Assessment of Fuel Cell Technologies to Address
Power Requirements at the Port of Long Beach
FULL REPORT
Prepared by
Dr. Michael A. MacKinnon
Senior Scientist
Dr. Scott Samuelsen
Professor of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Environmental Engineering
Submitted to
Port of Long Beach
Irvine, California
92696-3550
949-824-7302
In conjunction with:
Contract Number HD-8381, Job Task 1605
June 28, 2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Primary Authors of the report would like to acknowledge the following
persons that contributed to the report.
•
Project Oversight and Support - Brendan Schaffer: Research Staff
•
Distributed Energy Resource Sizing – David White: Graduate Student
1
Abstract
The Port of Long Beach faces challenges and opportunities in managing and
meeting future energy requirements. Fuel cells are emerging as a technology that can
facilitate meeting future energy requirements and contributing to Port energy and
environmental goals. Power generation can be provided at multiple scales by solid
oxide fuel cell (SOFC), molten carbonate, and phosphoric acid fuel cell systems.
Additionally, combined cooling, heat, and power applications from the same systems
can further enhance environmental and energy benefits and reduce costs.
Tri-
generation systems that produce on-site hydrogen represent a system and application
that can support both Port operations and customer requirements.
For vehicle
applications, proton exchange fuel cells can be used to power motive applications
including cargo-handling equipment (CHE), light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles,
and rail switching locomotives. SOFC/Gas Turbine hybrid power blocks are emerging
to power medium and long-distance locomotives. Relative to other self-generation
technologies, fuel cells have the benefits of zero local pollutant emissions, very low
GHG emissions, and virtually net zero water consumption.
This report describes the potential application of fuel cells to meet the electric
power generation and vehicle power requirements of the Port in the context of high
efficiency and environmental sensitivity. The science of fuel cells is presented in a
companion supplementary report.
2
Contents
Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 8
1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 10
1.1
POLB Energy Considerations ....................................................................................................... 13
1.1.1
Configuration of the POLB Electrical System ...................................................................... 14
1.1.2
POLB Microgrid ................................................................................................................... 16
1.2
Stationary Power Generation ..................................................................................................... 16
1.2.1
Primary Power Generation ................................................................................................. 17
1.2.2
Back-up and/or Emergency Power Generation .................................................................. 19
1.2.3
Provide Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power ................................................................ 20
1.2.4
Tri-Generation of Electricity, Heat, and Hydrogen ............................................................. 21
1.2.5
Provide Portable Auxiliary Marine Power ........................................................................... 23
1.3
Motive Power for Transportation ............................................................................................... 24
1.3.1
Light Duty Vehicles .............................................................................................................. 24
1.3.2
Cargo Handling Equipment ................................................................................................. 25
1.3.3
Heavy-Duty Vehicles ........................................................................................................... 27
1.3.4
Auxiliary Power Units .......................................................................................................... 28
1.4
Summary of POLB Fuel Cell Applications .................................................................................... 28
2
Benefits of Fuel Cell Applications at POLB .......................................................................................... 30
3
Area, Required Infrastructure, and Other Considerations ................................................................. 36
3.1
Fuel Cell Footprint ....................................................................................................................... 36
3.2
Required Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 36
3.2.1
Site Considerations ............................................................................................................. 36
3.2.2
Electrical Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 37
3.2.3
Natural Gas Infrastructure .................................................................................................. 39
3.2.4
Hydrogen Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 40
3.3
Operating and Maintenance ....................................................................................................... 40
3.4
Fuel Cell Lifetime ......................................................................................................................... 41
4
Fuel Cell Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 43
5
Fuel Cells vs. Other Self-generation Devices....................................................................................... 47
5.1
Self-Generation Devices .............................................................................................................. 47
3
5.1.1
Reciprocating Engines ......................................................................................................... 47
5.1.2
Gas Turbines........................................................................................................................ 48
5.1.3
Microturbines...................................................................................................................... 48
5.1.4
Steam Turbines ................................................................................................................... 48
5.1.5
Combined Cycle Generation ............................................................................................... 49
5.1.6
Hybrid Fuel Cell Heat Engine Plants .................................................................................... 49
5.2
5.2.1
System Size.......................................................................................................................... 53
5.2.2
Emissions ............................................................................................................................. 53
5.3
6
9
Benefits of CCHP ......................................................................................................................... 57
6.1.1
Economic Benefits............................................................................................................... 59
6.1.2
CCHP Emissions ................................................................................................................... 60
6.1.3
Improved Reliability and Resiliency .................................................................................... 61
6.2
8
Advantages/Disadvantages of Self Generation Devices ............................................................. 56
CCHP at POLB ...................................................................................................................................... 57
6.1
7
Self-Generation Technology Comparison ................................................................................... 51
Opportunities for CCHP at POLB ................................................................................................. 61
6.2.1
Space Cooling/Heating ........................................................................................................ 62
6.2.2
Industrial Applications ........................................................................................................ 63
Self-generation and CCHP Efficiencies ................................................................................................ 64
7.1
Electrical Efficiencies ................................................................................................................... 65
7.2
CCHP Efficiency ........................................................................................................................... 66
Power-to-Gas at POLB......................................................................................................................... 68
8.1
Power-to-Gas Overview .............................................................................................................. 68
8.2
Power-to-Gas at POLB................................................................................................................. 70
References .......................................................................................................................................... 72
4
Nomenclature
AB
Assembly Bill
AC
Alternating Current
AMP
Auxiliary Marine Power
APU
Auxiliary Power Unit
CA
California
CC
Combined Cycle
CCHP
Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power
CHP
Combined Heating and Power
CH
Cargo Handling
CHE
Cargo Handling Equipment
CHP
Combined Heating and Power
CO
Carbon Monoxide
CPUC
California Public Utilities Commission
DC
Direct Current
DG
Distributed Generation
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
FC
Fuel Cell
FCEV
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
FUE
Fuel Utilization Effectiveness
GE
General Electric
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
GT
Gas Turbine
GW
Gigawatt
HDV
Heavy Duty Vehicle
5
HHV
Higher Heating Value
HRSG
Heat Recovery Steam Generator
HVAC
Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
KW
Kilowatt
LCOE
Levelized Cost of Energy
LDV
Light Duty Vehicle
LPG
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MCFC
Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell
MDV
Medium Duty Vehicle
MMBTU
Million British Thermal Units
MT
Microturbine
MW
Megawatt
NG
Natural Gas
NGCC
Natural Gas Combined Cycle
NOx
Nitrogen Oxides
O&M
Operating and Maintenance
PAFC
Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell
PEMFC
Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell
PM
Particulate Matter
POLA
Port of Los Angeles
POLB
Port of Long Beach
PPA
Power Purchase Agreement
PV
Photo Voltaic
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE
Southern California Edison
6
SCR
Selective Catalytic Reduction
SGIP
Self-Generation Incentive Program
SOx
Oxides of Sulfur
SOFC
Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
ST
Steam Turbine
TRU
Transport Refrigerated Units
VOC
Volatile Organic Compounds
7
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to assess the role of fuel cell technology in
addressing future energy requirements at the Port of Long Beach (POLB or Port). Like a
heat engine, a fuel cell converts fuel and air into electricity. Unlike a heat engine, a fuel
cell converts the chemical energy in a fuel directly into electricity in one step via
electrochemical reactions that are similar to those electrochemical reactions occurring in
batteries. As a result, fuel cells provide clean, efficient energy conversion and today
serve a spectrum of industrial, commercial, and institutional electrical and thermal
demands with a wide range of energy, environmental, and economic benefits.
The diversity and flexibility of fuel cells yield opportunities to support and
enhance operations at POLB, both as stationary and mobile power generators.
In
particular, the flexibility, modularity and scalability of stationary fuel cell systems yield
different options for deployment including reliable, load-following generation to
continuously meet a substantial portion of POLB electrical demand. Fuel cells also
provide combined cooling, heat, and power (CCHP) opportunities through the
cogeneration of high quality heat that can be captured, rather than exhausted, to meet
thermal demands including heating or cooling of buildings and warehouses.
Tri-generation stationary fuel cell systems produce electricity, heat, and
hydrogen. Installation of tri-generation systems at POLB would provide hydrogen in
addition to efficient and environmentally sensitive high quality electricity for port
loads.
The hydrogen could then support hydrogen fuel cell mobile applications
including cargo and materials handling equipment (CHE), light- and heavy-duty
vehicles, and auxiliary power units. Tri-generation could also serve terminals that
receive fuel cell electric vehicles.
8
In addition to stationary fuel cell applications, fuel cell engines could provide
efficient and zero-emission motive power to many different mobile applications at the
POLB including propulsion power for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles, and
various CHE including forklifts. In particular, fuel cells could be used to power forklifts
with zero emissions of criteria pollutants and reductions in GHG emissions.
The key conclusions of this study are:
•
Stationary fuel cells can provide clean, efficient self-generation to meet
primary power for the Port commensurate with POLB environmental and
energy goals.
•
Key advantages of fuel cell generation include high efficiencies, virtually
zero local emission of pollutants, and reduced emission of greenhouse gases.
•
Tri-generation systems generating electricity, heat, and hydrogen are highly
suited for deployment at POLB.
•
Fuel cells in mobile applications can provide clean, highly efficient motive
power that contributes to emission reduction goals at POLB.
•
Deployment of fuel cell powered cargo handling equipment, including
forklifts, top-picks, side handlers, and rubber-tired gantry cranes, should be
considered at POLB.
•
A key opportunity and challenge for CCHP at POLB will be identifying
appropriate thermal loads that can utilize generated waste heat.
In the
absence of thermal loads, high-efficiency electric-only fuel cells are available.
In the absence of CCHP opportunities, perfectly suited “electric only” fuel
cell product is emerging with remarkably high efficiency.
9
1
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to assess the role of fuel cell technology in
addressing future energy requirements at the Port of Long Beach (POLB or Port). A
fuel cell is a power generator, similar to a gas turbine or diesel engine. Rather than
using combustion to drive a turbine or push a piston, a fuel cell converts the chemical
energy in a fuel directly into electricity via electrochemical reactions that are similar to
those electrochemical reactions occurring in batteries. The key difference between fuel
cells and batteries is that fuel cells operate on an external fuel source rather than stored
chemical reactants. Thus, fuel cells do not run down or require charging and will
continuously provide electricity as long as fuel is provided in the same manner as heat
engines. In contrast to combustion engines, fuel cells provide clean, efficient energy
conversion in many different industries and applications with a wide range of energy,
environmental, and economic benefits.
Figure 1: Overview of fuel cell technology. A Doosan PureCell is shown as an example only.
Fuel cells produce electricity, heat, and hydrogen effectively for a diverse range
of consumer applications. Fuel cells avoid many of the problems associated with
combustion - including the inefficiencies and high pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG)
10
emissions that are typical of combustion heat engines. Despite the many different fuel
cell types and configurations, collective benefits of fuel cell systems include operation
with high electrical efficiencies (potentially greater than 60%) [1, 2], emission of
virtually zero local pollutants (Figure 3), low GHG emissions (Figure 4) 1 [3],
consumption of virtually zero to net negative water, a high degree of flexibility and
modularity with regards to fuel choice, system sizing, and siting which broadens the
scope of potential applications, and acoustically benign operation. Fuel cells operate on
both hydrocarbon and renewable fuels including natural gas, biogas, and renewable
hydrogen. (A detailed overview of fuel cell technologies is provided in a companion
report.)
Figure 2: Overview of fuel cells including fuel sources, conversion products, and applications
CO2 emissions from fuel cells operating on natural gas without CCHP exceed the “CA grid (Total)” CO2
emissions, and are lower than the “CA grid (Total)” CO2 emissions with CCHP.
1
11
0.4
0.35
g/kWh
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.0059
.0001
0
NOx
SO2
CA Grid
Fuel Cell
Figure 3: Comparison of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from the CA electrical grid [4] and fuel cells [5].
600
gCO2/kWh
500
400
300
CA Grid (Total)
SCE (2014)
200
100
0
Figure 4: Comparison of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the CA electrical grid [4] and various types of fuel cells [5]
including Proton Exchange Membrane (PEMFC), Solid Oxide (SOFC), Molten Carbonate (MCFC), and Phosphoric Acid (PAFC) .
