Albert Castell

GREA Innovaci Concurrent, University of Lleida, s/n Lleida 25001, Spain

Pere Margalef
National Fuel Cell Research Centre, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697

Economic Viability of a Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Working With Biogas

Catalonia (Spain) has a signicant potential of biogas production from agricultural activities and municipal waste. In addition, there are plenty of industrial cogeneration plants, but most of them use conventional fuels, such as natural gas, and conventional energy conversion devices, such as internal combustion engines. Molten carbonate fuel cells are ultraclean and highly efcient power generator devices capable of converting biogas into electricity and heat. Located in Lleida (Catalonia), Nufri is a fruit processing company with a long tradition on biogas production and cogeneration, with an installed capacity bigger than 45 MW. This study analyzes the economic viability of a fuel cell operating on biogas in Spain, on a real case basis (Nufri). Different fuel cell capacities are analyzed (from 300 kW to 1200 kW). A parametric study of different fuel cell prices ($/kW installed) is performed. Additional biogas cleanup requirements are taken into account. The results are based on the Spanish legislation, which establishes a special legal framework that grants favorable, technology-dependent feed-in premiums for renewable energy and cogeneration. Results show that the payback period ranges from 5 years to 8 years depending on the fuel cell capacity and installation price. DOI: 10.1115/1.4000999 Keywords: high temperature fuel cell, MCFC, biogas, cogeneration, anaerobic digester, economic viability

Marc Medrano Luisa F. Cabeza

GREA Innovaci Concurrent, University of Lleida, s/n Lleida 25001, Spain

Scott Samuelsen
National Fuel Cell Research Centre, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697

Introduction

High temperature fuel cells operating with biogas have been identied as one possible solution to lead the society development to a sustainable pattern. Fuel cells are highly efcient energy conversion devices. However, although the environmental benets of fuel cells are undeniable, they still depend on fossil fuels such as natural gas, which represents the most economical source of hydrogen. Nowadays, hydrogen is mostly produced from natural gas via steam methane reformation SMR. Biogas is gaining momentum on energy generation since it is considered as a renewable fuel, it is domestically produced, and it is assumed to be free of carbon emissions. Therefore, using biogas to operate fuel cells has a large potential around the world since it is technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. However, before the commercial use of biogas on fuel cells, many technical problems such as contaminant levels must be addressed. Many studies and projects have demonstrated the benets of coupling biogas production and fuel cells 120. The combination of biogas and high temperature fuel cells enables an efcient utilization of a renewable energy source RES, resulting not only in a reduction of hazardous emissions, such as NOx, but also of greenhouse gases. Anaerobic digestion is getting to be a process not only for energy production but also for organic waste treatment. Some specic benets are: Utilization of a RES in fuel cell technology leads to a sustainable cycle by using a CO2 neutral fuel. Biogas is a renewable energy with very high potential for greenhouse gas reduction. ii Efcient and clean energy conversion of a valuable RES hardly produces any emissions while converting biogas into electricity.
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURFUEL CELL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 19, 2008; nal manuscript received November 13, 2009; published online July 14, 2010. Review conducted by Stefano Ubertini.

iii Decentralization of the energy production provides a more secure and stable energy supply. RESs are in many cases locally available and can be used in biogas plants located in the decentralized agricultural sector. iv Anaerobic digestion reduces the cost of organic residue disposal and represents a new income for the agricultural sector. Alternative organic waste treatment is usually strongly energy demanding, as is the case of composting. Anaerobic digestion has a higher investment cost but it provides the operator with energy, which can be sold to the electricity grid. From all these studies it can be concluded that cleaner biogas is required when used with fuel cells than when used with internal combustion engines ICEs or microturbines MTGs, resulting in expensive and complex cleanup strategies. Fortunately, abundant research has already been carried on in order to improve and develop cost-effective digesters and cleaning-up processes 17. Theoretically, all types of fuel cells could be fueled by biogas extracting the hydrogen from it and removing all poisoning compounds. However, only phosphoric acid fuel cells PAFCs and high temperature fuel cells molten carbonate fuel cells MCFCs and solid oxide fuel cells SOFCs can be considered because their fuel requirements are not as strict as with the proton exchange membrane fuel cells PEMFCs and the alkaline fuel cells AFCs. There are a number of PAFCs and MCFCs successfully operating in anaerobic digester gas from municipal wastewater treatment plants. However, market forces are driving molten carbonate to a stronger position than phosphoric acid fuel cells for the biogas integration. Molten carbonate fuel exibility and high quality waste heat are placing them in an advantageous position. In addition, MCFC performs at higher overall efciency than PAFC, especially when waste heat is used. MCFC high operating temperature results in an internal reformation of methane into hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which are both consumed in the anode as a fuel. In addition, an MCFC OCTOBER 2010, Vol. 7 / 051005-1

