i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid

propulsion systems for a liquefied hydrogen tanker

Junkeon Ahn a,*, Sung Ho Park b, Sanghyuk Lee a, Yeelyong Noh a,

Daejun Chang a,**
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daehak-ro 291,
Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34141, Republic of Korea
b
Plant Engineering Center, Institute for Advanced Engineering, 175-28, Goan-ro 51 Beon-gil, Baegam-myeon,
Cheoin-gu, Yongin, Gyeonggi-do 449-863, Republic of Korea

article info abstract

Article history: This study proposes a molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion system
Received 9 January 2018 for a liquefied hydrogen tanker. This system consists of a molten carbonate fuel cell and a
Received in revised form bottoming cycle. Gas turbine and steam turbine systems are considered for recovering heat
27 February 2018 from fuel cell exhaust gases. The MCFC generates a considerable propulsion power, and the
Accepted 5 March 2018 turbomachinery generates the remainder of the power. The hybrid systems are evaluated
Available online xxx regarding system efficiency, economic feasibility, and exhaust emissions. The MCFC with a
gas turbine has higher system efficiency than that with a steam turbine. The air
Keywords: compressor consumes substantial power and should be mechanically connected to the gas
Liquefied hydrogen tanker turbine. Although fuel cell-based systems are less economical than other propulsion sys-
Hybrid system tems, they may satisfy the environmental regulations. When the ship is at berth, the MCFC
MCFC systems can be utilized as distributed generation that is connected to the onshore-power
Gas turbine grid.
EEDI © 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Emission

Mitigating exhaust emissions remains a challenge in the

Introduction
Global warming and climate change are both intensifying.
Greenhouse gases are causing sea-level increases as well as
temperature increases in the atmosphere and in the oceans;
these phenomena are threatening the sustainable develop-
ment of the international society [1]. With increasing energy
consumption, the depletion of fossil fuels, high energy costs,
and atmospheric pollution have become important economic,
environmental, and social concerns [2].
shipping industry [3]. Marine transportation annually ac-
counts for 80e90% of world trade [4,5]. The shipping industry,
as an anthropogenic source of emissions, emits 3%, 15%, and
13% of the global emissions of CO2 (carbon dioxide), NOX (ni-
trogen oxides), and SOX (sulfur oxides), respectively [6].
The legislation framework for greener shipping has led to
considerable changes in the shipping industry [6,7]. The ship-
ping exhaust emissions excluded from the Montreal Protocol
are the responsibility of the IMO (International Maritime Or-
ganization) under the Kyoto Protocol [5]. The IMO has gradually

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jkahn@kaist.ac.kr (J. Ahn), djchang@kaist.ac.kr (D. Chang).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
0360-3199/© 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
2 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3
enforced the CO2 and anti-pollution regulations [8]. The EEDI
(energy efficiency design index) and ECA (emission control
area) are typical regulations [9]. Because greener shipping and
high ship propulsion efficiency are required, a great trans-
formation is underway, including the emergence of new
shipping concepts, increased demand for larger and special-
ized ships, and the diversification of propulsion systems.
Energy commerce is continuously expanding and changing
because of the rapid increase in global demand for energy.
Environmental issues have led to the development of new and
renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuel-based energy
sources [9]. The development and use of solar, wind, hydro,
geothermal, tidal, wave, and biomass power are expanding.
Hydrogen has become an alternative fuel and a new energy
source for the distributed generation [10] and transportation
sectors [11].
Hydrogen is a clean fuel for fuel cells. The technology of
fuel cells is innovative and shows promise for use in next-
generation power systems that emit few pollutants [12,13].
Fuel cells convert the chemical energy of a gaseous fuel into
electricity via electrochemical reactions [14]. Fuel cells can
operate using various fuels. High-temperature fuel cells, in
particular, enable the recovery of high-quality exhaust heat
[10]. The heat recovery is a major concern for the design of
energy systems and is directly linked to fuel consumption and
exhaust emissions [6].
High-temperature fuel cells are classified into two types:
MCFC (molten carbonate fuel cell) and SOFC (solid oxide fuel
cell). Because SOFCs operate at temperatures approximately
200
C higher than the operating temperature of MCFCs, they
enable the recovery of higher temperature waste heat [2,8,15].
The electrolyte of an SOFC poses challenges in the
manufacturing process and increases costs. In addition, poor
mechanical properties and excessive thermal expansion
remain challenges for the high-temperature operation of
SOFCs [16]. Alternatively, the practical application of MCFCs
has been demonstrated for large-scale power plants [10] and
ship propulsion systems [17]. Because MCFC technology is
more mature than SOFC technology [10], MCFCs are respon-
sible for a substantial portion of the power generated in South
Korea, the United States, Europe, and Japan [18].
Marine fuel cells have been adopted as auxiliary power
units [19]. Representative marine fuel cells are the PEMFC
(proton exchange membrane fuel cell) used in the 212-class
submarines [20], the MCFC of the USCG Vindicator [21], the
25 kW PEMFC of the DESIRE project [22], the 20 kW SOFC of the
METHAPU project [23], the 330 kW MCFC of the Viking Lady
[14], the 500 kW MCFC for a ferry ship [24], and the 625 kW
SOFC of an offshore supply vessel [25]. With improvements in
the related technologies, fuel cells have become the main
propulsion system for many large ships [17].
With the introduction of LH2 (liquefied hydrogen) tankers, a
propulsion system based on an MCFC has become feasible [9].
A tanker that transports LH2 in bulk is a gas carrier. The pro-
pulsion system of a gas carrier depends on whether the BOG
(boil-off gas) is consumed as fuel [9,26]. Petersen et al. [27] and
Abe et al. [28] proposed the concept design of an LH2 tanker
while using hydrogen BOG as fuel, but they did not suggest a
specific propulsion system. Gretz et al. [29,30] considered
transatlantic hydrogen transport in liquid form or as liquid
Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
organic hydride in the Euro-Quebec Hydro-Hydrogen Pilot
Project; however, no applicable propulsion machinery was
studied. Ahn et al. [9] evaluated the economic feasibility of
maritime hydrogen transport and considered using a stand-
alone MCFC to satisfy the enhanced EEDI requirements.
This study proposes MCFC-based hybrid systems as pro-
pulsion machinery for a 140K LH2 tanker. The system, which
utilizes the high-temperature exhaust from an MCFC to drive
a bottoming cycle, consists of an MCFC and turbomachinery.
Energy efficiency and economic and environmental aspects
are significant factors that must be considered for a marine
fuel cell system. The remainder of this paper is organized as
follows. Section Hybrid MCFC-based systems describes the
MCFC principles and the configurations of the hybrid systems.
Section System modeling describes the thermodynamic
modeling of the hybrid systems. The performance analyses
are described in Section Performance analyses. The compar-
ative results are described and discussed in Section Results
and discussion. Section Conclusions concludes this paper.
Hybrid MCFC-based systems
MCFCs employ molten salt electrolytes. The electrolyte ma-
terials are eutectic mixtures of Li2CO3, Na2CO3, and K2CO3 [31].
The Li2CO3 (62 mol%) and K2CO3 (38 mol%) eutectic has been
widely adopted [32]. These carbonates melt at approximately
500
C, and the molten carbonates transfer ions. A stable
operating temperature that prevents electrolyte solidification
or volatilization is a significant condition [33]. MCFCs normally
operate at 923 K (650
C).
An MCFC generates electricity via electrochemical re-
actions. The SMR (steam methane reforming) and WGS (water-
gas shift) reactions sequentially occur to produce H2 and CO in
the MCFC stack [34]. Because the reforming reaction is a highly
intensive endothermic process, it removes the heat generated
by the hydrogen oxidation [35]. Fig. 1 illustrates the MCFC
principle via the following electrochemical reactions [14]:
0
 SMR: CH4 þ H2 O/CO þ 3H2 ðDh298K ¼ 206 kJ=molÞ
 WGS: CO þ H2 O/CO2 þ H2 0
ðDh298K ¼ 41 kJ=molÞ