12
1.1 POLB Energy Considerations
Energy management is a fundamental tenant for the continued growth and
success of POLB as a cornerstone of the U.S. and California economies. POLB faces
fundamental challenges in managing its electricity and energy consumption in coming
decades due to a range of economic, technological, environmental and regulatory
issues.
Currently the exclusive supplier of electricity to POLB and its tenants is the
utility grid operated by Southern California Edison (SCE). Electricity consumption and
associated costs at POLB are estimated in 2011 to be 150,000-200,000 MWh at a price of
roughly $20 million [6]. Further, electricity use at POLB is projected to quadruple by
2030 2 in response to various factors including growth, terminal automation, and
increasing electrification of port technologies (e.g., ship-to-shore power and battery
electric cargo handling equipment) in response to operational, regulatory, and
environmental drivers [6].
The increase in electricity demand could exacerbate existing concerns regarding
the reliability, resiliency, and quality of POLB power supply due to the aging national
and regional electrical grids that currently provide electricity. An example of outages
due to unreliable and insufficient infrastructure include the 2003 Northeastern U.S.
blackout [7]. Electrical grids are vulnerable to disruption from natural disasters such as
the large scale outage events following Superstorm Sandy and Tropical Storm Irene [8],
sabotage or malfeasance such as the attack on the San Jose area Metcalf substation 3.
Maintaining a reliable and resilient supply of high quality power is essential for POLB
due to the significant economic damages that can occur from disruption. For example,
it is estimated that frequency or voltage variation can interrupt wharf crane operation
2
3
http://www.polb.com/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1464
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304851104579359141941621778
13
and result in $75,000 in costs for the first hour of delay [6]. Complete outages could be
even more harmful with costs to the U.S. economy potentially reaching $150 million per
day for POLA and POLB [6].
Therefore, as terminal operation becomes more
automated and technologies at POLB become increasingly electrified, the ability to
secure reliable, resilient, and high quality electricity will be imperative.
A central driver of POLB energy management strategies is the need to reduce the
impacts on the environment and human health. These include a commitment to reduce
GHG through its Green Port initiative. 4 Additionally, POLB is committed to reducing
harmful impacts on air quality from emissions of pollutants including NOx, PM, and
SOx. Under the Clean Air Action Plan, POLB and the POLA seek to reduce diesel PM
by 72%, NOx by 22%, and SOx by 93% below 2005 levels by 2020 [9]. To reduce air
emissions, electrification strategies are being instituted including the California Air
Resources Board’s mandate for shore power (or equivalent) for 80% of vessel calls by
2020; electrification of cargo handling equipment; and the procurement of renewable
electricity.
Additionally, strategies to improve operational efficiencies will lead to
lower emissions and costs moving forward.
1.1.1 Configuration of the POLB Electrical System
Figure 5 displays the current structure of the POLB electrical system.
The
configuration relates to its operational structure as a parent organization (POLB)
managing a collection of individual tenants (the 22 comprised terminals). Each terminal
is leased from the POLB and operated by a distinct company with different cargoes
handled, berth specifications, special equipment. As the parent organization, POLB has
SCE meters servicing various loads (e.g., pumping stations, sewer stations or buildings,
irrigation, traffic signals, streetlights pedestals) separate from the individual terminals.
4
http://www.polb.com/environment/green_port_policy.asp
14
The major container terminals are fed from one or more SCE circuits, each with separate
SCE utility meters, and represent an individual microgrid with a collection of electrical
loads needed to support operations (e.g., wharf cranes, high-mast lighting, and
buildings). Therefore, in Figure 5, the meter in line with the infrastructure associated
with Terminal A would be managed between the operators of Terminal A and SCE –
not the POLB. Similarly, the meter servicing the POLB electrical infrastructure would
be managed between the POLB and SCE as a separate customer. It follows then that
downstream of the meter, either the tenant or the Port maintains the electrical
infrastructure.
Figure 5: Basic overview of the electrical grid configuration at POLB
While this is the infrastructure today, alternative infrastructures may evolve in
the future. For example, the Port itself could evolve to become a master microgrid with
the terminals operating as nanogrids and interacting with each other and Port resources
to assure high reliability and resiliency in the context of environmental sensitivity and
low operating costs.
15
1.1.2 POLB Microgrid
The development of a microgrid structure has been identified as a key strategy
for achieving many POLB goals for energy management including security,
sustainability, and resiliency.
Microgrids can be defined as stand-alone energy
networks comprising different electricity sources (i.e., DG, energy storage) and loads
that can operate synchronously with the traditional centralized grid (i.e., utility grid) or
disconnect and function autonomously (i.e., island). The importance of establishing a
microgrid infrastructure to manage future POLB energy needs is reflected in the vision
for the Port’s power plan as an “Energy Island.” 5
Benefits of using a microgrid
approach to port energy management 6 include the ability to:
•
•
•
•
Protect critical Port infrastructure from power loss
Sustain POLB operations during grid outages
Facilitate integration of renewable energy and distributed generation
Manage installation electrical power and consumption efficiency
1.2 Stationary Power Generation
A primary application of stationary fuel cells at POLB is to provide distributed
self-generation that can assist in meeting required electricity loads with high efficiency
and very low emissions and water consumption.
The flexibility, modularity and
scalability of fuel cell systems yield many different opportunities at POLB including
generation to fill primary, backup, emergency, or auxiliary load demands. Fuel cells
with potential application at POLB include phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFCs), molten
carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs), and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) for electric power
generation and additional benefits including CCHP and hydrogen fuel production.
Fuel cell systems could be installed ranging in scale from kilowatts to multi-megawatts
5
6
http://www.polb.com/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1464
https://www.metrans.org/sites/default/files/WartianElectricEnergy.pdf
16
depending on the goals of the system in relation to the POLB load. Fuel cell installation
at POLB could comprise single stand-alone units to provide backup or emergency
power to small loads (e.g., building) or larger multi-unit systems that provide baseload
power and are integrated with the utility grid, CCHP, energy storage, hydrogen fueling
stations, and energy management strategies. The modularity and scalability of fuel cells
is important given the structure of the POLB microgrid with the individual tenants
responsible for their own electricity consumption.
Deploying fuel cells allows the
individual terminals to size systems to best meet their needs and would provide
benefits including better control for islanding and ensured power quality.
Table 1: Benefits of utilizing stationary fuel cells at POLB. Adapted from [10].
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Benefits of Stationary Fuel Cells at POLB
Provide primary or backup/emergency power generation
Operate connected or independent from utility grid
Provide high quality, reliable power
High electrical and system (thermal, fuel) efficiencies
Near-zero emissions even if operating on natural gas
Fuel flexible including conventional and renewable fuels
Very low to potentially net negative water consumption
Lightweight and quiet
Modular and scalable to meet a range of needs and sizes
1.2.1 Primary Power Generation
Fuel cells can provide continuous clean, reliable generation to help meet a
portion of POLB electrical demand during normal day-to-day operations. Fuel cell
generation can support different POLB electrical loads including shore-side power for
ocean going vessels, cranes, electric cargo handling equipment and battery exchange
facilities, reefer units, office buildings, warehouses, tele-communications systems, and
security operations.
This would allow POLB to offset a portion of its electricity
purchased from SCE, improve reliability and resiliency, potentially assist in reducing
costs, and provide the capability to island in the event of a utility grid outage. The use
17
of fuel cell generation would also allow POLB to better manage balancing electricity
demand and generation, maintain appropriate frequency and voltage range, and ensure
high power quality.
Figure 6 shows an overview of a fuel cell system providing
primary generation to support the POLB terminal operations in conjunction with
imported power from the SCE grid.
Figure 6: Provision of primary power generation by fuel cell systems to support terminal operations at the POLB
There are numerous successful commercial fuel cell deployments providing
primary power in applications similar to those for the POLB. A large FedEx Express
hub in Oakland, California that operates around the clock is equipped with a 500 kW
installation of Bloom Energy SOFCs on natural gas [10].
In 2014, the fuel cell
installation, in concert with an on-site solar energy, met 44% of the facility’s power
demand with clean electricity. Similarly, a FedEx Ground facility in Rialto, California
uses a 400-kW Bloom Energy fuel cell to meet ~33% of its electricity and represents one
of the company’s most energy-efficient hubs [10].
Many additional examples of
commercial fuel cell generation for primary power needs can be found in References
[10] and [11] , including the use of fuel cells to provide 40-60% of individual Walmart
store’s electricity demand, 20% of an IBM data center electrical needs, and 85% of the
Panasonic Avionics global headquarters campus needs.
18
1.2.2 Back-up and/or Emergency Power Generation
Fuel cells are particularly suited for providing back-up power generation in the
event of utility grid outages. Should POLB require, stationary fuel cells can seamlessly
island (separate from the SCE grid network), support critical loads, and thereby allow
continued operations without interruption. Islanding could occur (1) on demand which
can be requested by SCE to relieve grid transmission congestions, generation shortages,
additional supply/demand challenges, (2) in the event of a fault on the utility grid
including unplanned outages, and (3) upon loss or lowering of voltage on the utility
grid. The flexibility of fuel cells also allows them to assist in resynchronization and
reconnection with the utility grid when required (e.g., post-outage, return of frequency
and voltage to acceptable ranges). Figure 7 shows the fuel cell system supporting
critical loads at the various terminals during a grid disruption event.
Figure 7: Provision of backup power generation by fuel cell systems to support terminal operations at the POLB
Fuel cell installations can be sized to meet specific needs of container terminals in
maintenance of critical loads, e.g., fuel cell systems installed to backup an array of
wharf cranes to provide power and help maintain appropriate power quality in the
event of disruptions in grid supplied electricity. Fuel cells can efficiently operate on
19
hydrogen or natural gas for days to weeks at a time which reduces the amount of fuel
delivery required for diesel or propane generators or battery replacement.
Fuel cells are currently deployed commercially in many different roles to provide
backup and emergency generation when needed. During Hurricane Irene, a Whole
Foods in Glastonbury, Connecticut was able to maintain operating coolers with a 200kW fuel cell system [12]. An Apple iCloud data center in Maiden, North Carolina
receives
10 MW from 24 Bloom Energy fuel cells including some operation on renewable
fuels [12]. The Beacon Capital Partners property in Manhattan installed a 400-kW
Doosan Fuel Cell America fuel cell to provide 20% of the buildings electricity and 50%
of its hot water [10]. Additionally, the system is configured to provide backup power to
a section of the building to provide a shelter in emergencies and power the outdoor
news ticker to provide important public service announcements. St. Francis Hospital in
Hartford, Connecticut has two fuel cells installed including a 400-kW system that backs
up the operating room and buildings air conditioning system and a 400-kW system to
meet 50% of a campus building’s electrical demand [12].
1.2.3 Provide Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power
The use of distributed stationary fuel cells would also allow POLB to pursue
CCHP opportunities through the cogeneration heat along with electricity. The thermal
energy produced during the fuel cell generation process could be captured and utilized
to meet thermal demands at the Port including the space heating or cooling of buildings
and warehouses.
An additional use of waste heat could include process heat for
industries situated near the Port (e.g., large refinery complexes) although these
opportunities need to be explored as little is known regarding the feasibility. The use of
CCHP systems for self-generation will achieve many benefits in line with POLB energy
20
goals including reductions in cost and emissions and improvements in energy
efficiency.
Stationary power fuel cell systems have been used successfully in many
commercial CCHP applications. A Pepperidge Farm plant in Bloomfield, Connecticut
installed a 250-kW and 1.2-MW FuelCell Energy fuel cell in 2006 and 2008 and plan to
add a 1.4-MW system in 2016 that, in combination with an on-site solar array, will meet
nearly the entire energy demand of the facility [10]. The fuel cell systems will enable
CCHP applications including the recovery of heat to generate steam for baking
processes, the preheating of supply air for the thermal oxidizer used for odor
destruction, and the assist the operation of an ammonia-based chilling system. Many
additional examples can be found in Reference [10].
1.2.4 Tri-Generation of Electricity, Heat, and Hydrogen
Installation of tri-generation systems at POLB would provide an efficient and
low emitting source of high quality electricity for port loads (Figure 8). Additionally,
waste heat could be recovered and utilized for thermal loads (as discussed in the CCHP
section) and produced hydrogen could be compressed to provide on-site fueling for
hydrogen fuel cell mobile applications including CHE, light- and heavy-duty vehicles,
and auxiliary power units (APUs) that provide energy for functions other than
propulsion, e.g., to power refrigerated train cars. In particular, tri-generation systems
could be highly suitable for terminals that receive automobiles as the increase in the
commercial fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) market could create a demand for hydrogen
fueling on-site.