NAL OF

Journal of Fuel Cell Science and Technology Copyright 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://fuelcellscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

consumes carbon dioxide in the cathode side. All together turns this fuel cell into the perfect type for the biogas use once all harmful compounds i.e., sulfurs, siloxanes, and so on have been removed. SOFCs have also high fuel exibility, are carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide tolerant and they achieve even higher efciencies than MCFCs. Therefore, they are great promise for the future use of biogas with fuel cells although, at this point, they are not commercially available yet. In this work, the economical viability of a real fuel cell installation using biogas is studied. The system is located in Nufri, a big fruit processing industrial plant located in Lleida Catalonia, Spain.

Table 1 Raw biogas composition Gas composition Percent volume vol % Argon O2 N2 CH4 CO2 Total 0.1 0.1 6.8 86.2 6.8 100 PM kg/kmol 39.945 31.999 28.013 16.043 44.01 Percent weight wt % 0.21 0.17 10.13 73.56 15.92

Background

2.1 Description of the Site. Nufri is a food industry located in Lleida one of the most interesting location for biogas production in Catalonia 21. Most of the fruit produced in the area is processed in this company. The fruit treatment processes produce signicant amounts of organic wastes, which represent a valuable resource when transformed into biogas. An energetic valorization was studied several years ago by the company. As a result, Nufri decided to install an anaerobic digester and an upgrading system in the existing water treatment plant to produce biogas and run a 1.5 MW internal combustion engine for cogeneration. The waste heat is recovered and utilized in the digestion process and in fruit treatment and transformation processes. Part of the electricity is used in the plant and the rest is exported back to the utility grid. The biogas production system is now being extended to treat the sewage sludges coming out of the water treatment plant and produce further biogas. Another cogeneration system 4.5 MW of electricity using internal combustion engines is run with natural gas. Moreover, an absorption chiller is used to produce cold water for fruit treatment plants and storage purposes. Since the ICE noise levels are above the legal limits, each unit must be acoustically isolated within special compartments, which increases the costs of the installation. This fact presents another benet of fuel cells versus the ICE since fuel cell noise levels are negligible so no special compartments are required. Therefore, Nufris current innovation lines, clean technologies experience and tradition, as well as the existing cogeneration and biogas production plants, provide the perfect scenario to introduce biogas operating fuel cell technology. Natural gas supply provides a backup fuel in case of biogas production discontinuities. The existing anaerobic digester, the cleaning-up system and heat recovery system reduce the capital cost of the new installation. Only the fuel cell and additional biogas cleaning system investments are required. The object of this work is to study a combined heat and power CHP plant using the produced biogas to operate a high temperature fuel cell. The main goals of this work are to determine the fuel cell capacity, the biogas energetic value, and additional cleanup processes required. A technical and economical viability study must be done to dene the best technical solution and the economical parameters for the installation. The investment cost and payback period are determined to evaluate the viability of the fuel cell deployment in this specic case. 2.2 Biogas Produced. The biogas at Nufri is constantly produced at about 0.146 m3N / s 309 scfm. Table 1 summarizes the biogas chemical analysis. On average, the methane mass fraction of the biogas produced is 73%, with a lower heating value LHV of 26,000 kJ / m3 700 Btu / ft3. On the other hand, the fuel cell requirement for biogas operation is a minimum of 60% of methane in weight. Table 2 shows the main characteristics required for the fuel cell and provided by the available biogas. 051005-2 / Vol. 7, OCTOBER 2010