H2 þ CO2
3 4CO2 þ H2 O þ 2e
 Anode: 
CO þ CO2
3 42CO2 þ 2e
Fig. 1 e MCFC configuration with inlet and outlet flows.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3 3

 Cathode: 0:5O2 þ CO2 þ 2e 4CO2

3
 Overall: H2 þ 0:5O2 þ CO2 4H2 O þ CO2
0
ðDh298K ¼ 242 kJ=molÞ
In addition to these reactions, methanation, CO hydroge-
nation, and the Boudouard reaction may occur at the anode
[36] and peroxide, superoxide, and polycarbonate may form at
the cathode [32].
After the electrochemical reactions, the anode emits the
unreacted fuel and byproducts, such as water and CO2,
whereas the cathode emits excess air. The CO2 is consumed to
form molten carbonates.
The advantage of the MCFC technology is that it utilizes the
exhaust gas at high temperature, unlike the low-temperature
fuel cell, such as the PEMFC [17]. A system using cogeneration
or integration to recover waste heat via a thermodynamic
cycle is called a “hybrid” system [37].
MCFC-based hybrid systems have led to high energy effi-
ciency and improved economic performance. Such systems
have been developed for use in large-scale power plants, e.g.,
distributed generation and marine propulsion [10,12,14,24].
Hybrid systems are classified as either indirect heating or
direct firing according to the heat recovery method [10]. The
direct hybrid system uses the MCFC exhaust to drive a gas
turbine, where the operating pressure is 3e4 barg [38e40]. By
contrast, the exhaust heats the working fluid of a bottoming
cycle in an indirect hybrid system, which is suitable for MCFC
operation at atmospheric pressure [41e43].
This study considers an indirect hybrid system with a
28 MW propulsion system on a 140K LH2 tanker. The operating
time is 204 h for a trip when the service speed is 20 knots [9].
Fig. 2 illustrates the MCFC-GT (MCFC-gas turbine; Brayton
cycle) system, and Fig. 3 shows the MCFC-ST (MCFC-steam
turbine; Rankine cycle) system. The MCFC, as the primary
machinery, produces considerable propulsion power,
whereas the turbomachinery, as the secondary machinery,
generates the remainder of the propulsion power. Because
these hybrid systems drive the electric motors linked to the
propeller, they can be classified as electric propulsion type.
Both MCFC-based hybrid systems commonly consume the
feed stream and hydrogen BOG as fuel. The NG blower and
water pump supply natural gas and water, respectively. These
streams are mixed as the feed stream for the internal reformer.
The hydrogen BOG is supplied from the cargo tanks to the anode
side, and it is heated by two heat exchangers for the operating
temperature. A small amount of BOG goes to the catalytic
combustor to increase the TIT (turbine inlet temperature).
The main distinctions between the systems are associated
with the air supply and exhaust streams. In the MCFC-GT
system, the air is supplied through the gas turbine to the
cathode side. Because the exhaust stream directly heats the
air stream via the heat exchanger, heat recovery is made in
the power turbine as well as the hydrogen BOG can be heated,
as shown in Fig. 2. In the MCFC-ST system, air is supplied by
the air blower, and hydrogen BOG is heated by the exhaust. In
addition, heat recovery is made via the closed Rankine cycle,
as shown in Fig. 3.
System modeling
The process simulation is performed using AspenPLUS®. The
simulation is carried out under the following assumptions
[44,45]:
1) All chemical reactions are in equilibrium.

Fig. 2 e Schematic diagram of MCFC-GT system.

Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
4 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3

Fig. 3 e Schematic diagram of MCFC-ST system.

2) The temperature, pressure, and composition of the gas are
uniform.
3) The temperatures of the anode and the cathode are the
same.
4) The SMR and WGS occur rapidly and sequentially.
5) The kinetic and potential energy changes are negligible.
6) All system components, except for the fuel cell and cata-
lytic combustor, are adiabatic.
7) The system operates at steady state.
The thermodynamic properties depend on the SRK (Soave-
Redlich-Kwong) equation of state. This equation, together
with the Peng-Robinson equation of state, is the most widely
accepted equation for modern chemical processes [46]. These
equations are recommended for modeling gas mixtures in
non-polar real components [47]. The SRK equation of state is
more suitable than the Peng-Robinson equation for consid-
ering properties at high temperatures and pressures [48]. In
addition, the equation of state accurately predicts the PVT
(pressure, volume, and temperature) behaviors of small mol-
ecules with high critical compressibility factors (ZC), such as
H2 (0.32) and CH4 (0.286) [49e51].
considering the Nernst loss, activation polarizations, and
concentration loss [16]. Eq. (1) presents the cell voltage Vcell of
an MCFC [31]:
Vcell ¼ E0  hNernst  jðRan þ Rca þ Rohm Þ ½V (1)
where E0 is the reversible potential at standard conditions and
hNernst is the Nernst loss. The Nernst potential involves the
summation of E0 and hNernst; this potential is the maximum
potential achieved through the electrochemical reaction.
When the current is zero, the Nernst potential becomes the
open-circuit voltage (OCV). Parameter j is the current density
in mA/cm2, Ran and Rca represent the activation losses of the
anode and cathode, respectively, and Rohm is the ohmic loss.
The standard reversible potential is defined by the Gibbs free
energy:
Dg
E0 ¼  ½V (2)
nF
where Dg is the Gibbs free energy in J/mol; n is the molecular
number of H2; and F is the Faraday constant [52]. Parameter T
is the MCFC stack temperature in K.

