )(Tg,0 - Tg,3 ) Thus,
1,012,000 Btu lb gas Btu o = 10,000 0.25 o 700 F - Tg,3 hr hr lb F

9-20

Solving, Tg,3 = 295 F. (d) Because a constant mean Cp was assumed for the exhaust gas over the temperature range of interest, simply draw a straight line from 700 F to 295 F, with the 295 F corresponding to a transferred quantity of heat of 1.01 MMBtu/hr. On the steam side, separately determine the heat absorbed by the superheater, the evaporator, and the economizer. These heats are determined by the following equations:
steam Q SH = (m steam )(h superheated - h g )

Q steam Evap = (m steam )(h g - h f ) Q water Econ = (m water )(h f - h feedwater )

Substitute the known flow and enthalpy data and solve for these three quantities: hg (180 psia, saturated steam) = 1196.9 Btu/lb
steam lb lb Btu Q SH )(1219.1 - 1196.9 Btu = (850 hr lb ) = (850 hr )(22.2 lb ) = 18,900

Btu hr Btu hr

lb Btu lb Btu Q steam Evap = (850 hr )(1196.9 - 346.2 lb ) = (850 hr )(850.7 lb ) = 723,100

water lb lb Btu Q Econ )(346.2 - 28.6 Btu = (850 hr lb ) = (850 hr )(317.6 lb ) = 270,000

Btu hr

Use these values to calculate cumulative heat duties:

steam Q1 = Q SH = 18,900

Btu MMBtu = 0.019 at 373.1 o F hr hr Btu Btu MMBtu = 742,000 = 0.742 at 373.1 o F hr hr hr Btu Btu MMBtu = 1,012,000 = 1.012 at 60 o F hr hr hr

Q 2 = Q1 + Q steam Evap = 18,900 + 723,100

Q 3 = Q 2 + Q water Econ = 742,000 + 270,000

Plotting these points on the chart below yields the following T-Q diagram.

9-21

700 600
Temperature, F

500 403.1F 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Q, MMBtu/hr 0.8 1 30F Pinch 373.1F 295F

60F

9.3

Supporting Calculations

Example 9-14 Molecular Weight, Density and Heating Value Calculations Given the fuel gas composition presented below, what is (a) the molecular weight, (b) the higher heating value in Btu/ft3? (c) the density of the gas in lb/ft3 at 1 atm and 60 F? (d) the higher heating value in Btu/lb, and (e) the lower heating value in Btu/ft3?

Fuel Constituent CH4 CO CO2 H2 H2O Total

mol percent

4.0 0.4 17.6 75.0 3.0 100.0

Solution: (a) Before determining the molecular weight of the fuel gas mixture, develop the molecular weights of each of the gas constituents in the following table:

Fuel Constituent CH4 CO CO2 H2 H2O

MW Derivation

MW

(12.01) + 4*(1.008) = 16.04 (12.01) + 1*(16.00) = 28.01 (12.01) + 2*(16.00) = 44.01 2*(1.008) = 2.016 2*(1.008) +1*(16.00) = 18.02

16.04 28.01 44.01 2.016 18.02

9-22

The molecular weight for the gas mixture is calculated below for a 100 lb mol basis:
100 lb mol basis MW Weight lb mols (lb/lb mol) (lb) 1 lb mol MW (lb/lb mol)

Fuel Constituent

CH4 CO CO2 H2 H2O Total

mol percent 4.0 0.4 17.6 75.0 3.0 100.0

4.0 0.4 17.6 75.0 3.0 100.0

16.04 28.01 44.01 2.016 18.02

64.16 11.20 774.58 151.20 55.06 1056.2

10.56

b) The higher heating value of the fuel gas can be reasonably predicted from the composition. The following table presents the higher heating value for common fuel gas constituents:
Table 9-1 HHV Contribution of Common Gas Constituents
Higher Heating Value 3 Btu/lb Btu/ft
60,991 4,323 23,896 22,282 22,282 21,441 0 325 321 1014 1789 2573 3392 0

Gas
H2 CO CH4 C2H6 C3H8 C4H10 H2O, CO2, N2, O2 Reference (12) 3 HHV (Btu/ft ) at 1 atm and 60 F.