2.3 Cleanup Requirements. Biogas produced in Nufri presents high concentration on hydrogen sulphide that can damage any type of distributed generation system, but especially a fuel cell. The site already includes a cleanup system, which may be improved for the use of fuel cells. Table 3 summarizes the main contaminant concentrations before and after the current cleanup systems installed in Nufris plant as well as the fuel cell requirements. As observed, an important additional cleanup process is necessary to reduce the concentration of hydrogen sulphide already reduced by the actual cleanup system, presented in Sec. 2.4 to the required levels. This additional cleanup system will consist of an adsorption media already used in some fuel cell installations running with biogas. Among the possible solutions for the new gas cleanup step, one is the use of adsorption processes via hydrophilic, ion-rich zeolites 2225. Zeolite materials are particularly suitable for adsorption removal processes 26, by virtue of their high selectivity and compatibility toward polar compounds, such as H2S. 2.4 Current Cleanup System. The current cleanup system consists of a biological plant with aerobic bacteria capable of converting H2S to sulfur and sulfuric acid. The nutrients necessary for the bacteria are articial liquid fertilizer FLA. This technology is well known and commercially available. The obtained byproducts water, S and H2SO4 are diluted in the nal step of clarication when a water treatment plant is available. The main advantages of biological plants are the low energy and water consumption, the benets of not using chemical products and post-treatment for the byproducts and a high reduction in

Table 2 Biogas requirements for the fuel cell and available biogas Requireda Methane % in weight Flow rateb m3 / s LHV kJ / m3
a b

Available 73 0.146 26,000

60 0.1 26,000

For DFC1200 from FuelCell Energy with a capacity of 1200 kW. Obtained xing the available LHV= 26,000 kJ / m3.

Table 3 Biogas analysis and composition Biogas before current cleanup process ppm H 2S NH3 Siloxanes 10,000 n/a n/a Biogas after current cleanup process mg / m3 180 1 0 PM kg/kmol 34.076 17.03 ppm 129.2 1.4 0 Fuel cell requirements ppm 10 10,000 0

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fuelcellscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

the H2S concentration up to 95%. The low operation and maintenance O&M cost make the installation cost-effective despite the high investment cost. 2.5 Fuel Cell. This study considers specic fuel cells from FuelCell Energy FCE. The models available in the market are the DFC300MA and the DFC1500MA with a power capacity of 300 kW and 1200 kW, respectively, and an electrical efciency of 47%. These models can be connected in series to provide higher power capacities as done in this study. Although the technical characteristics are the ones from these specic units, the results of the study can be extrapolated to a generic fuel cell system.

Table 4 Main characteristics of the fuel cell system as a function of its capacity Capacity kW 300 600 900 1200 biogas m kg/s 183.1 366.1 549.2 732.3 exh_gas m kg/s 0.3008 0.6015 0.9023 1.203 Cpexh_gas kJ / kg K 1.363 1.363 1.363 1.363 Tout K 643.2 643.2 643.2 643.2 QFC kW 102.5 205 307.5 410 Wel,T kW 12.81 25.63 38.44 51.25

Technical Study

constant for all different fuel cell capacities. The only varying parameter is the exhaust ow rate, which increases as the fuel cell capacity increases.

In this section different scenarios are studied based on the amount of biogas used in the fuel cell power plant. The equations used to determine the operating conditions of the fuel cell installations as a function of their capacity are described. For the biogas plant, the technical data considered for the analysis are the anaerobic digester gas ADG, the biogas ow rate 0.146 m3 / s, and the biogas LHV 26,000 kJ / m3; 700 BTU / ft3. Considering that all biogas is used in a fuel cell, the maximum electrical power generated is 1786 kW. Although the biogas production remains constant around 1750 kW along the year, a safety margin for possible shortcuts on its generation is necessary. Therefore, capacities higher than 1200 kW are not recommended. In any case, a natural gas supply is available as a backup piping capacity of 3 m3 / s, whereas excess biogas is burned in the existing internal combustion engines, already present at the site. The analyzed capacities are 300 kW, 600 kW, 900 kW, and 1200 kW. The rst three correspond to one, two, or three DFC300MA units in series. The option of 1200 is associated with the DFC1500MA unit. As seen in Table 2, the required amount of biogas to operate a DFC1500MA fuel cell from FuelCell Energy with a capacity of 1200 kW is around 0.1 m3 / s based on LHV= 26,000 kJ / m3, whereas it is continuously produced at 0.146 m3 / s throughout the year. The biogas volumetric ow rate as a function of the electrical capacity is determined by Wel,FC F biogas = LHVbiogas FC 1