Dg ¼ 0:002474T2 þ 48:996Te243730 ½J=mol (3)

MCFC stack
The Nernst loss in Eq. (4) is a function of the concentrations
The electrochemical phenomenon of a unit fuel cell follows
of the species of the reactants and products:
the following equations. The cell voltage is calculated by

Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3 5

!
RT PH2 O;an PCO2 ;an 
hNernst ¼ ln pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ½V (4) _ PUMP ¼ m_ hout  hin
nF PH2 ;an PO2 ;ca PCO2 ;ca W ½kW (10)

where R is the molar gas constant in J/mol-K, and P is the Heat exchanger
partial pressure at each electrode.
The activation polarization losses occur by breaking the Heat exchange occurs between the hot stream and the cold
chemical bonds of H2 and O2 molecules in the electrochemical stream in a heat exchanger. The energy balance of the heat
reaction. Yuh and Selman suggested the following loss models exchanger is calculated by Eq. (11):
[53]:
! m_ hot;in hhot;in þ m_ cold;in hcold;in ¼ m_ hot;out hhot;out þ m_ cold;out hcold;out ½kW
Dhan 
Ran ¼ 2:27  105  exp  P0:42
H2 P0:17 1:0
CO2 PH2 O ½Ucm2 (5) (11)
RT

0 1 Turbine
Dh 
6
 exp@ A  P0:43 P0:09
ca
Rca ¼ 7:505  10 o2 co2 ½U  cm 2
(6)
RT The turbine power output is calculated by the enthalpy
change between the inlet and the outlet:
where Dhan and Dhca are the activation energy values in the 
anode and cathode, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the W_ T ¼ m_ hin  hout ½kW (12)
parameters of the above equations.
The ohmic loss involves ionic and electronic conduction at
the electrodes and the contacts. This resistance is normally Performance analyses
called the internal resistance and is calculated by the
following Arrhenius-type equation [53]: System efficiency
  
1 1 
Rohm ¼ 0:5  exp 3016  ½U  cm2 (7) Reforming and electrical efficiencies were used to evaluate
T 923
system performance. The reforming efficiency represents the
The resultant power output of an MCFC is presented in Eq. ratio between the hydrocarbon heating value and the H2
(8): heating value. A higher reforming efficiency corresponds to
greater H2 production. Because the SMR is an endothermic
W_ MCFC;AC ¼ j,Acell ,Vcell ,N,xDCAC ½W (8) reaction in an MCFC stack, the quantity of heat for the reac-
where Acell is the total active area of a fuel cell in cm , N is the 2 tion is included in Eq. (13):
number of cells, and xDC-AC is the inverter efficiency from
m_ H2  LHVH2
direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) (0.95) [44]. xRF ¼ (13)
Q_ SMR þ m_ NG  LHVNG

Compressors where Q_ SMR is the quantity of heat for the SMR, m_ H2 and m_ NG
are the molar flow rates of produced H2 and the consumed
The compressors supply the fuel and air to the MCFC. The CH4 in mol/sec, respectively. LHV denotes lower heating
power required is calculated by the following equation: values.
 Electrical efficiency is an intuitive metric of fuel cell per-
W_ COMP ¼ m_ hout  hin ½kW (9) formance. A fuel cell system includes not only the cell stack
but also the BOP (balance of plant). The electrical efficiency of
where m_ is the molar flow rate in mol/sec and hin and hout are hybrid systems must consider the power outputs of a fuel cell
the specific enthalpy in J/mol at the inlet and outlet of a and the bottoming cycle. Eq. (14) represents the electrical
compressor, respectively. efficiency:

Pump W _ MCFC;AC  W_ BOPs þ W_ Recovery

xelec ¼ (14)
m_ NG  LHVNG þ m_ H2  LHVH2
The pump feeds water into the internal reformer. The power
where W _ MCFC;AC is the AC power output of an MCFC in kW,
required is calculated by the following equation:
_
WBOPs is the required power of the BOP, and W _ Recovery is the
power output of the turbomachinery.
Table 1 e Performance parameters of MCFC.
Parameter Unit Value Economic evaluation
Operating pressure barg 1
Operating temperature K 923 The economic evaluation of the system is based on the B/C
Current density, j mA/cm2 150 (benefit-cost) ratio and the NPV (net present value). The B/C
Molar gas constant, R J/mol-K 8.314 ratio is the ratio between the social benefit and the cost. The
Faraday constant, F C/mol 96,485 NPV is estimated by subtracting the cost from the benefit
Anode activation energy, Dhan J/mol 53,500 considering the discount rate. Eqs. (15) and (16) present the B/
Cathode activation energy, Dhca J/mol 77,300 C ratio and the NPV:

Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
6 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3

The reference and attained EEDI values for LH2 tankers

, have yet to be defined [9]. Because the LH2 tanker is similar to
X
L
Bt X
L
Ct
B=C ¼ 1 (15) an LNG carrier, the EEDI calculation refers to the LNG carrier in
t¼0 ð1 þ rÞt t¼0 ð1 þ rÞt
Eqs. (18) and (19). The attained EEDI must be lower than the
reference value.
X
L
Bt XL
Ct
NPV ¼ t  0 (16) 
t¼0 ð1 þ rÞ t¼0 ð1 þ rÞt Reference value ¼ 2253:7  ðDWTÞ0:474 ½g  CO2 =ton  NM
(18)
The total cost of a hybrid system is calculated on the basis
of the LCC (life-cycle cost) shown in Eq. (17) [9]:

PME;MCFC  CF;LNG  SFCLNG þ CF;H2  SFCH2
EEDI ¼
X
L
Ct XL
OPEXt fc  VRef  DWT
LCC ¼ t ¼ CAPEXjt¼0 þ t (17) 
t¼0 ð1 þ rÞ t¼0 ð1 þ rÞ ½g  CO2 =ton  NM (19)