21
Figure 8: Overview of potential tri-generation applications at POLB
Deploying renewable resources is important for POLB to reduce the
environmental impacts and improve the sustainability of port operations. Potential
opportunities for on-site renewable generation include wind, solar, and geothermal
resources. Fuel cell electric power generation can balance intermittencies and improve
the performance of on-site PV and reduce costs. Additionally, the use of fuel cells and
renewable fuels represents a direct pathway for 100% renewable operation at POLB
with virtually zero emission of criteria pollutants. Therefore, fuel cell generation can
assist POLB in securing energy from renewable resources by two key mechanisms.
First, fuel cells generation can be directly renewable when biogas or renewable
hydrogen is utilized as a fuel. Second, integration of on-site photo voltaic panels or
wind or geothermal generation with fuel cell systems and potentially battery energy
storage systems can provide load following complementary generation required to
balance POLB loads with intermittent generation.
Additionally, electrification of CHE at POLB will increase in coming years
through projects such as the Middle Harbor Redevelopment and future marine terminal
22
improvements. 7 A component of electrification includes the construction and operation
of exchange facilities to meet the battery charging needs of technologies such as
automated guided vehicles. A potentially effective system to maximize benefits of onsite solar PV would be the incorporation of battery exchange facilities with fuel cells as
they can provide complementary generation to balance solar resource intermittencies to
ensure 24/7 availability of charged batteries for electrified CHE or other loads (Figure 9).
The battery system could also provide support to the POLB microgrid or SCE utility
grid if needed.
Figure 9: Potential integration of fuel cell, solar P.V. and battery system to support POLB electric loads
1.2.5 Provide Portable Auxiliary Marine Power
The application of barge-mounted fuel cell systems to provide auxiliary marine
power for ocean going vessels has the potential to reduce emissions and fossil fuel use
of maritime vessels at POLB.
In contrast to shore-based electric power, a barge
mounted fuel cell system provides flexibility and could provide power for ships at
anchorage but not at-berth. A conceptual design of a proton exchange membrane fuel
7
http://www.polb.com/about/projects/middleharbor.asp
23
cell (PEMFC) system was found to be technically feasible in several configurations to
meet different power levels and run times [13]. The authors estimate that to supply an
average container ship 1.4 MW for 48 hours
would require four 40-ft containers
including two for the system and two for hydrogen storage that could readily be
installed on a flat-top barge. While this study evaluated PEMFC application which
limited fueling options to gaseous or liquid hydrogen, future application of high
temperature fuel cells (e.g., SOFCs, MCFCs) could allow for operation on natural gas
and potentially liquefied natural gas.
1.3 Motive Power for Transportation
In addition to stationary fuel cell applications, mobile applications for fuel cells
also exist at POLB with high energy and environmental benefits. PEMFCs are today the
engine of choice for the commercialization of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) by
entities such as Hyundai, Toyota, and Honda. The same engine could provide efficient
and zero-emission motive power to many different mobile technologies at the Port
including light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles, and various cargo and materials
handling equipment including forklifts. Additionally, various fuel cell types could be
used as APU for heavy-duty trucks or refrigeration units.
Currently, POLB is working
with the California Air Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District, and vehicle manufacturers to test emerging FCEV technologies through grants
and the Port’s Technology Advancement Program.
1.3.1 Light Duty Vehicles
The increased use of light duty vehicles powered by fuel cells is being
encouraged in California through State initiatives and regulations including the Zero
24
Emissions Vehicle action plan 8 and funding for a network of hydrogen fueling stations. 9
FCEVs could be used at the POLB by Port and container terminal staff as personal
vehicles or onsite transportation. This would reduce emissions of GHG and pollutants
and improve efficiencies from current gasoline and diesel-fuel vehicles.
An additional consideration of FCEV deployment in California with implications
for POLB is that the shipping of FCEVs to the U.S. on ocean going vessels will result in
increased throughput of FCEVs being handled at the POLB. When FCEVs arrive at
POLB, a source of hydrogen is needed for vehicle fueling to facilitate the logistics of
storage and distribution to retail locations. This need could be met by on-site refueling
with hydrogen provided by tri-generation systems (see Section 2.2.4) that are also
providing clean power and heat to the container terminal operations with high
efficiencies and very low emissions.
1.3.2 Cargo Handling Equipment
Fuel cells could be used to efficiently power CHE at POLB with zero local
emissions of criteria pollutants (Table 2). Currently, fuel cell-powered forklifts are
commercially available and have achieved success in the materials handling industry in
North America, totaling 7,500 units operating within 60 warehouses and distribution
centers in 20 states and Canada [11]. Fuel cell forklifts are particularly suited for high
throughput warehouses and distribution centers with similar demands as CHE at POLB
(e.g., long shifts, satisfactory operation during all weather conditions).
Fuel cell-
powered fork lifts, as well as other CHE such as top-picks, side handlers, and rubber
tired gantry cranes, can improve POLB operational efficiencies by completing a 6 to 8
hour shift on a single tank of hydrogen while delivering constant power free of voltage
8
9
https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_zero-emissionvehicles.php
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hydrogen/hydrogen.htm
25
sag [14]. Fuel cell CHE also have benefits over electric battery powered CHE including
easy and rapid refueling by the operator which negates the need for dedicated staff to
perform battery swaps and recharge.
Additionally, the avoidance of batteries and
associated activities can free up terminal space and prevent the need for handling and
disposal of toxic lead acid batteries.
Table 2: Benefits of utilizing fuel cell powered cargo handling equipment at POLB. Adapted from [10].
Benefits of Fuel Cell Cargo Handling Equipment at POLB
•
•
•
•
•
•
Zero emissions
Consistent power for the entirety of shifts
Reliable performance in all weather conditions
Quick and simple refueling
Elimination of batteries and charging infrastructure
All above increase productivity and reduce costs
Furthermore, the replacement of current CHE technologies at POLB with fuel cell
powered CHE would achieve significant reduction in GHG and pollutant emissions.
According to the 2014 Air Emissions Inventory, the POLB has 231 forklifts in operation
with diesel (100) and propane (108) being the most common technologies [15]. Shown
in Table 3, in 2014 forklifts at the POLB emitted 1,881 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents (CO2e), 16 tons of NOx, 0.3 tons of diesel PM, and 22.3 tons of CO [15]. As
fuel cell forklifts operate with negligible emissions, deploying them at POLB would
achieve complete reductions of direct on-site pollutant emissions. It must be considered
that hydrogen production has emissions that vary with respect to pathways, but if high
efficiency/low emitting pathways like tri-generation are used GHG emissions will also
be significantly reduced. Additionally, emission reductions from forklifts will become
more important as cargo throughput at POLB increases to meet future demands.
Table 3: 2014 Forklift Data for POLB including number, hours of operation, and emissions. From [15].
Fuel
Number
Annual
Operating Hours
CO2e
(metric tons)
26
NOx
(tons)
Diesel PM
(tons)
CO
(tons)
Diesel
Propane
Gasoline
Electric
100
108
14
9
(Avg.)
498
314
403
207
1,200
509
172
0
10.4
5.5
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
14.0
1.3
0.0
Additional examples of fuel cells for motive power in specialty applications
include tow tractors for use in ground support applications at airports. 10,11 While not
currently commercially available, fuel cells are suitable for the various additional CHE
equipment in use at POLB including side handlers, top handlers, yard tractors and
sweepers. Potential future applications of fuel cell technologies may include integration
of motive power into these forms of CHE and their deployment at POLB would achieve
similar benefits as discussed for forklifts. It would be beneficial for POLB to consider
this possibility in the planning and design of future infrastructure to support the
hydrogen fueling of CHE and other mobile applications.
1.3.3 Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Fuel cell powered heavy-duty vehicles represent a potential future application at
POLB that would provide high emissions and efficiency benefits relative to the current
diesel truck fleet. Currently, heavy-duty FCEV or battery electric heavy-duty vehicles
with fuel cell range extenders are largely in the demonstration stages, including at
POLB, for commercial applications. 12 Recent demonstrations for heavy-duty FCEVs
include transit buses, shuttle buses, refuse trucks, drayage trucks, and delivery vehicles.
The California Air Resources Board believes that fuel cell technologies are a principal
approach to reach zero and near-zero application in the heaviest vehicle classes
including line haul trucks [16]. With similar respect to CHE, it may be valuable for
http://www.ushybrid.com/documents/PDF/2/H2TUG.pdf
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review13/mt011_petrecky_2013_o.pdf
12 Two early commercial model fuel cell electric transit buses are available
10
11
27
POLB to consider hydrogen fueling for heavy-duty FCEVs moving forward in the
design of energy management strategies.
1.3.4 Auxiliary Power Units
An additional application for fuel cells at POLB is to power APUs for trucking,
rail, and marine applications. APUs provide power for functions other than propulsion
and typically include an internal combustion engine. A key application for APUs on
commercial heavy-duty trucks is to provide power for transport refrigeration units
(TRU) and to provide climate control, light, and power in place of idling main
propulsion engines. 13 The most common APUs for commercial trucks are small diesel
powered engines which have emissions of GHG and criteria pollutants. Use of fuel cell
powered APUs at POLB would dramatically reduce emissions, noise, fuel consumption,
and size relative to conventional APU relying on internal combustion engines [17]. A
fuel cell APU operating on diesel fuel was able to provide power for electronics and air
conditioning in long haul trucks under simulated idling conditions. 14
1.4 Summary of POLB Fuel Cell Applications
Table 4 provides a summary of potential fuel cell types and benefits for
application at POLB. The diverse capabilities of fuel cells provide many opportunities
for deployment at POLB. Power generation can be provided at multiple scales by
SOFC, MCFC and PAFC systems to assist in meeting POLB electrical loads with high
environmental, energy, and additional benefits. Additionally, CCHP applications are
possible from the same systems which can further enhance benefits and reduce costs.
Tri-generation systems producing hydrogen are also possible and represent the
system/application
13
14
with
the
highest
efficiency
and
environmental
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/ivf4_lasher.pdf
http://energy.gov/fe/articles/solid-oxide-fuel-cell-successfully-powers-truck-cab-and-sleeper
28
benefits.
Additionally, PEMFCs can be used to power motive applications including CHE, light-,
medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles, and rail switchers.
SOFC/Gas Turbine hybrid
systems are being developed for medium and long haul rail. Various fuel cell types
could also be used in APU for mobile sources.
An overview of potential fuel cell applications at the POLB is shown in Figure 10.
Installation of fuel cells for stationary power can provide highly efficient, zero local
pollutant emitting generation to meet electricity loads from wharf cranes, AMP,
lighting, refrigeration containers, buildings, warehouses, and other miscellaneous loads.
Additionally, generation can be used to balance on-site renewable resources via
complementary generation both with and without the presence of a battery storage
system that, if present, could also be used to meet needs of electrified CHE. If CCHP is
utilized, heat generated by a high temperature fuel cell could be used to meet thermal
loads of buildings and warehouses. If a tri-generation system is installed at POLB, the
hydrogen generated could be used to fuel mobile applications including fuel cell electric
CHE, heavy-duty vehicle and rail applications, and fueling for light duty vehicles both
operated at POLB and arriving via ship.
Table 4: Potential fuel cell applications and benefits at POLB
Fuel Cell
Type
Potential POLB Applications
•
SOFC, MCFC,
PAFC
•
•
•
PEMFC
•
Provide electricity that can meet all or a portion of
POLB primary, backup, and/or emergency load
requirements
Provide useful waste heat that can generate heating,
cooling, or steam for POLB or industrial needs
Provide H2 to support mobile applications at POLB
Power APU for motive applications
Provide motive power for CHE, LDV, MDV, HDV, and
rail
29
POLB Benefits
•
•
•
•
•
Reduce local emissions
Increase resiliency and reliability
Increase security
Provide ancillary services
Reduce noise
•
Significantly reduce local
emissions
Reduce fuel consumption
Reduce noise
Improve efficiencies
•
•
•
2
Benefits of Fuel Cell Applications at POLB
The use of stationary fuel cells to generate electricity, heat, and hydrogen at
POLB can result in energy and environmental benefits. So would replacing internal
combustion engines with fuel cell electric drivetrains utilizing hydrogen in mobile
applications. The following section provides a review of some of the key benefits of
utilizing fuel cell technology in POLB applications.