Fuel Cell Model

The system is assumed to operate at steady-state. The software ENGINEERING EQUATION SOLVER EES has been used since it provides many built-in mathematical and thermophysical property functions of working uids. With the fuel cell model, the exhaust gases composition, temperature, and heat capacity can be predicted. All this parameters are calculated as a function of air, fuel and water inputs into the system and utilization factors into the stack. All this information is necessary to predict the available thermal energy from the fuel cell, which can be used for cogeneration purposes. The model takes into account all the reactions, which take place within the anode, cathode, electrolyte, and catalytic burner. The electrochemistry of the system is not evaluated from the thermodynamic side but from a thermal mass balance approach. Nerst voltage, losses or electrical efciency are not evaluated in this work since it is assumed a nominal power generation and electrical efciency level. A mass-thermal balance of the system is performed to evaluate the composition and specic heat of the exhaust gases, which will be used for cogeneration purposes. In order to predict the exhaust gas temperature, a simplied energy balance is considered which takes into account the required heat to preheat the fuel-vapor mixture up to the prereformation temperature and to the operating temperature. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the system modeled. Results have been validated with empirical data from FCE. 4.1 Fuel Cell Model Assumptions Biogas used composition: 86.2% O2 13.8% CO2. Steam to carbon ratio is 3. Operating stack temperature is 650 C. Operating system pressure is 1.2 bars. Direct internal reformation DIR.

The heat available as a function of the exhaust gases from the fuel cell is determined by exh_gas Cpexh_gas Tout T f QFC = m 2 In the current installation, the exhaust gases are used to produce steam, which generates additional electricity through a steam turbine. Considering an efciency of the turbine cycle of 12.5%, the electricity produced using the recovered heat is determined by Wel,T = QFC T 3 A steady-state model 27 has been adapted and used to determine the fuel cell exhaust gas ow rate, specic heat, and temperature the specic values are presented later in the assumptions. For the analysis, the biogas composition from Table 1 has been considered. The main results of the model are presented in Table 4. The specic heat of the exhaust gas has been obtained from the fuel cell model explained in Sec. 4. The exhaust gas composition is H2O = 22.6 wt %, O2 = 0.7 wt %, N2 = 54.4 wt %, CO2 = 21.0 wt %, and Ar = 1.2 wt %. As explained in Secs. 4 and 5, the turbine exhaust temperature has been xed at 120 C. As can be seen in Table 4, specic heat and temperature decrement is Journal of Fuel Cell Science and Technology

Fig. 1 DFC model schematics

OCTOBER 2010, Vol. 7 / 051005-3

Downloaded From: http://fuelcellscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Steam reforming and water-gas shift reaction occur very fast and simultaneously. 90% of the CO is shifted to CO2 since at 650 C water-gas shift reaction is well shifted to the left 28. Steam reformation and water-gas shift reaction product gas is a mix of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and unreacted steam and methane. Remaining carbon monoxide and methane will be electrolyzed within the anode compartment. Utilization factors within the stack are 0.75 for hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane. Figure 1 shows the schematics of the DFC model. As seen, the anodic gases are oxidized in the catalytic burner and recirculated to the cathode compartment. Fuel and water are preheated in the Heat Recovery Unit before entering the stack.