Using these HHV contributions, the gas composition, and the ideal gas law, calculate the overall HHV on a basis of 100 ft3 in the following table:
100 ft Basis HHV 3 (Btu/ft )
1014 321 0 325 0
3

Fuel Constituents
CH4 CO CO2 H2 H2O Total

mol percent
4.0 0.4 17.6 75.0 3.0 100.0

Volume 3 (ft )
4.0 0.4 17.6 75.0 3.0 100.0

Heat Input (Btu)

4056 128 0 24,375 0 28,559

1 ft Basis HHV 3 (Btu/ft )

285.6

9-23

Thus, the higher heating value for the specified fuel gas is 285.6 Btu/ft3. (c) The density of any ideal gas can be calculated by modifying the ideal gas law, presented below:
PV = nRT

Because density is simply the mass of a substance divided by its volume, multiply both sides of the ideal gas equation by the molecular weight, MW, of the gas mixture. Recall that the moles of a substance, n, times its molecular weight equals its mass.
PV(MW) = n(MW)RT PV(MW) = ( mass)RT

Rearrange this equation to derive an ideal gas law equation that will calculate the density of any ideal gas given the temperature, pressure and MW:
density = mass P(MW) = volume RT

The selection of the ideal gas constant, R, in convenient units such as (atm-ft3)/(lb mol-R) will simplify the density calculation in units of lbs per ft3 density =
lb (1 atm)(10.56 lbmol ) P(MW) lb = = 0.02781 3 (at 1 atm, 60 o F) 3 atm-ft RT ft (0.7302 lbmol -R )(60 + 460 R)

(d) The HHV in Btu/lb can be calculated from the HHV in Btu/ft3 and the density:
Btu Btu 1 ft 3 = 10,270 HHV = 285.6 3 lb ft 0.02781 lb

(e) The LHV can be calculated by recalling that the fundamental difference between HHV and LHV is the state of the product water. That is, HHV is based on a liquid water product, while LHV is based on a gaseous water product. Because energy is consumed to evaporate liquid water into gaseous water, LHV values are always less than or equal to HHV values. To convert liquid water to water vapor at 1 atm and 60 F requires approximately 1050 Btu/lb, or 50 Btu/ft3 of water vapor. For a given gas mixture, the quantitative difference between the HHV and LHV is, obviously, a function of how much water is produced by the given fuel. So the first step in converting HHV to LHV is the determination of the amount of water produced by the fuel. This is done in the table below. The LHV to HHV adjustment is calculated by multiplying the water volume times the change in enthalpy going from liquid to vapor (50 Btu/ft3):

9-24

Fuel Constituent
CH4 CO CO2 H2 H2O Total

mol percent
4.0 0.4 17.6 75.0 3.0 100.0

Fuel Gas Volume 3 (ft )

0.04 0.004 0.176 0.75 0.03 1.00

Basis: 1.0 ft of Fuel Gas Stoichiometric Water 62 Factor for Volume 3 Gas to H2O (ft )
2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.83

LHV to HHV Adjustment 3 (Btu/ft )

4.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 0.0 41.5.

Thus, the LHV can be estimated from the HHV of 285.6 Btu/ft3 as 246.1 Btu/ft3 (285.6 - 41.5= 244.1 Btu/ft3).

9.4

Cost Calculations

This section presents information on developing the Cost of Electricity (COE), as well as information for the development of capital costs.

9.4.1 Cost of Electricity

Three major components are considered in the computation of the COE for a fuel cell power plant: 1) capital cost, 2) fuel cost and 3) operation and maintenance costs. The cost of electricity ($/MWh) can be calculated using these parameters as follows:
COE = 0.125CC 3.412 FC O& M + + s H H

where 0.125 is a typical capital recovery rate (excluding taxes and insurance), CC is the capital 6 cost ($/kW), FC is the fuel cost ($/10 Btu), 3.412 is the theoretical heat rate for 100 percent efficiency (3412 Btu/kWh) divided by 1000 for units consistency, s is the fractional efficiency, H is the annual operating hours divided by 1000, and O&M is the operating and maintenance cost ($/kW-yr total, including fixed and variable costs).
Example 9-15 Cost of Electricity Given a capital cost of $1000/kW, a fuel cost of $2 per MMBtu, a net plant efficiency of 40 percent (LHV), 6000 operating hours, and a total O&M cost of $20/kW-yr, what is the estimated cost of electricity? Solution:
COE = (0.125)(1000) (3.412) (2) (20) + + 6 0.40 6

62

The stoichiometric factor is the number of water molecules produced per fuel molecule in complete combustion. For example, for CH4, which combusts to 2 H2O, the stoichiometric factor is two.