Directly Support POLB Energy Island Initiative
•
The deployment of fuel cell technologies for self-generation will support the
development and operation of a microgrid at POLB. A key goal of the POLB Energy
Island Initiative is to procure sufficient local (on-site) generation to meet critical loads
during periods of islanding. Fuel cells represent a distributed energy resource that can
effectively provide needed on-site generation. In addition, fuel cells in stationary and
mobile applications have many energy and environmental benefits that can directly
contribute towards the five goals established by POLB under its Energy Island
Initiative.
•
Advance green power
Fuel cells can be operated on renewable fuels including on-site or directed biogas
and renewable hydrogen to provide self-generation with very low, zero, or even net
negative GHG emissions. In the long term, the POLB could consider implementing
anaerobic digestion onsite, if adequate land could be dedicated to this purpose, while
pursuing the use of directed biogas in the short-term. Additionally, the ability of fuel
cells to effectively load follow would allow the Port to support both onsite renewable
power (e.g., solar photovoltaic panels, battery energy storage systems) and the large
scale integration of renewables into the utility grid and provide ancillary services to
SCE.
30
•
Use self-generated, distributed power with microgrid connectivity
Fuel cells directly encompass this goal as a source of very clean and efficient 24/7
self-generated power at the distributed scale with high suitability for microgrid
application. Fuel cells can provide POLB with generation to meet primary electricity
loads and remain on-line in the event of a utility grid outage. Additionally fuel cells are
an effective component of microgrids with many associated energy and environmental
benefits.
•
Provide cost-effective alternative fueling options
Fuel cell systems can be installed to provide on-site hydrogen generation in
tandem with power and heat. While the electric generation will support electric vehicle
charging, the hydrogen generated can be used for many different applications at the
port including powering fuel cell electric mobile technologies including automobiles;
CHE; and APU for ships, heavy-duty trucks and equipment, and trains. Hydrogen
production from such systems enable high efficiencies, very low emissions, and cost
effectiveness.
•
Improve energy-related operational efficiencies
Fuel cells can contribute to improving the energy efficiency of POLB in many
ways. While being themselves highly energy efficient, control strategies can be applied
to fuel cell operations that maximize generation in terms of operations to improve
system-wide efficiencies. Fuel cells can support and enhance the operation of other
resources in POLB microgrid including electric and hydrogen powered CHE, battery
systems, and renewable resources. For example, the rapid refueling of hydrogen CHE
relative to extended battery charging times for all electric equipment could reduce
equipment refueling periods. Additionally, the flexibility and scalability of fuel cells
31
will allow them to support the upgrading and operation of equipment and
consumption controls.
•
Increase Green Port visibility for POLB
Fuel cell installation at a major shipping port would represent a first of its kind
technological breakthrough and would provide a showcase for the POLB as a leader in
the use of sustainable, advanced technologies, and complement the electrification and
automation advancements currently underway at the Middle Harbor Container
Terminal.
•
Increase Energy Efficiency at POLB
The high energy efficiencies inherent in fuel cells from both an electrical and
CCHP perspective will assist in improving the overall energy efficiency of POLB
operations. If hydrogen production is included via tri-generation energy efficiencies
can increase even further. For example, using fuel cell powered CHE in place of diesel
equipment will reduce the amount of energy needed to conduct Port operations by
significantly increasing the propulsion efficiency of equipment. Benefits of using highly
efficient fuel cell systems include reducing fuel consumption, emissions and costs
which can assist POLB in meeting its energy management and environmental goals.
•
Improve Resiliency, Reliability, and Security of POLB Energy Supply
The reliability of energy supply describes the availability of high-quality
consistent electricity that entirely meets predicted demands at frequencies and voltages
within tolerances of the equipment requiring it. The resiliency of energy supply is the
ability to resist, absorb, recover from, or successfully adapt to adversity or a change in
conditions. Specifically, energy resiliency at the POLB relates to the ability to maintain
commercial operations during an unscheduled power outage or to recover rapidly after
32
a catastrophic event including natural or manmade disasters.
Both resiliency and
reliability in the POLB energy supply are essential for ensuring uninterrupted
operations at POLB which itself is vital for the economic health of Southern California.
Fuel cells in stationary power applications can increase the resiliency and
reliability of energy supply at the POLB by providing high quality, 24/7 generation for
day to day needs and during periods of outages or low power quality. Fuel cells can be
configured to operate independent from the central electrical grid and thus provide
emergency power during periods of grid outage. Further, deploying fuel cells will
reduce POLB’s reliance on high voltage power generation which can be vulnerable to
outages and natural disasters.
•
Reduce Pollutant Emissions and Improve Regional Air Quality
POLB is located in the South Coast Air Basin of southern California which
experiences high levels of health damaging air pollution (also termed air quality). The
POLB is committed to reducing the air quality impacts of Port operations through
various programs including the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan 15 and the
Green Port Policy. 16 Fuel cells produce virtually zero local emissions of air pollutants
while operating. Thus, deployment of stationary fuel cell systems provides a means of
distributed self-generation for the POLB without the addition of emissions to
operations. This is a key benefit of fuel cells as other methods of combustion-driven
self-generation (e.g., natural gas turbines, reciprocating engines) have pollutant
emissions which incur air quality and permitting challenges. The use of fuel cells for
stationary power provides a path for the POLB to secure its energy island future while
minimizing criteria pollutant emissions. Additionally, replacing mobile technologies at
15
16
http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/
http://www.polb.com/environment/green_port_policy.asp
33
POLB with fuel cell powered equipment provides a significant reduction in criteria
pollutant emissions, particularly if replaced equipment operates on distillate fuels.
Therefore, the use of fuel cells at POLB will reduce local criteria pollutant
emissions and provide improvements in regional air quality with health benefits to
disadvantaged communities in the surrounding area.
Specifically, reductions in
pollutants will assist the POLB in meeting goals established under the San Pedro Bay
Ports Clean Air Action Plan and the Green Port Policy.
•
Support California’s GHG Goals under AB 32
California has committed to significantly reducing GHG emissions through
various policies including the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Assembly Bill 32. As
with criteria pollutants, fuel cells emit less GHG than similar self-generation
technologies even when operating on natural gas. Additionally, fuel cell powered
mobile applications will substantially reduce GHG from existing strategies. Therefore,
the use of fuel cells can help reduce POLB carbon footprint and support California’s
long-term GHG goals.
•
Provide Beneficial Grid Support and Ancillary Services
A wide range of grid support and ancillary services can be attained through fuel
cell deployment in stationary applications at POLB. Power quality can be maintained
and improved via the power conditioning inverters in fuel cell systems for system
power factor correction and voltage support. This is important at POLB as disruptions
in power quality can cause essential technologies (e.g., wharf cranes, automatic stacking
cranes) to experience downtime.
The potential mechanisms for support of the regional utility grid by fuel cells
discussed in Section 1 could be used to support the SCE electrical grid. POLB fuel cell
34
systems can deliver peaking or intermediate load service which can prevent the need
for new transmission and distribution infrastructure in southern California and provide
peaking capacity in constrained areas in the Southern California Edison grid.
Fuel cells can also provide various load shifting services that could benefit POLB
including peak shaving and off-peak charging by delivering on-site generation to offset
costly electricity during periods of peak-load. As the primary driver is reducing cost,
low equipment cost and high reliability are preferred and reciprocating engines are
often utilized in peak shaving applications.
However, relatively high pollutant
emissions from reciprocating engines could prevent project siting and permitting at
POLB. Fuel cells avoid this barrier by providing peak shaving in addition to other
functions including standby power with very low emissions. And natural gas powered
fuel cells are waived from permitting in the South Coast Air Basin.
•
Support and Enhance POLB’s Leadership as an Environmental Steward and
Green Port
POLB is committed to expanding its sustainability and environmental
stewardship and has a reputation as being the number one “green” port in the U.S.
This is evident through various Port policies and programs including the Green Port
Policy and the Middle Harbor Redevelopment Project. The use of fuel cells at POLB
would champion the deployment of advanced sustainable technology with very high
environmental benefits that would serve as a model for ports around the world. By
demonstrating the use of fuel cells to provide clean, efficient, 24/7 renewable energy for
operations POLB will bolster its reputation as a world-leader in sustainable operations.
35
3
Area, Required Infrastructure, and Other
Considerations
3.1 Fuel Cell Footprint
The required area for fuel cell systems (including the fuel cell power system and
any required balance of plant) varies with respect to specific technologies but is
generally modest and amenable to distributed generation applications. For example, a
2.8 MW scalable MCFC system requires roughly one quarter of an acre in total footprint
– a four-unit 11.2 MW installation providing power in South Korea occupies
approximately an acre of land. 17 Similarly, a scalable 440 kW PAFC system including a
power and cooling module can be combined to reach 2.4 MW (six units) with a site area
of 4,400 ft3. Figure 11 displays site areas for larger installations of the same units with
the maximum system capacity of 24 MW requiring an area of 44,500 ft3 . In a new
project in South Korea, a 30 MW PAFC power plant will be built with a two-story
structure that will halve the area otherwise required.
3.2 Required Infrastructure
3.2.1 Site Considerations
Site considerations will vary by fuel cell system and location but generally will
require a well-drained area with level ground. Drain lines for water (e.g., 1.5”-2”) from
the system to a local sewer are usually required. Installation of systems must be in
compliance with any federal, state, and local regulatory authorities for building
construction regulations and zoning ordinances for issues including system foundation,
http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/news-resources/white-papers/case-study-11-2-mw-fuel-cell-parkdaegu-city-south-korea/
17
36
protection of weather hazards, security enclosure, distance from roads and public ways,
etc.
Site Area by Capacity for PAFC System
50000
Total Site Area (ft3)
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
2.4
4.8
9.6
14.4
19.2
24
Total System Capacity (MW)
Figure 11: Total site area by capacity for PAFC fuel cell systems. Data from [18].
3.2.2 Electrical Infrastructure
The deployment of self-generation technologies, including fuel cells, will require
consideration of interconnection with the POLB electrical system and ultimately the
SCE utility grid, which will require approval from SCE. This is in part because a selfgeneration power system will alter POLB electrical load and the one-way flow of power
from SCE to the Port. An engineering review will be necessary to identify any adverse
system impacts from fuel cell system interconnection including exceeding the short
circuit capability of any breakers, violations of thermal overload or voltage limits, and
inadequate grounding requirements and electric system protection. The specific steps
required during the interconnection process will be established by SCE. Environmental
reviews and permitting, including Harbor Development Permits, will be necessary for
installations within the Long Beach Harbor District. Additional items may be required
37
by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Major infrastructure upgrades
or installation will be dependent on the existing electrical infrastructure and the needs
of the fuel cell system.
Fuel cells produce direct current (DC) electricity which is then converted by an
inverter to alternating current (AC) for most applications including utility
interconnection.
The sizing of the fuel cell system will require consideration of the strategies and
economics associated with POLB energy consumption. If a fuel cell system is desired to
provide both baseload and back-up generation, the system would need to be sized to
meet the portion of electrical and thermal demand chosen during day-to-day
operations.
Additionally, sizing considerations would include maintaining critical
POLB facility loads during grid outages. This would require both an assessment of
year-round POLB energy consumption and loads designated as critical to evaluate the
benefits of different system configurations.
The judicious deployment of fuel cell systems at POLB will provide an
opportunity to establish the ability to island. To achieve this capability, the system will
need to be properly sized and configured to effectively insulate the Port from grid
failure (i.e., islanding mode). Important considerations for islanding include (1) black
start capability, (2) synchronous generators with safeguards to prevent export to the
downed grid, (3) appropriate carrying capacity, and (4) parallel utility interconnection
and switchgear control. 18
A further consideration for POLB is the availability and participation in
programs that can provide financial or other incentives for fuel cell system deployment.
One example includes the Self-generation Incentive Program (SGIP) which provides
18
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/distributedenergy/pdfs/chp_for_reliability_guidance.pdf
38
incentive funding for distributed generation projects. Other funding opportunities are
emerging associated, for example, with Cap and Trade, short lived climatic pollutants,
and the Porter Ranch episode.
3.2.3 Natural Gas Infrastructure
Current fuel cell system installation requires a supply of natural gas and thus
interconnection with the POLB natural gas infrastructure which is provided by
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Two key issues requiring consideration
include natural gas availability and natural gas pressure.