where the cost of the system components is the CAPEX (cap-
ital expenditure) and the cost of the system operation is the
OPEX (operating expenditure). Table 2 summarizes the cost
functions of the system components [2,44,54e56].
Energy efficiency design index
With the development and innovation of eco-friendly tech-
nology, the philosophy of eco-efficiency has spread widely
[57]. Eco-efficiency is the ability to produce goods and services
efficiently with the least environmental impact [58], which
implies that economic activity is directly linked to sustainable
development [59].
The EEDI is a representative index of the eco-friendly phi-
losophy in the shipping industry; it indicates the relationship
between the social benefit and the environmental cost [5]. The
IMO adopted the EEDI as a mandatory requirement in July,
2011. The concept of EEDI has been developed under the MEPC
57th-59th sessions and the Working Group on Greenhouse
Gases since 2008 [60] as a method to evaluate the energy ef-
ficiency of marine equipment and the propulsion systems of
newly built ships with a gross tonnage greater than 400 tons
[5]. The EEDI is defined as the amount of CO2 emissions
generated when a ship transports one ton of cargo for one
nautical mile, in units of g-CO2/ton-NM.
where PME is 75% of the MCR (maximum continuous rating) for
an LH2 tanker, CF is a non-dimensional conversion factor of
CO2 emission from hydrocarbon fuel, SFC is the specific fuel
consumption in kg/kWh, and the DWT (deadweight) is 27,600
ton [61].
NOX emission
NOX, SOX, and particulate matter are significant pollutants
among the shipping emissions. The IMO regulates NOX and
SOX by declaring the ECA. In particular, the amount of NOX
emitted should be in compliance with the NOX technical code
established in 2008. After January 2016, all propulsion systems
of merchant ships must satisfy the Tier III requirement [61].
NOX is generated by oxidizing nitrogen in a catalytic
combustor. NO (nitric oxide) accounts for the highest
component of NOX [62]. The amount of NOX emitted is esti-
mated by Eq. (20):
3600  MNOX  m_ NOX
NOX ¼ ½g=kWh (20)
W_ MCFC;AC
where MNOX and m_ NOX are the molar mass in g/mol and the
molar flow rate in mol/sec in the exhaust gases, respectively.
Results and discussion

This section compares the performance of the MCFC-based

hybrid systems and discusses the results on the basis of en-
Table 2 e Cost functions of system components in MCFC-
ergy efficiency, economic feasibility, and environmental
based hybrid system.
measures. The results provide background information for
System Cost model, US$ selecting the appropriate propulsion system.
component
MCFC stack ZMCFC ¼ 2600  W _ MCFC;AC Energy analysis
 
Catalytic 46:08m_ in
ZCC ¼ 0:995  ½1 þ expð0:018  TOUT  26:4Þ
combustor
!0:67 MCFC-based hybrid systems consume both H2 and CH4. The
Compressor ZCOMP ¼ 91562  W_ COMP steam-to-carbon ratio determines the amount of the inlet CH4
445
 
stream fed to the internal reformer of an MCFC. The mole
Pump ZPUMP ¼ 705:48  W_ PUMP  1þ 0:2 fraction of CH4 excluding water must be greater by 50% than
1xPUMP
!0:7 the mole fractions of the other components; this condition is
W_ MCFC;DC required for the endothermic reaction in the MCFC stack.
Inverter ZINV ¼ 105  500
Approximately 50e70% of CH4 is converted by the SMR pro-
Gas turbine ZGT ¼ W_ GT  ½1318:5  98:328  lnðW_ GT Þ
cess [63].
Steam turbine ZST ¼ 3744:3  W_ 0:7  61:3  W_ ST The reforming reaction gradually occurs where the feed
ST
Generator ZGEN ¼ 26:18  W_ 0:95
T
stream of CH4 and water is heated to 473 K (200
C). As the
 0:78
AHX
mole fractions of the feed stream decrease, the mole fractions
Heat exchanger ZHX ¼ 130  0:093
of H2, CO, and CO2 increase; as a result, the products are

Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3 7

Fig. 5 illustrates the performance curves for a unit cell of

Fig. 4 e Results of reforming reaction in internal reformer.
generated. If the temperature reaches 923 K (650
C), the mole
fractions of H2 and CH4 will be 55% and 1%, respectively [64].
Fig. 4 depicts the changes between the reactants and products
according to the temperature increase.
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the stream data of the MCFC-GT
in Fig. 2 and MCFC-ST in Fig. 3 systems, respectively. The
reforming process supplies 90% of H2; the others are H2 BOG.
Because the LH2 tanker operates 204 h for one trip [9], the LNG
consumptions are 1328 m3 and 1674 m3 for the MCFC-GT and
MCFC-ST systems, respectively. The H2 fuel is consumed in
the MCFC as well as a catalytic combustor of the MCFC-GT
system, as shown in Fig. 2 and Table 3. The fired stream at
high temperature will improve the turbine output.
the MCFC according to the operating temperature. The pecu-
liarity is the linear relationship between the current density
and cell voltage while accounting for all of the losses [33]. In
general, other fuel cells exhibit an exponential decrease in the
low-current-density region [65]. The observed linear rela-
tionship implies that the activation polarizations are negli-
gible [66].
The OCV is 1.026 V when the MCFC operates at 923 K. The
cell voltage is high in the low-current-density region [33]. At a
current density of 150 mA/cm2, the cell voltage and power
density are 0.879 V and 0.132 W/cm2, respectively. The area of
a single cell is 0.67 m2. One MCFC stack has 400 cells. The
number of stacks is 67 and 75 for the MCFC-GT and MCFC-GT
systems, respectively.
Table 5 summarizes the performance of both systems. The
voltage efficiencies are 53%; note that the efficiency is nor-
mally ca. 50% for an MCFC. On the one hand, the electrical
efficiency of the stand-alone MCFC is 41e44% on the basis of
the LHV. With respect to achieving high electrical efficiency,
the gas turbine is better than the steam turbine as the bot-
toming cycle. Because the MCFC-GT system supplies the tur-
bine exhaust directly to the cathode, no air compressor is
exclusively required; otherwise, the MCFC-ST system must
include an air compressor because of the separation between
the Rankine cycle and MCFC streams. Because the air
compressor consumes considerable power, it results in a low
electrical efficiency of the hybrid system.
The heat release from the MCFC is a significant matter. The
MCFC normally operates at 923 K while cooling the stack by
the endothermic SMR reaction. The heat release in a single cell
can be obtained from Fig. 5. The ideal voltage is 1.25 V on the

Table 3 e Stream data for MCFC-GT system.

Stream Temp., K Pressure, bar Mole flow, mol/sec Mole fraction
CH4 N2 CO CO2 H2 O2 H2O NO NO2
Hydrogen 73 1 60 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2-01 94 2 60 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2-02 297 1 60 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2-03 923 1 60 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2-04 923 1 18 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2-05 923 1 42 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Natural gas 203 1 50 0.980 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
NG-01 250 2 50 0.980 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Water 298 1 147 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000
Water-01 298 3 147 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000
Feed-01 291 2 197 0.249 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.746 0.000 0.000
Feed-02 673 2 197 0.249 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.746 0.000 0.000
An-01 923 2 275 0.036 0.004 0.063 0.080 0.506 0.000 0.312 0.000 0.000
An-02 923 1 1446 0.007 0.591 0.003 0.039 0.047 0.084 0.230 0.000 0.000
Air 298 1 920 0.000 0.790 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.210 0.000 0.000 0.000
Air-01 543 6 920 0.000 0.790 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.210 0.000 0.000 0.000
Air-02 1423 6 920 0.000 0.790 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.210 0.000 0.000 0.000
Air-03 1021 1 920 0.000 0.790 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.210 0.000 0.000 0.000
Ca-01 923 1 920 0.000 0.790 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.210 0.000 0.000 0.000
Ca-02 923 1 122 0.003 0.873 0.001 0.000 0.019 0.103 0.000 0.000 0.000
CC-01 1438 1 1147 0.000 0.623 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.045 0.286 0.000 0.000
Ex-01 825 1 1147 0.000 0.623 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.045 0.286 0.000 0.000
Ex-02 552 1 1147 0.000 0.623 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.045 0.286 0.000 0.000
Ex-03 542 1 1147 0.000 0.623 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.045 0.286 0.000 0.000

Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
8 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3

Table 4 e Stream data for MCFC-ST system.