Table 5 Investment and O&M costs Investment cost I Fuel cell FC Digester DIG Cleanup CLEANUP Auxiliary AUX Installation Finance Connection Staff Insurance 2400 /kW 1200 /kW See Table 6 See Table 6 IFC + IDIG + ICLEANUP 10% installation 100 /kW O&M costs /year 0.025 /kWh 20,000 7000 50,400 0.5% installation

Economical Study

In this section the economical viability of the fuel cell installation in Nufri is studied. A parametric study is performed to determine the new installation fuel cell+ cleanup system capital and O&M costs, revenue, investment return period and benets for different fuel cell capacities installed. Two different scenarios have been analyzed. Scenario 1. The fuel cell installed is fed with the biogas produced by the current plant. In addition, it replaces the oldest ICE, which is at the end of its lifetime. In this case, biogas production equipment anaerobic digester, and cleanup system are already amortized, so only the new gas cleanup system, required by the fuel cell sulfur levels, is taken into account. Scenario 2. The fuel cell will be fed with the biogas produced by the new plant. In this case, the cost of the digester and cleanup system has to be amortized by the fuel cell. This represents a more generic case study.

The nancial costs are considered as an additional 10% of the investment cost and the insurance cost is considered to be 0.5% of the investment cost per year Table 5. The cost of connection to the electrical grid is considered to be 100 /kW Table 5. To make the installation more protable, all the electricity produced and not used for the biogas digestion and cleanup process is sold. The lifetime LT of the installation fuel cell and cleanup system is 20 years. No special compartments for acoustic isolation are required for the fuel cell installation.

5.2 Methodology. The payback of the installation is determined considering the investment cost and the benets coming from the electricity sold. The investment costs considered for the different scenarios are: Scenario 1: Considers the fuel cell and the additional cleanup system as well as the project nance and the connection to the electrical grid Tables 5 and 6. Scenario 2: Considers the fuel cell, the digester including the initial cleanup process, the additional cleanup system, and several auxiliary equipments as well as the project nance and the connection to the electrical grid Tables 5 and 6.

5.1 Assumptions. Several assumptions are done based on Nufris biogas and CHP plant and fuel cell manufacturers data. The fuel cell is considered as an electrical generator device to produce electricity for the grid. Nufris biogas production capacity is sufcient to operate all fuel cell capacities analyzed. The biogas produced at the new plant has the same quantitative and qualitative characteristics as the produced in the old plant. The new digester and cleanup systems cost is the same as in the initial plant. The biogas characteristics remain mostly constant all year around see Table 1. The operation time of the overall system is 7000 h/year. In case of biogas production shortcut, natural gas is used as a backup. 15% of the electricity produced is consumed by the biogas digestion and cleanup process. The heat produced by cogeneration is used in a steam turbine AFA-46 from PASCH with nominal capacity of 3 MW to produce more electricity. The steam turbine already available at the industrial site will absorb the extra gas to produce more electricity. The exhaust temperature after the heat recovery stage T f is assumed to be 393 K. Due to the early stage of this technology, it is hard to determine an exact fuel cell price. The price used for this analysis takes as a reference the U.S. market rate, provided by FuelCell Energy. Additional costs for the transportation have been assumed. The operation and maintenance cost OMC includes the stack replacement required every 3 years.

The operation and maintenance costs and the revenue are the same for both scenarios. Operation and maintenance costs: The electrical device, the digester and the cleanup system O&M costs are evaluated as well as the staff and insurance Table 5. Revenue: The electricity produced by the fuel cell and gas turbine is sold to the local utility grid at a regulated rate. Spanish legislation establishes the price of electricity produced by cogeneration and fuel cells Table 7.

5.3 Results and Discussion. Tables 811 present the economical results for both scenarios and different fuel cell capacities. Figure 2 shows the payback tendencies as a function of the

Table 6 Investment cost of the cleanup and auxiliary systems Fuel cell electrical power, Wel,FC kW 300 600 900 1200 Investment in auxiliary systems, IAUX 500,000 550,000 600,000 650,000 Investment in cleanup process, ICLEANUP 100,000 115,000 130,000 145,000

051005-4 / Vol. 7, OCTOBER 2010

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fuelcellscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Table 7 Electricity price and cost Fuel cell Cost of electricity from utility grid /kWh Sold electricity /kWh P 500 kW P 500 kW 0.08 0.1307 0.1204

fuel cell capacity. For scenario 1, the main part of the investment cost is the fuel cell cost, as well as for the O&M cost. However, in this case the O&M cost of the digester also plays a signicant role, especially for installations of low power Table 8. On the other hand, for scenario 2, the fuel cell is still the most expensive part of the installation, but the digester and the auxiliary equipment also represent a very signicant part of the investment cost. For the O&M costs the fuel cell and the digester are