Availability of required
natural gas supply includes both the quantity of natural gas needed for fuel cell
operation and required gas lines to provide it. The amount of natural gas required for
operation will vary with respect to the size of the system. For example, depending on
various factors including operation conditions a 5 MW SOFC installation requires ~30
million British thermal units per hour (MMBTU/hr) natural gas [19], a 2.8 MW MCFC
system uses ~20 MMBTU/hr [20], and a 440 kW PAFC system consumes ~3.6-4.06
MMBTU/hour [18].
In contrast to heat engines, typical fuel pressures required by fuel cells range
from less than 0.5 to 45 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) [5] which generally does
not require upgrading from traditional natural gas infrastructure established in
commercial buildings. For example, the 440 kW system in Reference [18] requires an
inlet pressure of natural gas of 0.36-0.51 psig.
The potential need to update natural gas infrastructure to facilitate fuel cell
systems, or other self-generation systems, will depend on existing POLB natural gas
supply lines and system requirements. Similar to the agreement reached for electricity
rates and billing charges with SCE, POLB should seek to establish an agreement with
SoCalGas regarding natural gas rates. The cost structure of natural gas distribution is
39
similar to electricity but the cost of the infrastructure is generally a smaller ratio of the
overall costs for large volume customers [19]. POLB should also consider contacting
SoCalGas to provide a natural gas service evaluation for potential new power projects,
including a description of the necessary improvements to existing gas infrastructure to
support fuel cell project installation and a preliminary estimate of the costs require to
construct facilities. 19
3.2.4 Hydrogen Infrastructure
While current commercial distributed fuel cell systems operate on natural gas
and biogas by internally reforming the gas to hydrogen, fuel cells can be supplied with
hydrogen directly if and when renewable hydrogen becomes commonplace as a
solution to capturing wind energy that would otherwise be curtailed. Thus, while not
necessary in the short term, future infrastructure at POLB could include hydrogen
pipeline infrastructure. Pipelines are the most efficient mechanism for transportation
large amounts of hydrogen. Construction costs for hydrogen pipelines are 10-20%
higher than those for natural gas due largely to materials associated with hydrogen
embrittlement [21]. On-site hydrogen storage could be beneficial and include high
pressure gaseous storage vessels of varying composition (e.g., all-metal cylinder, carbon
fiber). Cryogenic liquid storage tanks could be employed to store large quantities of
hydrogen. If tri-generation systems are deployed, any produced hydrogen could be
stored on-site and used when needed for power or as a transportation fuel.
3.3 Operating and Maintenance
Fuel cell operating and maintenance (O&M) requirements are relatively low
given the few moving parts associated with fuel cell systems. Short term maintenance
19
https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/power-generation/new-or-expanding-facilities
40
include filter changes for the sulfur trap, fuel, and air. Depending on the type of fuel
cell, the required changes occur annually (8,766 hours), or 2,000 to 4,000 hours of
operation [5].
Similarly, the fuel reformer may require maintenance including
replacement of a reformer igniter. Additional maintenance can be required for water
treatment beds, flange gaskets, valves, and electrical components.
Consumable
products also can require replacement including sulfur adsorbent bed catalyst and
nitrogen for shutdown purging.
Long term O&M considerations include the
replacement of the shift and reformer catalysts.
Remote monitoring by the
manufacturer is used as a vehicle to manage maintenance and detect a requirement for
unscheduled maintenance before it becomes an operating issue.
Fuel Cell O&M considerations for the POLB will depend on the structure of
ownership as many manufacturers offer a range of options including leasing, power
purchasing agreements (PPA), and warranties (Discussed further in Section 4). Direct
ownership would require the most O&M responsibility for the POLB while a PPA
would require the virtually no responsibility. 20 A leasing agreement would typically
require the lease (e.g., POLB) to be responsible for the purchase and delivery of fuel
with O&M and other costs assumed by the leasing agent.
3.4 Fuel Cell Lifetime
Fuel cell operating lifetimes have evolved to achieve and exceed a commercial
target of 20 years for the balance of plant, and between 5 and 10 years (depending on
the fuel cell type) for the fuel cell stack [5]. Many fuel cell manufacturers provide stack
replacement as a part of warranty coverages. Further, for installations using either a
PPA or leasing arrangement, manufacturer or developer assumes the responsibility for
20
https://www.wbdg.org/resources/fuelcell.php
41
replacement of system components experiencing failure prior to the agreement
deadline.
42
4
Fuel Cell Costs
Costs for stationary fuel cell systems vary by type and application and include
capital cost (equipment and installation), operating and maintenance (O & M) costs, and
cost for fuel.
Costs for five CCHP fuel cell systems reported in Reference [5] are
displayed in Table but should be considered “typical” pricing (it should be noted that
costs for larger SOFC systems (~200-1000 kw) are much less expensive than those
presented by System 2 but those data were unavailable to the authors). Total costs
range from $4,600/kw for a large commercial and industrial application to $23,000/kw
for a small residential application, although costs for systems more representative to
those for POLB range from $4,600-$10,000. Installed costs range depending on factors
such as the scope of plant equipment, geographical deployment area, competitive
market condition, existence of specialized site requirements, and current rates of labor
[5]. Additionally, incentive programs and other funding opportunities may be available
at state and federal levels due to the environmental benefits associated with their use
that can make fuel cell costs competitive with other technologies and support their
deployment at POLB.
Table 5: Estimated Costs for Fuel Cells in CCHP Applications. Adapted from [5].
Installed Cost
Components
Application
Fuel Cell Type
Capacity (kW)
Total Cost
(2014 $/kW)
O&M Costs
(2014 $/MWh)
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
System 5
Residential
PEMFC
0.7
Residential
SOFC
1.5
Com./Ind.
MCFC
300
Com./Ind.
PAFC
400
Com./Ind.
MCFC
1400
$22,000
$23,000
$10,000
$7,000
$4,600
$60
$55
$45
$36
$40
Real-world costs of fuel cell installation projects are more in line with the lower
end of the CCHP systems shown in Table 5 when incentives are available. In California,
the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) has led to the deployment of over 300
43
stationary fuel cell systems operating on renewable biogas and natural gas [22]. The
average estimated costs for fuel cells in the SGIP range by capacities from $9,524$10,932/kW without incentives and $5,587-$8,299/kW with incentives [22]. Generally,
systems with larger capacities have lower unit costs and also receive more incentives,
further reducing costs.
Figure 12 compares unsubsidized levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of different
distributed self-generation technologies as well as average prices from the CA utility
grid. The LCOE of fuel cells can range from 10.6 to 16.7 cents/kWh unsubsidized and
9.4 to 16.0 cents/kWh with federal tax subsidies [23]. Commercial deployments of fuel
cells systems similar to what would be utilized at POLB have been shown to have
LCOE of 8-10 cents/kWh to 9-11 cents/kWh with subsidies and 14-15 cents/kWh without
subsidies depending on manufacturer and system [14]. This is reasonably competitive
with pricing for grid electricity in markets with relatively high electricity costs –
including California which can range from 10-17 cents/kWhr depending on the time of
year and end-use sector [24]. Fuel cells operating on natural gas and renewable fuels
are also eligible for Federal tax incentives including the Business Energy Investment
Tax Credit with a maximum incentive of $1,500 per 0.5 kW 21. While the POLB could not
benefit from such incentives, the individual tenants at the Port are eligible.
While the costs of fuel cells are high relative to other forms of self-generation,
future improvements in technology and manufacturing are expected to significantly
reduce them moving forward. Indeed capital costs for fuel cells have steadily declined
in recent years. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has established the following
targets for stationary fuel cells applicable to POLB which would allow fuel cells to be
more competitive economically with other forms of self-generation [25]:
21
http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/658
44
Levelized Cost of Electricity
Gas Combined Cycle
Reciprocating Engine
Microturbine
Solar PV
Avg. CA Utility Grid
Fuel Cell
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
$/kWh
Figure 12: Unsubsidized levelized cost of electricity for self-generation technologies [23] and average California utility grid [24].
Solar PV pricing represents a range from rooftop commercial and industrial to community-scale deployment.
•
•
•
By 2020, develop DG and micro-CHP fuel cell systems (5 kW) operating
on natural gas that achieve 45% electrical efficiency and 60,000 hours
durability at an equipment cost of $1,500/KW
By 2020, develop medium-scale combined heat and power (CHP) 22 fuel
cell systems (100 kW-3 MW) operating on natural gas that achieve 50%
electrical and 90% CHP efficiency, 80,000 hours durability and costs of
$1,500/kW operating on natural gas and $2,100/kw operation on
biogas.
By 2020, develop a fuel cell system for APU (1-10 kW) with a specific
power of 45 W/kg, a power density of 40W/L, and cost of $1000/kW.
A strategy for procurement of generation and heat from fuel cell systems that has
achieved success and may be favorable to POLB includes the establishment of a power
purchase agreement (PPA) with a fuel cell manufacturer or provider. A PPA is a
contract between an electricity generator (fuel cell manufacturer or other financing
party) and consumer (POLB or its tenants) that would allow for no upfront capital
22
CHP is distinct from CCHP in that it does not include space cooling
45
investment as the manufacturer or third-party installer is responsible for the cost of the
equipment, the cost of installation, and operation and maintenance. Instead, POLB
would purchase electricity and heat from fuel cell generation over a period of 10-20
years, often at favorable rates. Essentially a PPA could allow the POLB to procure
generation from fuel cells at the prices that are competitive with the CA utility grid such
as 8-11 cents/kWh without high upfront capital costs.
The PPA is a common
mechanism for attaining financing of alternative energy projects with benefits to POLB
including:
•
•
•
•
•
Budget certainty by pre-defined price of electricity/heat specified for multiyear periods with potentially favorable rates (e.g., 8-15 cents/kWh)
System installation with no capital expense for the consumer
System design, engineering, permitting, installation, and utility
interconnection are handled by installer
O & M costs included for contract duration
Performance guarantees established in contract
Tri-Generation systems are able to achieve substantially lower electricity costs due to
the production of a highly-valued revenue stream of hydrogen.
46
5
Fuel Cells vs. Other Self-generation Devices
5.1 Self-Generation Devices
In addition to fuel cells, self-generation technologies available for distributed
applications include reciprocating engines, gas turbines, steam turbines, and microturbines. Furthermore, fuel cells can be integrated with a heat engine in hybrid fuel
cell/heat engine plants.
These technologies are also suitable for combined cooling,
heating, and power applications (CCHP) and can be integrated in microgrids.
Similar to fuel cells, the following devices convert chemical energy in fuel into
electric power and heat.
In contrast to fuel cells, the devices listed require the
additional steps of converting hot gases to provide electricity through a series of
mechanical devices such as pistons or turbines and an electrical generator whereas fuel
cells convert fuel chemical energy into electrical energy electrochemically in one step).
The following section briefly describes self-generation devices and compares
operational parameters relative to fuel cells for stationary applications at the POLB.
5.1.1 Reciprocating Engines
Reciprocating engines represent a mature and commercially available heat
engine technology that make up over half of existing CHP systems in the U.S [5].
Reciprocating engines can operate with either spark ignition or compression ignition
and can range from very small (0.005 MW) to large (80 MW) systems, although typical
CHP systems sizes range in the 0.005 – 10 MW. Benefits of reciprocating engines
include low investment and operating cost, high flexibility, reliability and availability,
high part-load efficiencies and load following capabilities, and fast start-up times.
Drawbacks of reciprocating engines include the need for regular service due to moving
parts, noisy operation, and emissions of criteria pollutants and elevated GHGs which
47
can represent hurdles for permitting in regions constrained by poor air quality –
including the South Coast Air Basin in which POLB is situated.
5.1.2 Gas Turbines
Gas turbines have been used for stationary power generation for many decades
and range in size from 500 kW to hundreds of MW. Typically, for CCHP applications,
the most economic size range is 5-MW to the hundreds of MW-scale [5]. Gas turbines
have higher efficiencies and lower emissions than other common fossil combustion heat
engines but require clean-up or control strategies including lean pre-mixed combustion
and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to meet permitting requirements. Typically gas
turbines as CCHP are best suited for processes with a need for high temperatures (i.e.,
steam production) [26].