Stream Temp., K Pressure, bar Mole flow, mol/sec Mole fraction
CH4 N2 CO CO2 H2 O2 H2O NO NO2
Hydrogen 73 1 60 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2-01 94 2 60 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2-02 297 1 60 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2-03 923 1 60 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2-04 923 1 18 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2-05 923 1 42 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Natural gas 203 1 55 0.980 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
NG-01 250 2 55 0.980 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Water 298 1 162 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000
Water-01 298 3 162 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000
Feed-01 291 2 217 0.249 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.746 0.000 0.000
Feed-02 673 2 217 0.249 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.746 0.000 0.000
An-01 923 2 303 0.036 0.004 0.063 0.080 0.506 0.000 0.312 0.000 0.000
An-02 923 1 1383 0.008 0.559 0.003 0.044 0.054 0.063 0.269 0.000 0.000
Air 298 1 760 0.000 0.790 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.210 0.000 0.000 0.000
Air-01 379 2 760 0.000 0.790 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.210 0.000 0.000 0.000
Ca-01 923 2 760 0.000 0.790 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.210 0.000 0.000 0.000
Ca-02 923 1 96 0.003 0.896 0.001 0.000 0.024 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000
CC-01 1677 1 1007 0.000 0.597 0.000 0.054 0.000 0.022 0.327 0.000 0.000
Ex-01 1361 1 1007 0.000 0.597 0.000 0.054 0.000 0.022 0.327 0.000 0.000
Ex-02 1334 1 1007 0.000 0.597 0.000 0.054 0.000 0.022 0.327 0.000 0.000
Ex-03 1054 1 1007 0.000 0.597 0.000 0.054 0.000 0.022 0.327 0.000 0.000
Ex-04 589 1 1007 0.000 0.597 0.000 0.054 0.000 0.022 0.327 0.000 0.000
Ex-05 578 1 1007 0.000 0.597 0.000 0.054 0.000 0.022 0.327 0.000 0.000
R-01 298 0.4 260 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000
R-02 298 60 260 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000
R-03 788 60 260 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000
R-04 349 0.4 260 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000

basis of the LHV. Each single cell produces 0.056 W/cm2 of the
heat release by the electrochemical reaction. Considering the
open circuit voltage and the current density, the theoretical
power output is estimated as 34,688 kW and 38,813 kW for the
MCFC-GT and MCFC-ST systems, respectively. These values
must match the sum of the reforming heat duty and the stack
power output.
The LH2 tanker also requires electric power while mooring
in a port. The MCFC-based hybrid system should supply
electricity for the ship hoteling service as well as for cargo
loading and unloading. The cargo unloading requires 7.5 MW,
and the loading (including the hoteling service) requires
4 MW. When the eight cryogenic pumps unload LH2 cargo,
more electric power will be required. These states will be
possible under the following conditions:
 The MCFC operates at 773 K (500
C) in the extreme low-
current-density-region: 13e38 mA/cm2.
 The TIT should be 1000
C for the gas turbine and 400
C for
the steam turbine in the bottoming cycle.
Economic evaluation
The LCC, NPV, and B/C ratio are evaluated to compare the
MCFC-GT and MCFC-ST systems, as shown in Table 6. The
CAPEX of the stand-alone 28 MW MCFC is 265 MUS$. The
CAPEX of the MCFC-GT system is 247 MUS$, and that of the
MCFC-ST system is 252 MUS$. These costs are approximately
25% greater than the costs of DFDE (dual-fuel diesel engine)
systems [9]. The LCCs of both systems show small differences.
The MCFC-GT system becomes the most economical config-
uration. Moreover, the NPV of the MCFC-GT system is 1.85
times greater than that of the stand-alone MCFC; hence, the
LH2 tanker equipped with the MCFC-GT system provides a
substantial profit.
Because the B/C ratios are greater than 1, the MCFC-based
propulsion systems are economically feasible. However, these
ratios are prominently lower than those of the DFDE system
(1.92) or the MGO (marine gas oil)- and H2-fueled steam tur-
bine (1.33) [9], implying that the profitability of the MCFC-
based systems is also low. Although low profitability is a
disadvantage of the MCFC-based systems, the CAPEX will
likely be substantially lowered shortly after the fuel cell
market expands.
Energy efficiency design index
The EEDI value depends on the hydrocarbon fuel consumption
in a propulsion system. Fig. 6 depicts the reference lines and
the attained EEDI values of the various propulsion systems for
the LH2 tanker [9]. The MCFC-based propulsion systems have
relatively lower EEDI values than the other systems.
The reference value of Phase 2 is 14.45 g-CO2/ton-NM and
will apply to ships built from 2020 to 2024. Because the specific
fuel consumptions of LNG are almost identical, both hybrid

Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3 9

Table 5 e Performance of hybrid MCFC based propulsion

systems.
Item Unit MCFC-GT MCFC-ST
2
Total active area m 18,500 20,700
Fuel utilization factor e 0.75 0.75
Steam-to-carbon ratio e 3 3
Specific fuel consumption, LNG g/kWh 126 124
Specific fuel consumption, H2 g/kWh 19 17
Fuel consumption rate, LNG ton/hr 2.93 3.23
Fuel consumption rate, H2 ton/hr 0.44 0.44
Steam reforming heat duty kW 10,210 11,231
Steam reforming efficiency % 70.13 69.68
MCFC efficiency % 52.74 52.72
MCFC stack power output kW 23,173 25,918
Power consumption for BOPs
- LNG compressor kW 84 92
- H2 compressor kW 37 37
- Air compressor kW e 1900
- Water pump kW 0.70 0.77
Secondary machinery Gas Steam
turbine turbine
Power output, recovery kW 5,017 4,111
TIT K 1423 788
Pressure bar 6 60
Isentropic efficiency e 0.8 0.9
In-flow rate kg/sec 26.54 4.68
Net power output kW 28,068 27,999
Electrical efficiency, LHV % 53.87 50.11

Table 6 e LCC, NPV, and B/C ratio of MCFC-based

propulsion systems.
Item Unit Stand-alone MCFC MCFC-GT MCFC-ST
LCC US$ 850,672,897 813,880,104 822,810,122
NPV US$ 43,186,473 79,979,266 71,049,248
Fig. 5 e MCFC performance curves: (A) current density and B/C ratio e 1.05 1.10 1.09

cell voltage curve and (B) current density and power

density curve.