9-25

COE = 20.8 + 17.1 + 3.3 = $41.2 / MWh, or 4.1 cents / kWh

9.4.2 Capital Cost Development

There is a need for an easily understood, flexible, and reasonably accurate methodology for rapidly estimating the cost of conceptual fuel cell power plants. One method proposed for estimating the cost of fuel cell power plants is to calculate distributive (bulk) costs as a function of the equipment cost using established factors based on conventional generating technologies. When applied to compensate for the differences associated with a fuel cell plant, this approach can yield reasonable results. Based on the international prominence of the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE), this approach is useful for conceptualizing the costs for fuel cell/turbine power plant systems. Typical factors in common use are listed in Table 9-2. These factors apply to processes operating at temperatures in excess of 400 oF at pressures of under 150 psig, and are taken from the AACE Recommended Practice No. 16R-90, Conducting Technical and Economic Evaluations in the Process and Utility Industries.
Table 9-2 Distributive Estimating Factors
Area Foundations Structural Steel Buildings Insulation Instruments Electrical Piping Painting Misc. Material 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.40 0.005 0.04 Labor 1.33 0.50 1.00 1.50 0.75 0.40 0.50 3.00 0.80

The suggested material factors are applied to direct equipment costs, whereas the labor factors apply to the corresponding material item. Because the distributive factors are based on large scale field-built plants, an alternative factory fabrication adjustment can be made to reflect a modular construction approach requiring less field fabrication, as would likely be the case with smaller plant configurations. This approach is illustrated in reference (16). The approach discussed above does not preclude the use of alternate methodologies. One such alternate methodology, currently in the early stages of development, is based on the premise that fuel cell plant costs could be more accurately estimated using factors developed specifically for fuel cell applications, rather than factors based on conventional generating technologies. An overview of this approach along with a first cut at developing new fuel cell specific factors is presented in reference (18). Fuel cell-specific factors developed to date are based on limited data and should be considered highly preliminary. Continued refinement will be required as additional fuel cell plant costing information becomes available.

9-26

9.5

Common Conversion Factors

To Faradays/sec mA/cm kg/cm lb/in bar Pa particles/g mol atm lb/in kg/cm Nm Pa cal ft-lb J (Joules) kWh W cal/g-C F K J ft in C C (coulombs) A m cm cm m liters m gal liters lb ft-lb/sec kW W Multiply by 1.0363E-05 1.0764 1.0332 14.696 1.01325 101,325 6.022E+23 0.98692 14.504 1.0197 100,000 100,000 251.98 778.17 1055.1 2.9307E-04 0.29307 1.0000 C*(9/5)+32 C+273.16 4.1868 0.032808 0.39370 (F-32)*(5/9) 96,487 96,487 0.30480 30.480 929.03 0.092903 28.317 0.028317 7.4805 3.7854 2.2046E-03 550.00 0.74570 745.70 To Convert From Joule (J) To V-coulomb Multiply by 1

To Convert From A (amperes) A/ft atm atm atm atm Avagadro's number bar bar bar bar bar Btu Btu Btu Btu Btu/hr Btu/lb-F C C cal cm cm F Faradays Faradays/sec ft ft ft ft ft ft ft gal grams (g) hp horsepower (hp) hp

kg kg/cm

lb lb/in

2.2046 14.223

Kcal kPa kW kW kW lb lb

Btu lb/in Btu/hr kcal/sec hp grams kg

3.9686 0.14504 3412.1 0.23885 1.3410 453.59 0.45359

lb/in lb/in l (liter) m (meter) m (meter) m m m mA/cm MMBtu/hr MW Pa R (gas constant) R (gas constant) R (gas constant) R (gas constant) R (gas constant) R (gas constant) tonne tonne Watts Watts

kg/cm Pa m ft in ft ft gal A/ft MW MMBtu/h lb/in atm-ft/lbmol-R Btu/lb mol-R cal/g mol-K ft-lbf/lb mol-R J/g mol-K l-atm/g mol-K kg lb Btu/hr hp

0.070307 6894.7 1.0000E-03 3.2808 39.370 10.764 35.315 264.17 0.92903 0.29307 3.4121 1.4504E-04 0.73024 1.9859 1.9857 1545.3 8.3144126 0.082057 1000.0 2204.6 3.4121 1.3410E-03