5.1.3 Microturbines
Microturbines are small (typically 60-1,000 kilowatts) distributed gas turbine
power plants that can be combined with a bottoming steam turbine cycle or operated as
a stand-alone Brayton cycle. Microturbines and offer the benefits of simple design,
compact size, low vibration and noise, and no required cooling [5]. Downsides of
microturbines include high costs, low flexibility, and low electrical efficiencies,
particularly at part load [26]. Typically, microturbine systems operate on natural gas
but can also operate on renewable gaseous fuels but must be integrated with CHP to
achieve reductions in GHG, and must be integrated with SCR to achieve low criteria
pollutant emissions [5, 27, 28].
5.1.4 Steam Turbines
Steam turbines are typically matched to solid fuel boilers, industrial waste heat,
or integration with a gas turbine as a bottoming cycle to create combined cycles.
48
Typical capacities for steam turbines range from 50 kW to several hundred MW in large
centralized power plants. Steam turbines benefits include high fuel flexibility, high
reliability and equipment lifetime, and flexibility of design.
5.1.5 Combined Cycle Generation
Gas and steam turbines can provide combined cycle (CC) generation comprised
of three main components – a gas turbine (Brayton cycle that includes compressor,
combustor and turbine), a steam turbine (operating on the Rankine cycle), and a heat
recovery steam generator (HRSG) that integrates the two cycles together by generating
steam from the upstream gas turbine exhaust. Combined cycle generation systems can
range in capacity from 10 MW to GW-scale has the benefits of high thermal efficiencies,
high reliability and availability, low installed and O & M costs, and flexibility of
generation. At the central plant scale, natural gas CC plants are capable of high fuel-toelectricity efficiency of between 50-60% and ultra-low criteria pollutant emissions when
integrated with a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) emissions clean up system.
5.1.6 Hybrid Fuel Cell Heat Engine Plants
Hybrid fuel cell heat engine plants integrate a high temperature fuel cell (solid
oxide or molten carbonate) with a heat engine (e.g., gas turbine, reciprocating engine) to
achieve a higher fuel-to-electricity efficiency than a fuel cell alone (converting fuel cell
heat to electricity) [29].
A basic schematic is provided in Figure 13.
By utilizing
synergies between the different technologies, improved performance including higher
efficiencies are achieved relative to the fuel cell and heat engine generator alone. These
emerging power plants are being developed by several manufacturers and have been
shown to achieve very high electrical efficiencies [30-32] with virtually zero criteria
pollutant emissions even at distributed power sizes [30], and dynamic dispatch
characteristics [31, 33].
49
Figure 13: Basic design concept of a gas turbine fuel cell hybrid power plant. From [30]
An overview schematic of a proposed commercial example of a hybrid fuel cell
heat engine plant is presented in Figure 12 for the General Electric (GE) fuel cellcombined cycle (FC-CC) technology.
The FC-CC comprises a heat and power
generation system comprised of a SOFC and a GE Jenbacher reciprocating engine that
can operate on natural gas [34]. The synergistic impacts of the FC and reciprocating
engine allow for very high efficiencies including electrical efficiencies as high as 60-65%
and overall CHP efficiencies as high as 90%. 23
The FC-CC system also has the
environmental benefits of ultra-low emissions and a net producer of water. The ability
of FC-CC systems to attain these benefits at a distributed scale makes them particularly
attractive for stationary power applications from 1 to 10 MW.
23
CHP efficiency is equivalent to both electricity and heat output divided by the heating value of the fuel
50
Figure 14: Overview diagram of the GE FC Heat Engine Hybrid Energy System. From [34]
5.2 Self-Generation Technology Comparison
Table 6 displays costs, emissions, sizing and performance for the self-generation
technologies discussed in this report.
The values are compared and contrasted in
subsequent sections.
51
Table 6: Cost and Performance Parameters for Self-Generation Devices. Data adapted from [5, 34, 35]
Fuel Cell & Hybrid
Systems
Recip. Engine
Steam Turbine
Gas Turbine
Microturbine
Electric Efficiency (HHV)
30-65%*
27-41%
5-40%
24-36%
22-28%
Net CHP Efficiency (HHV)
55-90%*
77-80%
Approx. 80%
66-71%
63-70%
Typical Capacity (MW)
0.2 – 2.8
0.005 – 10
0.5 – hundreds
0.5 – 300
0.08 – 1
Power Density (kW/m2)
5-20
35-50
>100
20-500
5-70
Part-load Potential
Good
OK
OK
Poor
OK
CHP Installed Cost ($/kW)
5,000-6,500
1,500-2,900
670-1,100
1,200-3,300
2,500-4,300
Non-fuel O&M
Cost($/kWh)
0.032-0.038
0.009-0.025
0.006-0.01
0.009-0.013
0.009-0.013
>95%
96-98%
72-99%
93-96%
98-99%
Availability
Start-up Period
Fuels
NOx Emissions (g/kWh)
15 min - 3 hrs - 2
days (by type)
NG, H2, biogas,
propane, methanol
10 seconds – 15 min
1 hour - 1 day
2 min - 1 hr
60 sec
NG, biogas, LPG, sour
gas, industrial waste gas,
All
NG, biogas,
synthetic gas
NG, biogas, sour
gas, liquid fuels
0.004-0.005
0.032-0.8
0.014-0.127
0.023-0.594
0.027-
*The highest electric and CCHP efficiencies are achieved for FC-CC technologies, HHV: higher heating value
52
5.2.1 System Size
The range of typical capacities for the self-generation technologies depend on
consumer and applications. Commercial fuel cell units range from 0.2 - 2.8 MW but the
modularity of fuel cells allow for larger systems potentially up to the hundreds of MW.
For example, a 59 MW fuel cell power plant composed of 21 2.8 MW units currently
provides clean generation and district heating to a major city in South Korea. 24 Steam
turbine and gas turbine capacities can range from 0.5 - several hundred MW depending
on application and specific type.
Microturbines are inherently small, with typical
systems ranging from 0.0.08 - 1.0 MW. Reciprocating engines can range from very
small to medium size installations (0.005 – 10 MW).
5.2.2 Emissions
Pollutant emissions of concern from self-generation technologies include NOx,
SOx, CO, PM, and VOC. GHG emissions include CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide
(N2O). Figure 15 displays emissions of NOx in grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kWhr) for
self-generation technologies operating on natural gas. Emissions of NOx from fuel cells
are significantly lower (0.004 to 0.005 g/kWhr) than all other options due to the
avoidance of combustion and require no emission control device or strategy [5].
Emissions from NGCC plants can be low (0.014 to 0.11 g/kWhr) but require clean-up
with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) strategies to achieve the minimum values
indicated in the range. Gas turbine NOx emissions have a large range (0.023 to 0.594
g/kWhr) but typical commercial systems generate 0.07 to 0.11 g/kWhr with lean
premixed burners and the inclusion of SCR can further reduce emissions by 80 to 90%
[5]. Microturbines operating on natural gas can achieve low NOx emissions with lean
premixed combustion at full load with typical emissions from 0.036 to 0.091 g/kWhr [5].
24
http://www.powermag.com/worlds-largest-fuel-cell-plant-opens-in-south-korea/
53
However, emissions commonly increase during operation at part load with implications
for complementary generation or dynamic operation to support distributed loads.
Reciprocating engines have the potential for high emissions, including NOx, depending
on the type of engine used. Smaller scale engines utilizing rich burn combustion and
catalytic after treatment can emit 0.027 g/kWhr while larger lean burn systems may emit
0.36 g/kWhr in the absence of SCR. Steam turbine emissions depend directly on fuel
choice with natural gas systems ranging from 0.014 to 0.127 g/kWhr.
Figure 15: Emissions of NOx from Self-generation Technologies Operating on Natural Gas. NGCC: Natural Gas Combined Cycle,
GT: Gas Turbine, MT: Microturbine, ST: Steam Turbine. Data for NGCC from [36-38], Data for others from [5].
A key benefit of the very low direct emissions from fuel cells is that systems can
be sited in air basins with poor air quality and restrictive permitting processes. This
allows for distributed generation applications with benefits including improved
reliability, flexibility, economy of scale, avoidance of transmission and distribution
losses, and others. This has importance to POLB applications as the Port is situated in
the South Coast Air Basin which experiences some of the worst air quality in the U.S.
and therefore has stringent pollutant emission regulations required for stationary
54
sources.
Other self-generation technologies can meet the regulations but require
additional costly pollutant control strategies, e.g., SCR, CO oxidation.
Emissions of CO2 similarly vary across self-generation technology systems
operating on natural gas. Figure 16 shows the generation emissions (i.e., not including
CCHP) for considered systems with the exception of steam turbines due to a lack of
available data. Overall, fuel cells have the lowest emissions due to higher efficiencies
and lack of combustion. Combustion devices range depending on multiple factors but
generally NGCC plants have the lowest emissions followed by reciprocating engines
and gas turbines. Microturbines have a large range that include
It should be noted
that inclusion of CCHP will significantly reduce emissions for all systems with
combustion devices having more uniformity due to the factors discussed for
efficiencies.
Figure 16: Emissions of CO2 from Self-generation Technologies Operating on Natural Gas. NGCC: Natural Gas Combined Cycle,
GT: Gas Turbine, MT: Microturbine, ST: Steam Turbine. Data for NGCC from [36-38], Data for others from [5].
55
5.3 Advantages/Disadvantages of Self Generation Devices
Technology
Advantages
•
Disadvantages
•
•
•
•
•
•
Very low emissions of pollutants
and GHG with no control needed
Very low to net-neutral water
consumption
Highest efficiency over load range
Very little noise
Modular, scalable
Good load following capability
Good part-load operation
High reliability
Low emissions with control
strategies
High heat quality
No cooling required
Reliable
Long operational life
Variable power to heat ratio
Fuel flexible
Microturbines
•
•
•
Small number of moving parts
Compact size, light weight
Potential for low emissions
Recip. Engines
•
•
•
•
•
•
High power efficiency
Part-load flexibility
Rapid start-up
Low investment cost
Able to load-follow
Can operate on low-pressure gas
•
Fuel Cells
Gas Turbines
Steam Turbines
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
56
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
High unsubsidized cost
Low power densities
Some systems can have
longer start up periods
Can be sensitive to fuel
impurities
Require high pressure gas or
compressor
Poor efficiency at part-load
Sensitive to ambient
temperature
Slow start-up
Very low power to heat ratio
Requires boiler or other
steam source
High costs
Relatively low efficiencies
Low temperature CCHP
Requires emission cleanup
(e.g., SCR)
CCHP limited by low
temperature
High emissions of pollutants
and GHG
Noisy
High O & M costs
6
CCHP at POLB
6.1 Benefits of CCHP
Combined cooling, heating, and power (CCHP) represents an affordable solution
to entities such as POLB seeking to address the challenges associated with rising energy
costs and demand pressures in tandem with improving efficiencies and reducing
environmental impacts. CCHP is a proven and mature technology with an established
history in the U.S. and increasing installed capacities due to various energy and
environmental drivers [39].
CCHP is a clean and efficient approach to meeting
distributed electrical and thermal loads at POLB including providing space/process
cooling capacity in addition to space/process heating and steam generation. In contrast
to most other applications, marine terminals have relatively small thermal loads
compared with their overall power usage, and novel systems would likely be required
to facilitate and utilize CCHP benefits.
CCHP systems involve a primary driver (e.g., fuel cell, reciprocating engine,
turbine and micro-turbine) that is installed at/or near the user to allow for the waste
heat from electricity generation to be collected and used to meet thermal demands [40].
Because this allows for useful work to be done by the heat that would otherwise be
exhausted, the direct benefits of CCHP relative to using the devices alone include
reduced energy costs and emissions and increased reliability and energy efficiencies.
An additional efficiency benefit of CCHP is the avoidance of transmission and
distribution losses as electricity is generated on-site. Potential additional benefits of
CCHP include increased reliability and support for the electric grid and minimization
of the need for new construction of transmission and distribution technologies [5]. The
use of natural gas based CCHP systems to provide complementary generation would
provide a highly efficient and low-emitting method for providing the flexible and fast57
ramping generation needed to complement renewable integration – particularly if fuel
cells are used as the primary driver.
Often the largest barriers to CCHP are policy related including energy policies,
although California has a more favorable system than other States. Challenges can
include confusing or inconsistent permitting requirements, lack of interconnection
standards, unfavorable economics including charge fees, standby rates and exit fees,
and others [39].