Fig. 2

Payback as a function of the fuel cell capacity

Table 8 Investment and O&M costs for different fuel cell installationsscenario 1 300 kW Investment MCFC Digester Cleanup Auxiliary Finance Insurance Total 0.720 M 0 100,000 0 82,000 0.932 M O&M /year 52,500 20,000 7000 4100 134,000 600 kW Investment 1.440 M 0 115,000 0 155,500 1.771 M O&M /year 105,000 20,000 7000 7775 190,175 900 kW Investment 2.160 M 0 130,000 0 229,000 2.609 M O&M /year 157,500 20,000 7000 11,450 246,350 1200 kW Investment 2.880 M 0 145,000 0 302,500 3.448 M O&M /year 210,000 20,000 7000 15,125 302,525

Table 9 Economical analysis for different fuel cell installationsscenario 1 Fuel cell capacity kW 300 600 900 1200 Investment 0.932 1.771 2.609 3.448 M M M M O&M /year 134,000 190,175 246,350 302,525 Revenue /year 245,001 451,429 677,139 902,850 Benets /year 111,001 261,254 430,789 600,325 Payback years 8.396 6.777 6.056 5.743

Table 10 Investment and O&M costs for different fuel cell installationsscenario 2 300 kW Investment MCFC Digester Cleanup Auxiliary Finance Insurance Total 0.720 M 0.420 M 100,000 500,000 174,000 1.944 M O&M /year 52,500 20,000 7000 8700 138,600 600 kW Investment 1.440 M 0.840 M 115,000 550,000 294,500 3.300 M O&M /year 105,000 20,000 7000 14,725 197,125 900 kW Investment 2.160 M 1.260 M 130,000 600,000 415,000 4.655 M O&M /year 157,500 20,000 7000 20,750 255,650 1200 kW Investment 2.880 M 1.680 M 145,000 650,000 535,500 6.011 M O&M /year 210,000 20,000 7000 26,775 314,175

Table 11 Economical analysis for different fuel cell installationsscenario 2 Fuel cell capacity kW 300 600 900 1200 Investment 1.944 3.300 4.655 6.011 M M M M O&M /year 138,600 197,125 255,650 314,175 Revenue /year 245,001 451,425 677,135 902,850 Benets /year 106,401 254,300 421,485 588,675 Payback years 18.27 12.97 11.04 10.21

Journal of Fuel Cell Science and Technology

OCTOBER 2010, Vol. 7 / 051005-5

Downloaded From: http://fuelcellscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

again the main equipments to consider Table 10. The high initial investment and operating and maintenance cost for the fuel cell results in high payback periods for both installations Tables 9 and 11. Moreover, in scenario 2, where the investment cost for the digester and auxiliary equipments are also considered, the payback period doubles. An important inuence of the fuel cell power capacity is observed, especially when the digester system is considered. The high initial investment cost for these technologies recommends high power capacities to achieve lower payback periods Fig. 2. Spanish feed-in tariff for cogeneration using biogas is not enough to make the project protable and economically viable in a short period of time. A substantial price reduction and higher government subsidies are necessary to make the installation economically attractive. In addition to special feed-in tariff, direct nance of the investment cost can reduce the initial nancial risks. Nowadays, some funding can be obtained from the regional government energy agency Institut Catal de lEnergia, ICAEN. Credits at low interest rate provided by the Spanish government energy agency Instituto para la Diversicacin y Ahorro de Energa, IDEA can be useful to reduce the initial investment cost and achieve a better return period. Normally, the total amount received from this type of funding is dependent of the number of solicitant projects. For this reason, this analysis does not take into account these fundings since they are difcult to quantify.

to thank the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science for his Ramon y Cajal research appointment.