systems have similar EEDI values: 13.28 (MCFC-GT) and 13.20

(MCFC-ST) g-CO2/ton-NM. The lowest EEDI value for the
stand-alone MCFC is 10.04 g-CO2/ton-NM.
The reference value of Phase 3 is 12.64 g-CO2/ton-NM after
2025. If the MCFC-GT and MCFC-ST systems are equipped in
new propulsion systems, they will violate the Phase 3
requirement. This means that the LNG consumption should
be considerably reduced.
In the recent MEPC 71st session, an accelerated imple-
mentation period of Phase 3 or the introduction of Phase 4 as a
new strict reference was proposed [67]. The reference value of
Phase 4 will be 11.38 g-CO2/ton-NM. If Phase 4 is implemented,
the stand-alone MCFC will become the unique propulsion
system for the LH2 tanker. Fig. 6 e EEDI results for various propulsion systems for LH2
tanker.
NOX emission

The Tier III limits of a ship propulsion system are 1.62 g kWh1, and the MCFC-ST system emits 1.14 g kWh1;
2.0e3.4 g kWh1 in the ECAs [5]. The most stringent limit is thus, both hybrid systems satisfy the Tier III requirement.
2.0 g kWh1 for operation above 2000 rpm. Both hybrid sys- Several countries around the ECAs have adopted NOX
tems must satisfy this limit. The MCFC-GT system emits reduction policies [68]. Beginning in 2007, the Norwegian

Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
10 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3

government began taxing merchant ships equipped with pri- Hanbat National University in Daejeon, Republic of Korea for
mary machinery with an output greater than 750 kW. Sweden his advice, suggestions, and discussions related to this
and Finland have implemented NOX regulations by port. The research.
USCG assesses a penalty of 25,000 US$ for a Tier III violation.
Because these are more stringent regulations than CO2
reduction, they will affect the propulsion system of LH2 Nomenclature
tankers in the future.
Acell Total active area, cm2
An Anode stream
Conclusions Bt Benefit, US$
Ca Cathode stream
This research proposed MCFC-based hybrid propulsion sys- CC Catalytic combustion stream
tems for a 140K LH2 tanker. The systems integrated the MCFC CF Non-dimensional conversion factor of CO2
with the Brayton cycle or Rankine cycle as the bottoming Ct Cost, US$
cycle. The MCFC, which is operated at atmospheric pressure, E0 Reversible potential at standard conditions, V
is the primary machinery, and the gas turbine and steam Ex Exhaust stream
turbine are the secondary machinery. The energy efficiency F Faraday constant, 96,485 C/mol
and economic and environmental aspects were considered in Feed Feed stream
a comparison of the MCFC-GT and MCFC-ST systems. Dg Gibbs free energy, J/mol
The MCFC-GT system was found to have higher electrical h Specific enthalpy, J/mol
efficiency than the MCFC-ST system; the MCFC-GT system Dh Activation energy, J/mol
was found to be suitable for the LH2 tanker, where the MCFC j Current density, mA/cm2
generates 23.5 MW and the gas turbine generates 4.6 MW. The M Molar mass, g/mol
total system efficiency depends on the power consumption of m_ Molar flow rate, mol/sec
the BOPs. Because the air compressor is the greatest power N Number of cells
consumer, it must be part of the gas turbine. NG Natural gas stream
The NPV and B/C ratio were evaluated on the basis of the n Molecular number
LCC. The MCFC-GT system had an NPV that was 1.18 times P Partial pressure, bar
and 1.13 times higher than that of the stand-alone MCFC and PME 75% of the MCR
the MCFC-ST system, respectively. Because both hybrid sys- Q_ Heat quantity, W
tems showed higher B/C ratios than 1.0, they were economi- R Rankine cycle stream
cally feasible. Even though the MCFC-based systems were Ran Anode activation loss, U-cm2
relatively less economically feasible than the DFDE system, Rca Cathode activation loss, U-cm2
they could be an alternative to satisfy the enforced environ- Rohm Ohmic loss, U-cm2
mental regulations. R Molar gas constant, J/mol-K
The EEDI and NOX limits were set as part of the environ- r Social discount rate
mental measures for ship propulsion systems. Both hybrid T Temperature, K
systems were in compliance with the EEDI Phase 2 and Tier III Vcell Cell voltage, V
requirements. LH2 tankers after 2025 must follow the EEDI VRef Service speed, knot
Phase 3 regulations. If the Phase 4 regulations are introduced, _
W Power, W
then the propulsion systems should be improved beyond their
Z Component cost, US$
present state. In addition, the EEDI calculation method for LH2
hNernst Nernst loss, V
tankers must be introduced in the future.
x Efficiency
A LH2 tanker is an eco-friendly ship that transports clean
fuel. During ship hoteling, the ship can be utilized for Abbreviations
distributed generation; i.e., the ship becomes a temporary B/C Benefit-cost
power plant and supplies surplus electricity produced by the BOG Boil-off gas
MCFC-based hybrid system to the onshore power grid. Thus, a CAPEX Capital expenditure
ship-to-shore power supply method should be developed. DFDE Dual-fuel diesel engine
DWT Deadweight
ECA Emission control area
Funding EEDI Energy efficiency design index
IMO International Maritime Organization
This paper was supported by BK21 Plus Program. LCC Life-cycle cost
LHV Low heating value
LNG Liquefied natural gas
Acknowledgements MCFC Molten carbonate fuel cell
MCFC-GT MCFC-gas turbine
The authors gratefully acknowledge Prof. Choong-Gon Lee at MCFC-ST MCFC-steam turbine
the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, MCR Maximum continuous rating

Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3
MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee
MGO Marine gas oil
MUS$ Million US$
NPV Net present value
OCV Open circuit voltage
OPEX Operating expenditure
PEMFC Proton exchange membrane fuel cell
SFC Specific fuel consumption
SMR Steam methane reforming
SOFC Solid oxide fuel cell
SRK Soave-Redlich-Kwong
TIT Turbine inlet temperature
WGS Water-gas shift
references
[1] Duan L, Xia K, Feng T, Jia S, Bian J. Study on coal-fired power
plant with CO2 capture by integrating molten carbonate fuel
cell system. Energy 2016;117:578e89. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2016.03.063.
[2] Shirazi A, Aminyavari M, Najafi B, Rinaldi F, Razaghi M.
Thermaleeconomiceenvironmental analysis and multi-
objective optimization of an internal-reforming solid oxide
fuel cellegas turbine hybrid system. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37:19111e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.09.
143.
[3] Balland O, Erikstad SO, Fagerholt K. Concurrent design of
vessel machinery system and air emission controls to meet
future air emissions regulations. Ocean Eng 2014;84:283e92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.04.013.
[4] Ling-Chin J, Roskilly AP. A comparative life cycle assessment
of marine power systems. Energy Convers Manag
2016;127:477e93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2016.09.012.
[5] Perera LP, Mo B. Emission control based energy efficiency
measures in ship operations. Appl Ocean Res 2016;60:29e46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2016.08.006.
[6] Singh DV, Pedersen E. A review of waste heat recovery
technologies for maritime applications. Energy Convers
Manag 2016;111:315e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2015.12.073.
[7] Livanos GA, Theotokatos G, Pagonis D-N. Techno-economic
investigation of alternative propulsion plants for Ferries and
RoRo ships. Energy Convers Manag 2014;79:640e51. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.12.050.
[8] Tse LKC, Wilkins S, McGlashan N, Urban B, Martinez-Botas R.
Solid oxide fuel cell/gas turbine trigeneration system for
marine applications. J Power Sources 2011;196:3149e62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.11.099.
[9] Ahn J, You H, Ryu J, Chang D. Strategy for selecting an
optimal propulsion system of a liquefied hydrogen tanker.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:5366e80. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.037.
[10] Wee J-H. Molten carbonate fuel cell and gas turbine hybrid
systems as distributed energy resources. Appl Energy
2011;88:4252e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.
05.043.
[11] Farrell AE, Keith DW, Corbett JJ. A strategy for introducing
hydrogen into transportation. Energy Pol 2003;31:1357e67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00195-7.
[12] Dimopoulos GG, Stefanatos IC, Kakalis NMP. Exergy analysis
and optimisation of a marine molten carbonate fuel cell
system in simple and combined cycle configuration. Energy
Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
11
Convers Manag 2016;107:10e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2015.09.007.
[13] Alkaner S, Zhou P. A comparative study on life cycle analysis
of molten carbon fuel cells and diesel engines for marine
application. J Power Sources 2006;158:188e99. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.07.076.
[14] Ovrum E, Dimopoulos G. A validated dynamic model of the
first marine molten carbonate fuel cell. Appl Therm Eng
2012;35:15e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
2011.09.023.
[15] Buonomano A, Calise F, d'Accadia MD, Palombo A,
Vicidomini M. Hybrid solid oxide fuel cellsegas turbine systems
for combined heat and power: a review. Appl Energy
2015;156:32e85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.027.
[16] O'Hayre RP, Cha SW, Colella W, Prinz FB. Fuel cell
fundamentals. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
[17] van Biert L, Godjevac M, Visser K, Aravind PV. A review of
fuel cell systems for maritime applications. J Power Sources
2016;327:345e64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.07.
007.
[18] Behling NH. Fuel cellsdcurrent technology challenges and
future research needs. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013.
[19] 
de-Troya JJ, Alvarez  ndez-Garrido C, Carral L.
C, Ferna
Analysing the possibilities of using fuel cells in ships. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:2853e66. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.11.145.
[20] Sattler G. PEFCs for naval ships and submarines: many tasks,
one solution. J Power Sources 1998;71:144e9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-7753(97)02717-1.
[21] Han J, Charpentier JF, Tang T. State of the art of fuel cells for
ship applications. In: 2012 IEEE international symposium on
industrial electronics (ISIE). Hangzhou: IEEE Publications;
2012. p. 1456e61.
[22] Krummrich S, Tuinstra B, Kraaij G, Roes J, Olgun H. Diesel fuel
processing for fuel cellsdDESIRE. J Power Sources
2006;160:500e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.12.100.
[23] Strazza C, Del Borghi A, Costamagna P, Traverso A, Santin M.
Comparative LCA of methanol-fuelled SOFCs as auxiliary
power systems on-board ships. Appl Energy 2010;87:1670e8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.10.012.
[24] Bensaid S, Specchia S, Federici F, Saracco G, Specchia V. MCFC-
based marine APU: comparison between conventional ATR
and cracking coupled with SR investigated inside the stack
pressurized vessel. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:2026e42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.11.092.
[25] Dı́az-de-Baldasano MC, Mateos FJ, Nún ~ ez-Rivas LR, Leo TJ.
Conceptual design of offshore platform supply vessel based on
hybrid diesel generator-fuel cell power plant. Appl Energy
2014;116:91e100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.11.049.
[26] Chang D, Rhee T, Nam K, Chang K, Lee D, Jeong S. A study on
availability and safety of new propulsion systems for LNG
carriers. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2008;93:1877e85. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ress.2008.03.013.
[27] Petersen U, Würsig G, Krapp R. Design and safety
considerations for large-scale sea-borne hydrogen transport.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 1994;19:597e604. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0360-3199(94)90218-6.
[28] Abe A, Nakamura M, Sato I, Uetani H, Fujitani T. Studies of
the large-scale sea transportation of liquid hydrogen. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 1998;23:115e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0360-3199(97)00032-3.
[29] Gretz J, Baselt P, Ulimann O, Wendt H. The 100 MW Euro-
Quebec hydro-hydrogen pilot project. Int J Hydrogen Energy
1990;15:419e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3199(90)90199-9.
[30] Gretz J, Drolet B, Kluyskens D, Sandmann F, Ulimann O.
Status of the hydro-hydrogen pilot project (EQHHPP). Int J
Hydrogen Energy 1994;19:169e74. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0360-3199(94)90123-6.
12 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3
[31] Morita H, Komoda M, Mugikura Y, Izaki Y, Watanabe T,
Masuda Y, et al. Performance analysis of molten carbonate
fuel cell using a Li/Na electrolyte. J Power Sources
2002;112:509e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(02)
00468-8.
[32] Kreuer KD. Fuel cells: selected entries from the encyclopedia
of sustainability. Sci Technol. New York, NY: Springer; 2012.
[33] Tomczyk P. MCFC versus other fuel cellsdcharacteristics,
technologies and prospects. J Power Sources 2006;160:858e62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.04.071.
[34] Mun ~ oz de Escalona JM, Sa nchez D, Chacartegui R, Sa
 nchez T.
A step-by-step methodology to construct a model of
performance of molten carbonate fuel cells with internal
reforming. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:15739e51. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.08.094.