Table 7: Direct and Associated Benefits of CCHP
•
•
•
Direct Benefits of CCHP
Reduced energy expenditures via direct
cost savings
Increased economic competitiveness via
reduced operating costs and others
Increased reliability and resiliency
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Additional Benefits of CCHP
Increased energy efficiency and reduce
overall energy consumption
Reduced criteria pollutant emissions
Reduced GHG emissions
Provide economic development value
Resource adequacy
Increased reliability and grid support for
utility system
Increase the competitiveness of business
Reduce need for infrastructure
improvements
While a range of costs and benefits exists for CCHP systems relative to the utility
grid and other self-generation systems, three in particular are chosen and discussed in
more detail due to their importance to the POLB.
They include (1) significant
improvements in economics, and (2) potential reductions in pollutant and GHG
emissions, and (3) increased reliability and resiliency of energy supply. It should be
noted that efficiency gains are a large benefit of CCHP but are discussed in a standalone section in this report.
58
6.1.1 Economic Benefits
The use of CCHP can potentially reduce energy costs due largely in part to its
high efficiencies, translating to reductions in fuel costs and electricity purchases. This
can also be beneficial by reducing the potential impact of electricity rate increases and
by allowing POLB to generate its own electricity during periods of peak electricity costs.
The fuel flexibility of most self-generation technologies, including fuel cells, provides a
hedge against fluctuations in fuel prices (natural gas is currently abundant and
affordable but could experience price increase in the future).
Financial incentives
designed to encourage the use of CCHP in California may also be available and reduce
costs further. Additionally, some capital costs associated with heating and/or cooling
may be avoided (e.g., cost for boilers and chillers) although this would need to be
balanced relative to the capital cost of the system. A major economic benefit of CCHP
technology is the protection of POLB revenue streams, namely the successful transport
of goods. As previously discussed, even brief disruptions in POLB activities incur a
massive financial penalty to the Port and the economies of southern California and the
U.S. By installing CCHP self-generation the POLB will reduce the risk of operational
interruption via disruption of grid electricity service which minimizes financial losses.
However, in order for POLB to determine how CCHP will impact energy-related
costs it will be necessary to establish the cost of the technology including installation,
fuel, operation, and maintenance and compare the final price of electricity with current
SCE rate structures. For example, the up-front capital cost to install CCHP or replace an
existing boiler must be considered. Moreover, any additional costs associated with
meeting the goals of the system should be accounted for such as those to enable
islanding and/or black start capability. This will allow a determination to be made if
CCHP is worthwhile investment solely on the basis of economics (i.e., the additional
benefits of CCHP may make it desirable to POLB anyway, including reduced emissions
59
and increased resiliency and reliability). A major determinant of cost includes the value
of produced thermal energy and for POLB to maximize benefits and minimize costs a
beneficial use should be identified.
6.1.2 CCHP Emissions
The use of CCHP technologies provides direct reductions in emissions of
pollutants and GHG emissions simply because less fuel is consumed to provide a unit
of energy output for a given system. Additionally, reductions in emissions are achieved
through avoided activity including the construction of new transmission and
distribution infrastructure. However, reductions in emissions must also be considered
in the context of where the emissions occur. Currently, the POLB receives its electricity
from the SCE utility grid with the actual sites of generation and the associated
emissions occurring off-site and not on POLB property. By replacing grid electricity
with generation from on-site distributed technologies, emissions will introduced at
POLB, even though the total emissions per unit energy is potentially lower compared to
the grid. This will require the system to be permitted by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) prior to operation. Fuel cells provide a pathway to
self-generation at POLB to reduce overall emissions and avoid issues with the situation
of new emissions sources within the Port.
Other technologies can provide self-
generation with emission levels at acceptable permitting levels; however these may
require expensive controls and/or clean-up strategies. Additionally, POLB is especially
constrained by emissions due to the high levels of emissions from existing port activity
and stringent environmental regulations being imposed on the Port. Thus, fuel cells
represent the lowest emitting self-generation technology that can capture the benefits of
CCHP.
60
6.1.3 Improved Reliability and Resiliency
By providing electricity and meeting thermal loads on-site the POLB can attain
the benefits of increased resiliency and reliability of its energy supply. By having onsite generation POLB will reduce its reliance on the existing SCE utility grid and
experience of disruption from grid outages. CCHP systems can function flexibly both
as primary generation during periods of normal operation and as back-up generation
during outages including operation during grid-connected and islanding periods.
CCHP systems can use a variety of fuels and many systems have very high reliabilities.
6.2 Opportunities for CCHP at POLB
As described above, CCHP can provide significant energy, efficiency, economic,
and environmental benefits but only if a chosen system is a suitable match for a given
entity both technically and economically [41]. The technical potential for CCHP at
POLB is determined by the coincident demand for electricity and thermal energy
including steam, hot water, chilled water, process heat, refrigeration, and
dehumidification [41]. The economic suitability for CCHP at POLB is established by
current and future fuel costs and utility rates, planned new construction or heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment replacement, the need for power
reliability, and various programs including utility policies [41].
The POLB is somewhat unique relative to other commonly considered CCHP
targets such as commercial office buildings, groceries, hospitals, laundries, etc.
Generally, applications with continuous or fixed needs for both electricity and thermal
energy represent optimal CCHP targets from an economic perspective. POLB has a
very large, fixed electrical load which it requires 24/7.
By providing a significant
portion of this load with CCHP enabled technologies a substantial thermal load would
also be generated, captured and available for use. However, operations at the POLB
61
driving electricity demands do not necessarily correspond directly on-site with the large
available thermal loads that would then be co-available. For example, the large ship-toshore cranes operating at container terminals require large amounts of electricity but
may not be directly adjacent a source for the co-generated thermal energy.
A benefit of fuel cells at POLB may then be that the economics of CCHP for fuel
cells depend less on the effective use of recovered thermal energy than for other, less
electrically efficient self-generation technologies.
Essentially electric only efficiency
would become a much more important factor if some or all of the available thermal
loads are not converted into useful work.
6.2.1 Space Cooling/Heating
Thermal loads from CCHP systems can provide hot water, space heating and/or
cooling via an absorption chiller to buildings at POLB, including commercial office
buildings housing POLB employees and operations. This would offset electricity and
natural gas currently being used to maintain comfortable building environments for
POLB and terminal operator staff. Potential challenges include the mismatch of needed
thermal load with electricity load (i.e., buildings would consume a relatively small
amount of thermal energy compared to electricity generated) if larger systems are
deployed.
An additional target for the utilization of waste heat could be to support the
handling and storage of refrigerated cargo. It is possible that absorption chilling from
CCHP technologies could be used to assist in maintaining chilled temperatures for
produce and other cargo requiring refrigeration.
This would likely require the
construction of a facility on-site to house refrigerated cargo or perhaps the development
of a novel technology or strategy for refrigerated cargo that can utilize cold air or water
to reduce the amount of electricity required to maintain the container temperature.
62
Such a system could also potentially be integrated a thermal energy storage that could
provide energy and economic benefits to POLB microgrid. For example, a thermal
energy storage system designed to around chilled water could allow for peak shifting
which would contribute to reduced energy costs and improved efficiencies.
6.2.2 Industrial Applications
POLB is located adjacent to areas of industry including large refinery complexes
which may be a potential target for heat or steam produced by self-generation CCHP
systems. The CCHP demands from refineries could potentially be a good match for the
electricity generated at POLB as both can operate 24/7 and the magnitude of required
thermal energy would be comparable to generated electricity.
Potential industries
include energy intensive segments such as chemical manufacturing, refining,
paper/pulp, food processing and primary metals. Large refineries typically have large
process steam requirements and could provide a source for steam generated at POLB
and transported via pipeline or other methods.
63
7
Self-generation and CCHP Efficiencies
The following section will briefly describe different efficiency measures for self-
generation and CCHP technologies and compare and contrast reported values for each.
Understanding the efficiencies of self-generation and CCHP technologies requires an
understanding of how efficiencies are calculated. Efficiency of generation is a ratio
between the useful output of conversion (electricity) and the energy input (fuel).
Typically, efficiency of electricity generators is inversely proportional to the heat
generated as heat is energy from the fuel that is lost to the environment. However, in
CCHP devices heat is captured and then utilized for useful output (space
heating/cooling, steam generation). Thus, assessing the efficiency of CCHP devices
requires consideration of both electricity and thermal outputs in relation to fuel inputs.
Figure 17 displays an overview and comparison of the efficiencies from
conventional and CHP systems from Reference [42]. The numbers present in the arrows
represent unit energy, e.g., for CHP 100 units of energy in as fuel provide 31 units of
electricity and 52 units of heat. As can be seen, to provide the same net electricity and
thermal loads as a 5 MW NG combustion turbine CHP system, a conventional power
plant at 30% efficiency and a conventional boiler at 80% efficiency would require an
additional 68 units of fuel input. This results in net system efficiencies of 49% for
conventional generation and 83% for CHP and highlights the efficiency benefits of
distributed CHP generation.
64
Figure 17: Overview and Comparison of Efficiencies from Conventional and CCHP Generation. From [42].
7.1 Electrical Efficiencies
Electric efficiencies overlap in range between technologies and also depend on
the size of the installation as larger installations are commonly more efficient than
smaller installations for the same technology. Table 8 displays the electrical efficiencies
of the self-generation technologies considered in this work. Generally, the highest
electric efficiencies are attributed to fuel cells (30-63%) due to the operational
parameters discussed in Section 1, including the FC – CC system which can achieve the
highest electric efficiency of 65% [5, 34]. Combined cycle applications involving only
natural gas turbines also achieve very high efficiencies in the 40-50% range. Electric
efficiencies of additional technologies in descending order include large reciprocating
engines (27-41%), simple cycle gas turbines (24-36%), microturbines (22-28%), and steam
turbines (5-40+%) [5].
65
7.2 CCHP Efficiency
As discussed, the CCHP efficiency of self-generation is much higher than
electricity only efficiencies due to the ability to capture and utilize otherwise wasted
thermal energy. This is particularly important for devices that have lower electric
efficiencies (e.g., microturbines, gas turbines) as the utilization of heat from
inefficiencies increases the overall efficiencies of the system to better compare with
higher electric only efficiency devices (e.g., fuel cells, combined cycle, large
reciprocating engines). Therefore, the total CCHP efficiency is generally calculated
accounting for the energy content of electricity and useful thermal energy divided by
the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel consumed.
Net (or CCHP) system efficiencies of CCHP technologies experience greater
consistency due to nature of CCHP – heat generated during electric conversion
inefficiencies is captured and used for thermal loads. As CCHP efficiency is equivalent
to the net electricity plus the net useful thermal output divided by the consumed fuel
this results in higher efficiencies for less electrically efficient technologies. Table 8
displays the CCHP efficiencies for the self-generation devices considered in this work.
FC-CC systems achieve the highest potential CCHP efficiency around 90% while fuel
cell systems alone range from 55-80%. Reciprocating engines and steam turbines also
can achieve around 80% system efficiency while gas turbines and microturbines are
around 70%.
However, the value of electrical output could be higher than thermal output at
POLB due to smaller thermal loads relative to electrical loads. To better account for this
an additional definition of CCHP efficiency is effective electrical efficiency or fuel
utilization effectiveness (FUE).
FUE expresses CCHP efficiency by comparing net
electrical generation relative to net fuel consumption with the portion of fuel that goes
66
to useful heat excluded [5]. By using FUE a direct comparison can be made of CCHP
generation relative to each other. Table 8 displays the FUE for the self-generation
technologies described in this work. FUE are highest for fuel cells ranging from 55-80%
and reciprocating engines ranging from 75-80% [5]. Steam turbine FUE are also high
from 75-77% while FUE for gas turbines and microturbines are lower ranging from 5062% and 49-57%, respectively.
Table 8: Various efficiency measures for self-generation and CCHP technologies.
Technology
Electric Efficiency (HHV)
Net CCHP Efficiency (HHV)
Fuel Utilization
Effectiveness
Fuel
Cell
27-41%
77-80%
Steam
Turbine
Gas
Turbine
Microturbine
30-63%
55-90%
Recip.