9-27

9.6

Automotive Design Calculations

The total power, P, needed from a vehicles power system must be sufficient for vehicle acceleration, aerodynamic drag losses, rolling resistance, changes in elevation, and auxiliary power for vehicle accessories (19, 20). These power terms are, respectively: P = (mav + 0.5CDAFv3 + mgCRv + mgv . sin()) / + Paux Where P = total power (W) m = vehicle mass (kg) a = vehicle acceleration (m/sec2) v = vehicle velocity (m/sec) = air density (kg/m3) CD = aerodynamic drag coefficient AF = vehicle area normal to direction of travel (m2) g = gravitation constant (9.8 m/sec2) CR = coefficient of rolling resistance = inclined angle of road (radians) = efficiency of motor, controller, and gearing Paux = auxiliary power for lights, radio, wipers, air conditioner, cigarette lighter, etc. (W) The power system may consist of the fuel cell plus peak power storage device(s). Criteria established by the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) specify that:

The fuel cell system (without peak power device) must provide enough power to sustain a speed of 55 mph (24.58 m/sec) on a 6.5 percent grade, and The output of the fuel cell system plus peak power device must allow acceleration for high speed passing of 3 mph/sec (1.34 m/sec2) on a level road at 65 mph (29.05 m/sec)

These values are computed for a conventional mid-size passenger vehicle using the following assumptions: m = 1360 kg (vehicle weight) + 272 kg (weight of passengers plus cargo) = 1.29 kg/m3 (at standard temperature and pressure) CD = 0.3 AF = 2.0 m2 g = 9.8 m/sec2 CR = 0.0085 = 0.77 Paux = 400 W (= 400 kg-m2/sec3) Substituting these values into the equation above, the minimum power needed by the fuel cell alone to sustain 24.58 m/sec on a 6.5 percent grade (0.0649 radians) is PS = ((0.5)(1.29)(0.3)(2.0)(24.58)3 + (1632)(9.8)(0.0085)(24.58) + (1632)(9.8)(24.58)sin(0.0649))/0.77 + 400

9-28

PS = 45,339 kg-m2/sec3 = 4.53 kW The minimum power needed by the power system to accelerate on a level road at 1.34 m/sec2 at 29.05 m/sec is PA = ((1632)(1.34)(29.05) + (0.5)(1.29)(0.3)(2.0)(29.05)3 + (1632)(9.8)(0.0085)(29.05))/0.77 + 400 PA = 100,355 kg-m2/sec3 = 10.03 kW
9.7

References
"Physical and Thermodynamic Properties of Elements and Compounds," Girdler Catalysts, Chemetron Corporation, Catalysts Division. J. M. Smith, H. C. Van Ness, Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1975. Chemistry: Principles and Applications, M. J. Sienko, R. A. Plane, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1979. D. B. Stauffer, J. S. White, J. H. Hirschenhofer, "An ASPEN/SP MCFC Performance User Block," DOE Contract DE-AC21-89-MC25177, Task 7, July 1991. D. B. Stauffer, R. R. Engleman Jr., J. S. White, J. H. Hirschenhofer, "An ASPEN/SP SOFC Performance User Block," DOE Contract DE-AC21-88-FE-61684, Task 14, September 1993. E. S. Wagner, G. F. Froment, "Steam Reforming Analyzed," Hydrocarbon Processing, July 1992, pp. 69 -77. Fuel Cell Systems, Edited by L. J. M. Blomen, M. N. Mugerwa, Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1993. W. L. McCabe, J. C. Smith, P. Harriot, Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering, 4th Edition, 1985. Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Edited by R. H. Perry, D. Green, 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1984. M. S. Peters, K. D. Timmerhaus, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1980. C. A. Meyers, R. B. McClintok, G. J. Silvestri, R. C. Spencer, Jr., 1967 ASME Steam Tables, New York, 1967. Combustion, Fossil Power: A Reference Book on Fuel Burning and Steam Generation, 4th Edition, edited by J. G. Singer, P.E., Combustion Engineering, 1991. B. J. McBride, "Coefficients for Calculating Thermodynamic and Transport Properties of Individual Species," NASA Technical Memorandum 4513, October 1993. B. J. McBride, "Thermodynamic Data for Fifty Reference Elements," NASA Technical Paper 3287, January 1993. H. M. Spencer, Ind. Eng. Chem., 40:2152 (1948), as presented in Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, Third Edition, J. M. Smith and H. C. Van Ness, McGrawHill, 1975.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

9-29