[35] Kim YJ, Lee MC. Comparison of thermal performances of
external and internal reforming molten carbonate fuel cells
using numerical analyses. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:3510e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.10.165.
[36] Lee C-G, Ahn K-S, Lim H-C, Oh J-M. Effect of carbon
monoxide addition to the anode of a molten carbonate fuel
cell. J Power Sources 2004;125:166e71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2003.07.014.
[37] Bischoff M. Molten carbonate fuel cells: a high temperature fuel
cell on the edge to commercialization. J Power Sources
2006;160:842e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.04.118.
[38] Grillo O, Magistri L, Massardo AF. Hybrid systems for
distributed power generation based on pressurisation and
heat recovering of an existing 100 kW molten carbonate fuel
cell. J Power Sources 2003;115:252e67. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00730-9.
[39] Liu A, Weng Y. Performance analysis of a pressurized molten
carbonate fuel cell/micro-gas turbine hybrid system. J Power
Sources 2010;195:204e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2009.07.024.
[40] Yoshiba F. Kawagoe 300 kW class MCFC/TCG compact
system: thermal efficiency and endurance test results. J Fuel
Cell Sci Technol 2008;5:021010e1. https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.2784281.
[41] Lunghi P, Bove R, Desideri U. Analysis and optimization of
hybrid MCFC gas turbines plants. J Power Sources
2003;118:108e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(03)
00068-5.
[42] Chen Q, Weng Y, Zhu X, Weng S. Design and partial load
performance of a hybrid system based on a molten
carbonate fuel cell and a gas turbine. Fuel Cell 2006;6:460e5.
https://doi.org/10.1002/fuce.200500228.
[43] Oh KS, Kim TS. Performance analysis on various system layouts
for the combination of an ambient pressure molten carbonate
fuel cell and a gas turbine. J Power Sources 2006;158:455e63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.09.032.
[44] Aminyavari M, Mamaghani AH, Shirazi A, Najafi B, Rinaldi F.
Exergetic, economic, and environmental evaluations and
multi-objective optimization of an internal-reforming SOFC-
gas turbine cycle coupled with a Rankine cycle. Appl Therm Eng
2016;108:833e46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
2016.07.180.
[45] Nami H, Akrami E, Ranjbar F. Hydrogen production using the
waste heat of Benchmark pressurized Molten carbonate fuel
cell system via combination of organic Rankine cycle and
proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis. Appl Therm
Eng 2017;114:631e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
2016.12.018.
[46] Kontogeorgis GM, Folas GK. Thermodynamic models for
industrial applications: from classical and advanced mixing
rules to association theories. Chichester: Wiley; 2010.
[47] Goicoechea S, Ehrich H, Arias PL, Kockmann N.
Thermodynamic analysis of acetic acid steam reforming for
Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015
hydrogen production. J Power Sources 2015;279:312e22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.01.012.
[48] Walluk MR, Lin J, Waller MG, Smith DF, Trabold TA. Diesel auto-
thermal reforming for solid oxide fuel cell systems: anode off-
gas recycle simulation. Appl Energy 2014;130:94e102. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.064.
[49] Kim S-K, Choi H-S, Kim Y. Thermodynamic modeling based
on a generalized cubic equation of state for kerosene/LOx
rocket combustion. Combust Flame 2012;159:1351e65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2011.10.008.
[50] Cismondi M, Mollerup J. Development and application of a
three-parameter RKePR equation of state. Fluid Phase Equil
2005;232:74e89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2005.03.020.
[51] Jensen JE, Tuttle WA, Stewart RB, Brechna H, Prodell AG.
Section I-IX. Brookhaven national laboratory selected
cryogenic data notebook, vol. I. United States Department of
Energy; 1980. https://www.bnl.gov/magnets/staff/gupta/
cryogenic-data-handbook/coverpage.pdf. [Accessed 25 July
2017].
[52] Kim H, Bae J, Choi D. An analysis for a molten carbonate fuel
cell of complex geometry using three-dimensional transport
equations with electrochemical reactions. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2013;38:4782e91. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2013.01.061.
[53] Koh J-H, Kang BS, Lim HC. Analysis of temperature and
pressure fields in molten carbonate fuel cell stacks. AIChE J
2001;47:1941e56.
[54] Mamaghani AH, Najafi B, Shirazi A, Rinaldi F. Exergetic,
economic, and environmental evaluations and multi-
objective optimization of a combined molten carbonate fuel
cell-gas turbine system. Appl Therm Eng 2015;77:1e11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.12.016.
[55] Sciacovelli A, Verda V. Sensitivity analysis applied to the
multi-objective optimization of a MCFC hybrid plant. Energy
Convers Manag 2012;60:180e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2012.02.011.
[56] Arsalis A. Thermoeconomic modeling and parametric study
of hybrid SOFCegas turbineesteam turbine power plants
ranging from 1.5 to 10MWe. J Power Sources 2008;181:313e26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.11.104.
[57] Mehmeti A, Santoni F, Della Pietra MD, McPhail SJ. Life cycle
assessment of molten carbonate fuel cells: state of the art and
strategies for the future. J Power Sources 2016;308:97e108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.12.023.
[58] Huppes G, Ishikawa M. Eco-efficiency and its xs terminology.
J Ind Ecol 2005;9:43e6. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819805775
247891.
[59] United Nations, ESCAP. Eco-efficiency indicators: measuring
resource-use efficiency and the impact of economic activities
on the environment. 2009. https://sustainabledevelopment.
un.org/content/documents/785eco.pdf. [Accessed 11 August
2017].
[60] Ozaki Y, Larkin J, Baker C, Tikka K, Michel K. An evaluation of
the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) baseline for
tankers, containerships, and LNG carriers. Technical report.
ABS/Herbert Engineering; 2010.
[61] International Maritime Organization. Report of the marine
environment protection committee on its sixty-sixth
session. IMO doc; 2014.
[62] Rizk NK, Mongia HC. Semianalytical correlations for NOx,
CO, and UHC emissions. J Eng Gas Turbines Power
1993;115:612e9. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2906750.
[63] Ghezel-Ayagh H, McInerney J, Venkataraman R, Farooque M,
Sanderson R. Development of direct carbonate fuel cell
systems for achieving ultrahigh efficiency. J Fuel Cell Sci
Technol 2011;8, 031011. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4002905.
[64] Lukas MD, Lee KY, Ghezel-Ayagh H. Modeling and cycling
control of carbonate fuel cell power plants. Contr Eng Pract
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 3 13

2002;10:197e206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0661(01)
00110-1.
[65] Lee C-G. Analysis of impedance in a molten carbonate fuel
cell. J Electroanal Chem 2016;776:162e9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jelechem.2016.07.005.
[66] Lee C-G. Effect of temperature on the cathodic overpotential in
a molten carbonate fuel cell. J Electroanal Chem
2013;701:36e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2013.04.025.
[67] KR. Briefings of IMO meeting MEPC 71 (03-07 July 2017).
Korean Register of Shipping; 10th July 2017.
[68] Winnes H, Fridell E, Yaramenka K, Nelissen D, Faber J,
Ahdour S. NOX controls for shipping in EU seas. IVL Swedish
Environmental Research Institute; 2015. https://www.
transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2016_
Consultant_report_shipping_NOx_abatement.pdf. [Accessed
8 October 2017].

Please cite this article in press as: Ahn J, et al., Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)-based hybrid propulsion systems for a liquefied
hydrogen tanker, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.015