Engine
24-36%
66-71%
22-28%
63-70%
55-90%
75-80%
75-77%
50-62%
49-57%
67
5-40%
~80%
8
Power-to-Gas at POLB
8.1 Power-to-Gas Overview
Power-to-gas (P2G) is a technology strategy that involves the conversion of
electricity into a gaseous fuel (an overview is shown in Figure 18). Generally, the
produced gaseous fuel is hydrogen, although hydrogen can be combined with CO2 and
converted to methane. Most often however, P2G is associated with the use of electricity
to split water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis which can then be used on- or
off-site in transportation, power generation, or industrial applications. Hydrogen can
be directly fed into a fuel cell for both stationary power and motive applications either
on- or off-site (when P2G strategies return power to the grid they are often termed
Power-to-Gas-to-Power). All P2G strategies can also have the end-result of injecting the
produced gas into the existing natural gas system which can be stored and transmitted
for additional uses. While still an area of active research, hydrogen can be injected
safely into the existing gas grid potentially at levels from 5-20% by volume [43].
P2G is particularly attractive from an environmental and energy benefits
perspective when the source of electricity is renewable – notably the excess generation
from wind or solar resources.
By converting surplus renewable generation into
hydrogen, P2G provides an effective manner of capturing renewable energy that would
otherwise be wasted and making it available for use at later times in various
applications by both storing and transporting hydrogen. P2G systems can respond
rapidly and dynamically to renewable fluctuations, can be sited unrestricted to a
geologic formation, and are scalable with similarity to a fuel cell. Additionally, P2G can
provide energy storage at the seasonal scale (i.e., terawatt range) by using the existing
natural gas pipelines and underground storage facilities. Several grid services can be
provided by P2G strategies including [43]:
68
Figure 18: Overview of P2G Concept. From [43]
•
•
•
•
•
•
Time shifting of energy (e.g., to better match renewable resource
availability with demand)
Voltage and frequency regulation
Ramping
System Capacity
Rapid demand and supply response
Avoided investment in novel transmission and distribution infrastructure
However, as all conversion processes are associated with energy losses the P2G
chain results in less energy being available at the end than was initially provided in the
electricity. Figure 19 displays the process efficiency for current electrolysis technologies
delivering hydrogen at 25 bar with an electrical efficiency of 70% and a methanation
reactor operated at 20 bar with an efficiency of 78% representing the maximum
chemical efficiency [44]. Therefore, for every unit of electricity input into the system
70% of the energy is available as hydrogen or 55% as methane.
If the supply of
electricity is renewable energy that would be curtailed or otherwise not utilized than
69
this efficiency loss is acceptable. On the other hand, if grid electricity or electricity from
fossil sources is used to produce gaseous fuels then the loss of energy associated with
each conversion step limits the effectiveness of P2G. Efficiency losses incurred by the
system results in the application of P2G with grid electricity achieving efficiency and
emissions dis-benefits relative to the power from the SCE grid (i.e., the use of electricity
directly has lower emissions on a per unit energy basis than using the gaseous fuels
produced as a result of P2G systems).
Figure 19: P2G Process Efficiency Diagram. From [44].
8.2 Power-to-Gas at POLB
Due to the increase in emissions relative to the California electrical grid, P2G
strategies should be avoided at POLB in favor of directly utilizing grid electricity unless
on-site supplies of excess renewable resources are available. Therefore, a key limitation
associated with P2G at POLB is the lack of on-site renewable generation necessary to
provide emission reductions from the displacement of grid electricity. While expansion
of renewable resources including solar photovoltaic and wind is possible in the future,
it has been cited as being too costly and area intensive to facilitate large capacity
additions at POLB [6]. Therefore, on-site P2G systems at POLB may not be feasible
from an environmental standpoint if emission reductions are targeted (e.g., it would be
a lower emitting strategy to use electrified technologies with grid electricity). However,
future application of large-scale P2G systems in California may provide a market-based
70
mechanism for purchasing directed renewable hydrogen or methane with similarity to
the current methods for directed biogas. This option may be attractive to POLB as a
means of securing a renewable fuel source with very high environmental benefits. This
is a long term possibility (order of decades).
In the short to medium terms, the tri-
generation systems previously described represent a viable and attractive option to
achieve the desired environmental and economic benefits during hydrogen generation.
71
9
References
1.
Larminie, J., A. Dicks, and M.S. McDonald, Fuel cell systems explained. Vol. 2. 2003: Wiley New
York.
O'Hayre, R.P., et al., Fuel cell fundamentals2006: John Wiley & Sons New York.
Ellis, M.W., M.R. Von Spakovsky, and D.J. Nelson, Fuel cell systems: efficient, flexible energy
conversion for the 21st century. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2001. 89(12): p. 1808-1818.
U.S EPA, The Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) 2012, 2015:
http://www.epa.gov/energy/egrid-2012-summary-tables (Accessed January 8, 2015).
Darrow, K., et al., Catalog of CHP Technologies 2015: Available at
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201507/documents/catalog_of_chp_technologies.pdf (Accessed January 12, 2015).
Matulka, R., J.R. DeShazo, and C. Callahan, Moving Towards Resiliency: An Assessment of the
Costs and Benefits of Energy Security Investments for the San Pedro Bay Ports, 2013, UCLA
Luskin Center for Innovation: Los Angeles, CA. Available:
http://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/Port%20Report.pdf (Accessed 2/8/2016).
NERC, Technical Analysis of the August 14, 2003, Blackout: What Happened, Why, and What Did
We Learn?, 2004, North American Electric Reliability Council. Available:
http://www.nerc.com/docs/docs/blackout/NERC_Final_Blackout_Report_07_13_04.pdf
(Accessed 2/9/2016): Princeton, New Jersey
GRIDWISE Alliance, Improving Electric Grid Reliability and Resilience: Lesson Learned from
Superstorm Sandy and other Extreme Events. Workshop Summary and Key Recommendations. ,
2013: Available:
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/03/f20/GridWise%20Improving%20Electric%20Grid%20
Reliability%20and%20Resilience%20Report%20June%202013.pdf (Accessed 2/9/2016).
The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan
2010 Update, Appendix A: San Pedro Bay Ports Emissions Forecasting Methodology and Results,
2010: Los Angeles, CA.
http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2431.
Curtin, S. and J. Gangi, The Business Case for Fuel Cells 2015: Powering Corporate Sustainability
2015, Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA). Available:
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/01/f28/fcto_2015_business_case_fuel_cells.pdf
(Accessed 1/26/2016).
Curtin, S. and J. Gangi, Fuel Cell Technologies Market Report 2014, 2015: U.S. Department of
Energy. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Available:
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/10/f27/fcto_2014_market_report.pdf (Accessed
January 28,2016).
Fuel Cells 2000, When the Grid Fails: Fuel cells power critical infrastructure in disasters:
Available: http://www.fuelcells.org/uploads/Fuel-Cells-in-Storms.pdf (Accessed 2/16/2016).
Pratt, J.W. and A.P. Harris, Vessel Cold-Ironing Using a Barge Mounted PEM Fuel Cell: Project
Scoping and Feasibility, 2013, Sandia National Laboratories. : Albuquerque, NM and Livermore,
CA. Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/sand20130501_barge_mounted_pemfc.pdf
Curtin, S. and J. Gangi, The Business Case for Fuel Cells 2014: Powering the Bottom Line for
Businesses and Communities, 2014, Breakthrough Technologies Institute. Available:
http://www.fuelcells.org/pdfs/2014BusinessCaseforFuelCells.pdf (Accessed 1/26/2016).
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
72
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Starcrest Consulting Group, Air Emissions Inventory - 2014, 2015,
Available:http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=13033 (Accessed
2/8/2016): Long Beach, CA.
California Air Resources Board, Technology Assessment: Medium and Heavy-Duty Fuel Cell
Electric Vehicles, 2015: Sacramento, CA. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/techreport/fc_tech_report.pdf (Accessed 2/16/2016)
Brodrick, C.-J., et al., Evaluation of fuel cell auxiliary power units for heavy-duty diesel trucks.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2002. 7(4): p. 303-315.
Doosan Fuel Cell America, PureCell Model 400 Fuel Cell System,
http://www.doosanfuelcell.com/attach_files/link/PureCell%20Model%20400%20Datasheet.pdf.
J. Thijssen, Natural Gas-Fueled Distributed Generation Solid Oxide Fuel Cell: Projection of
Performance and Cost of Electricity, 2009, Prepared for the U.S. DOE.
https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/research/coal/energy%20systems/fuel%20cells/Natur
al-Gas-DG-FC-paper-update-090330a.pdf.
FuelCell Energy, 2.8 Megawatts DFC3000,
http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/assets/PID000156_FCE_DFC3000_r3_hires.pdf.
Dodds, P.E. and W. McDowall, A review of hydrogen production technologies for energy system
models. UCL Energy Institute, University College London, 2012.
NREL, VII.2 Stationary Fuel Cell Evaluation 2014,
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress14/vii_a_2_saur_2014.pdf.
Lazard, Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis - Version 9.0, 2015,
https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf.
U.S. EIA, Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector: December 2014
and 2015, 2015,
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a.
U.S. DOE, Technical Plan - Fuel Cells 2012,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/pdfs/fuel_cells.pdf.
Alanne, K. and A. Saari, Sustainable small-scale CHP technologies for buildings: the basis for
multi-perspective decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2004. 8(5): p.
401-431.
Moore, M.J., Micro-turbine generators2002: John Wiley & Sons.
Barsali, S., et al., Dynamic modelling of biomass power plant using micro gas turbine. Renewable
Energy, 2015. 80: p. 806-818.
Roberts, R. and J. Brouwer, Dynamic Simulation of a Pressurized 220kW Solid Oxide Fuel-CellGas-Turbine Hybrid System: Modeled Performance Compared to Measured Results. Journal of
fuel cell science and technology, 2006. 3(1): p. 18-25.
Samuelsen, S. and J. Brouwer, Fuel Cell/Gas Turbine Hybrid. Encyclopedia of Electrochemical
Power Sources, 2009: p. 124-134.
Costamagna, P., L. Magistri, and A. Massardo, Design and part-load performance of a hybrid
system based on a solid oxide fuel cell reactor and a micro gas turbine. Journal of Power Sources,
2001. 96(2): p. 352-368.
Chan, S., H. Ho, and Y. Tian, Modelling of simple hybrid solid oxide fuel cell and gas turbine
power plant. Journal of Power Sources, 2002. 109(1): p. 111-120.
Mueller, F., F. Jabbari, and J. Brouwer, On the intrinsic transient capability and limitations of
solid oxide fuel cell systems. Journal of Power Sources, 2009. 187(2): p. 452-460.
Owens, B. and J. McGuinness, GE-Fuel Cells: The Power of Tomorrow, 2015: General Electric
Company. Available: http://www.ge.com/sites/default/files/GE_FuelCells.pdf (Accessed January
13, 2016).
73
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
DNV GL, A Review of Distributed Energy Resources, 2014,
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/media_room/press_releases/2014/Child_Distributed_E
nergy_Resources/A_Review_of_Distributed_Energy_Resources_September_2014.pdf.
IEAGHG, Emissions of substances other than CO2 from power plants with CCS, 2012, Available:
http://www.ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/2012-03.pdf (Accessed January 12, 2016).
Rubin, E.S., A.B. Rao, and C. Chen. Comparative assessments of fossil fuel power plants with CO2
capture and storage. 2005.
DOE/NETL, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Vol. I, , 2007: Available at
http://www.netl.doe.gov/KMD/cds/disk50/NGCC%20Plant%20Case_FClass_051607.pdf.
Kalam, A., et al., Combined heat and power systems: economic and policy barriers to growth.
Chemistry Central Journal, 2012. 6(Suppl 1): p. S3.
Shipley, M.A., et al., Combined heat and power: Effective energy solutions for a sustainable
future, 2008, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL/TM-2008/224. U.S. Department of
Energy. Available
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/distributedenergy/pdfs/chp_report_12-08.pdf. .
U.S EPA, CHP Project Development Handbook
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/chp_project_development_handbook.pdf.
U.S. EPA, Efficiency Metrics for CHP Systems: Total System and Effective Electric Efficiencies
Combined Heat and Power Partnership.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccei/presentations/chpefficiencymetrics_epa.pdf.
California Hydrogen Business Council, Power-to-Gas: The Case for Hydrogen White Paper, 2015,
https://californiahydrogen.org/sites/default/files/CHBC%20Hydrogen%20Energy%20Storage%2
0White%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf.
Götz, M., et al., Renewable Power-to-Gas: A technological and economic review. Renewable
Energy, 2016. 85: p. 1371-1390.
74