Nomenclature FC fuel cell efciency T turbine cycle efciency

Conclusions

In this work a case study of a biogas powered fuel cell is presented. Catalonia has a great potential for biogas production, especially in determinate areas where agricultural and cattle industry are very important. Coupling this technology with high temperature fuel cells results in a renewable power system with high efciency. Nowadays, MCFCs have displaced PAFCs as the most suitable fuel cell for biogas operation due to its higher fuel exibility. Moreover, its higher working temperature is more appropriate for CHP applications. Nufri represents a perfect site to host the rst installation of this type in Spain. Their biogas production infrastructure and cogeneration plant would allow the fuel cell installation with minimum impact on their current activity. The downside of the biogas use with fuel cells is the higher gas purity required. Sulfur content has to be much lower than the required by ICE. It means a higher investment on cleaning-up equipment and higher operation costs. The study presents two different scenarios. In the rst one, the biogas produced in the current anaerobic digester is used in a new fuel cell installation, reducing the investment cost for the overall system. Even in this case, the payback was between 5.7 years and 8.4 years, depending on the power of the site. In the second scenario, where a new digester is installed, the payback rises to 10.2 18.3 years. Due to the high initial investment and high operating and maintenance cost, the Spanish feed-in tariff for cogeneration using biogas is not enough to make the project protable and economically viable in a short period of time. Although fuel cell manufacturers claim substantial price reduction as well as longer stack lifetime in a near future, government subsidies will be necessary to make the installation economically attractive. These subsidies could involve both direct nance of the investment cost and a separate feed-in tariff for fuel cell systems as a high efciency and clean technology.

Cpexh_gas specic heat of the exhaust gases of the fuel cell kJ / kg K F biogas volumetric ow rate of the biogas entering the fuel cell m3 / s IAUX investment for the auxiliary equipment ICLEANUP investment for the cleanup process IDIG investment for the anaerobic digester IFC cost of power in kilowatts installed for the fuel cell /kW Iinstallation investment cost for the installation and equipment LHVbiogas lower heating value of the biogas kJ / m3 biogas ow rate of the biogas m3 / s m exh_gas mass ow rate of the exhaust gases of the fuel m cell kg/s QFC recovered heat from the fuel cell for cogeneration kW T f temperature of the exhaust gases after the heat recovery stage C Tout temperature of the exhaust gases at the outlet of the fuel cell C Wel,T electrical power produced by the turbine cycle kW

References
1 Spiegel, R. J., and Preston, J. L., 2003, Technical Assessment of Fuel Cell Operation on Landll Gas at the Groton, CT, Landll, Energy, 28, pp. 397 409. 2 Pandya J. D., Ghosh K. K., and Rastog S. K., 1988, A Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell Coupled With Biogas, Energy, 134, pp. 383388. 3 Ascoli, A., Pandya, J. D., and Redaelli, G., 1989, Electrical Characterization of a 2.5 kW Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell Stack Operating on Simulated Reformed Biogas, Energy, 1412, pp. 875878. 4 Spiegel, R. J., Preston, J. L., and Trocciola, J. C., 1997, Test Results for Fuel Cell Operation on Landll Gas, Energy, 228, pp. 777786. 5 Spiegel, R. J., Preston, J. L., and Trocciola, J. C., 1999, Fuel Cell Operation on Landll Gas at Penrose Power Station, Energy, 24, pp. 723742. 6 Chawla, S. K., and Ghosh, K. K., 1992, Thermodynamic Analysis of Hydrogen Production From Biogas Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 176, pp. 405412. 7 Naumann, S. T., and Myrkn, C., 1995, Fuel Processing of Biogas for Small Fuel Cell Power Plants, J. Power Sources, 56, pp. 4549. 8 Spiegel, R. J., and Preston, J. L., 2000, Test Results for Fuel Cell Operation on Anaerobic Digester Gas, J. Power Sources, 86, pp. 283288. 9 Katikaneni, S., Yuh, C., Avens, S., and Farooque, M., 2002, The Direct Carbonate Fuel Cell Technology: Advances in Multi-Fuel Processing and Internal Reforming, Catal. Today, 77, pp. 99106. 10 20002004, EU RTD Project: Holistic Integration of MCFC Technology Towards a Most EFFECTIVE Systems Compound Using Biogas as Renewable Source of Energy, Contract No. ERK5-CT-1999-00007. 11 Trogisch, S., Hoffmann, J., and Daza Bertrand, L., 2005, Operation of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells With Different Biogas Sources: A Challenging Approach for Field Trials, J. Power Sources, 145, pp. 632638. 12 Bove, R., and Lunghi, P., 2005, Experimental Comparison of MCFC Performance Using Three Different Biogas Types and Methane, J. Power Sources, 145, pp. 588593. 13 Staniforth, J., and Kendall, K., 1998, Biogas Powering a Small Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell, J. Power Sources, 71, pp. 275277. 14 Staniforth, J., and Kendall, K., 2000, Cannock Landll Gas Powering a Small Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel CellA Case Study, J. Power Sources, 86, pp. 401403. 15 Van herle, J., Marchal, F., Leuenberger, S., and Favrat, D., 2003, Energy Balance Model of a SOFC Cogenerator Operated With Biogas, J. Power Sources, 118, pp. 375383. 16 Van herle, J., Marchal, F., Leuenberger, S., Membrez, Y., Bucheli, O., and Favrat, D., 2004, Process Flow Model of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell System Supplied With Sewage Biogas, J. Power Sources, 131, pp. 127141. 17 Van herle, J., Membrez, Y., and Bucheli, O., 2004, Biogas as a Fuel Source for SOFC Co-Generators, J. Power Sources, 127, pp. 300312. 18 Yentekakis, I. V., 2006, Open- and Closed-Circuit Study of an Intermediate

Acknowledgment
The work was partially funded by the California-Catalonia Program for Engineering Innovation, the Spanish government Project No. ENE2005-08256-C02-01/ALT and the Catalan government Project No. 2005SGR 00324. Marc Medrano would like 051005-6 / Vol. 7, OCTOBER 2010

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fuelcellscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

19 20 21 22

23

Temperature SOFC Directly Fueled With Simulated Biogas Mixtures, J. Power Sources, 160, pp. 422425. Zhang, Z.-G., Xu, G., Chen, X., Honda, K., and Yoshida, T., 2004, Process Development of Hydrogenous Gas Production for PEFC From Biogas, Fuel Process. Technol., 85, pp. 12131229. Schmersahl, R., and Scholz, V., 2005, Testing a PEM Fuel Cell System With Biogas Fuel, Institute of Agricultural Engineering Bornim e.V. ATB, MaxEyth-Allee 100, 14469 Potsdam, Germany. 2007, Feasibility and Viability Analysis of the Use of Biogas in Fuel Cells in Catalonia, California-Catalonia Program for Engineering Innovation. Cruz, A. J., Pires, J., Carvalho, A. P., and Brotas de Carvalho, M., 2005, Physical Adsorption of H2S Related to the Conservation of Works of Art: The Role of the Pore Structure at Low Relative Pressure, Adsorption, 11, pp. 569576. Garcia, C. L., and Lercher, J. A., 1992, Adsorption of Hydrogen Sulde on ZSM 5 Zeolites, J. Phys. Chem., 965, pp. 22302235.

., Dog u, G., and Dog u, T., 2002, Removal of Hydrogen 24 Yas yerli, S., Ar, I Sulde by Clinoptilolite in a Fixed Bed Adsorber, Chem. Eng. Process., 419, pp. 785792. 25 Young, Y., Yang, K., Young, W. H., and Seff, K., 1996, Crystal Structure of a Hydrogen Sulde Sorption Complex of Zeolite LTA, Zeolites, 1756, pp. 495500. 26 Xu, X., Novochinskii, I., and Song, C., 2005, Low-Temperature Removal of H2S by Nanoporous Composite of Polymer-Mesoporous Molecular Sieve MCM-41 as Adsorbent for Fuel Cell Applications, Energy Fuels, 195, pp. 22142215. 27 Margalef, P., 2007, The Integration of a High Temperature Fuel Cell and Absorption Chiller Into a Generic Building, MS thesis, Advance Power and Energy Program, University of California, Irvine, CA. 28 Larminie, J. and Dicks, A., 2003, Fuel Cell Systems Explained, Wiley, West Sussex, UK.

Journal of Fuel Cell Science and Technology

OCTOBER 2010, Vol. 7 / 051005-7

Downloaded From: http://fuelcellscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms