See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342702869

Decision tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices

Research Proposal · July 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19252.88966

CITATIONS READS

0 770

1 author:

Frank Jordan
Comenius University Bratislava
16 PUBLICATIONS   99 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hydrogen Energy cycles View project

AI supported predictive maintenance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Frank Jordan on 05 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Decision tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices

Jordan, Frank, [Lecturer] PhD.-Student at Comenius University,

(Faculty of Management, Bratislava)

Abstract
Many inventions are not commercially successful because they do not meet market requirements.
Engineers who are experts in their field design them, but they do not know the market requirements of
the customers.
The following article demonstrates how a hydrogen energy cycle device can be successfully designed
to meet market requirements. These requirements can be obtained by analysing the bulk of customer
data and known facts. Masses of data will be evaluated. Statistical methods will be used to find a design
that potentially can be successful in the market.
With clearly explained decision trees, substantiated and backed up by statistical data a potentially
successful configuration was found.
This article demonstrates that alternative energy design needs are different from the classic grid
supported power solutions.
It should be demonstrated how slim and flexible design can be, to avoid individual customization and
permanent reengineering.

Key Words:
Decision tree, customer benefit, statistical, method, solution findings, Monte Carlo,
standard design, optimization.

Content list

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2
Hydrogen Energy cycle system .................................................................................................. 3
Problem solving procedure......................................................................................................... 5
Customer needs .......................................................................................................................... 6
Custom behaviour model ........................................................................................................... 9
Monte Carlo Simulation ........................................................................................................... 16
Battery Sizing ........................................................................................................................... 21
Fuel Cell ................................................................................................................................... 22
Power to gas ............................................................................................................................. 24
Tank sizing ............................................................................................................................... 25
Final Arrangement .................................................................................................................... 26
Decision Process ...................................................................................................................... 27
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 28
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 29
Bibliography/ References: ........................................................................................................ 30

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 1

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Introduction
Since almost 60 years numerous mathematical models of fuel cells and batteries
have been reported, showing powerful capabilities for in silico studies for a large
diversity of mechanisms and processes.[8] But why are no commercially available
products available or still in the prototype stage?
The following article will introduce a hydrogen energy cycle device that is capable to
produce hydrogen from distilled water and utilizes the produced hydrogen to produce
electrical energy on demand.
The device to be investigated is called Blue Hamster, which is a German English
combination. In the following study, it is called ‘the system’ or ‘the device’. Blue is the
colour of hydrogen bottles and hamster is for the capability of harvesting food
(energy) in the winter.
It was developed by the Mossau Company at the beginning of the year 2000 and it
was well ahead of time. Unfortunately, the system was not successfully marketed and
due to the age of the owner and the lack of interest of the successor of the company,
the core development team was diverted into other industries. With the lack of vision,
competence and funding the system felt into oblivion.
The complete system was designed for home use and small industrial applications.
However, it was built only as a proof of concept model without back up of market
demands and strategies.
The initial source of energy is not considered in this article. Hydrogen is an energy
carrier, which is only useful for long-term energy storage. The production of hydrogen
is quite energy intensive and by each conversion of hydrogen to energy there is a
loss.
As commonly known the public grid system becomes more and more unstable due to
the exponentially increasing numbers of energy producers. [11] Therefore, the
alternative energy production can hardly expand because suitable long-time energy
storage systems are not available in the market, yet. Especially in Germany, you can
see clearly that there are limits to the generation of wind and solar energy. E.g.,
Windmills are running only for few hours a day and the other time the windmills are
standing idle.
As long as there are no consumers available for the abandon energy the windmills
can never run continuously, which is a total waste of resources and government
subsidies and funding.
What is needed is a system that can utilize the abandon energy in low power demand
time when it is cheap and give the energy back at peak power time or at customers
demand. If it is widely installed, it is capable to even out the countrywide power
demand and it would make the grid system more reliable with more and more
alternative energy generation.
The system should be mass-produced, and it should fit into the budget of a family or
small business unit.
December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 2
Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

The main intention was to make houses or companies completely independent from
grid use, which means fully autonomous and ideally at affordable costs. However, the
system can be more profitable if it is still connected to the grid and can take part in
energy trading.
The following study should find out what would be a suitable size and arrangement,
which could cover private habitats from 2 up to 18 persons.
The study is based on market research, statistic models and basic calculations
related to off the shelf equipment. Therefore, the readers should not be overwhelmed
by the amount of numbers and charts. The study takes only results developed by an
engineering company into consideration and builds up the decision on the result.
The main purpose is to find a model, using management methods and decision trees,
which can be verified and are understandable to non-technical persons. In the end,
we need a robust configuration, which would fit the market requirement.
The study always shows ways how to define systems, which could be used for other
alternative energy devices, too. Consequently, the study is not limited to the Blue
Hamster.
The number of charts is necessary for the decision-making process and the logic
behind is always driven by common sense or physical requirements. Further studies
need to be conducted to develop a business model and a holistic concept, which will
be a commercial success.

Hydrogen Energy cycle system

The current device is fitted in a 600*600*2000 mm cabinet and can be installed in a

dry place such as a house or garage or cellar or heated shelter.
It consists of:
1. Lithium-Ion Battery Pack 48 V DC
2. Master module or Control System
3. Frequency converter (convert 48V DC to 230V AC)
4. Fuel cell to convert hydrogen into DC and charge the 48V battery pack
5. Electrolyser to generate hydrogen
6. Water tank for 1-month operation.
It should be considered the pictures only represents the proof of concept model and
not a fully developed market solution.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 3

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Exhaust and Warning lights

Blind, potentially it can host a LIPO

battery pack

Master Module

Frequency Converter

Fuel Cell

Electrolyser

Water tank contains purified and

desalted water. Enough for 3-4 weeks of
continuous operation without refill
Outside 20 Qm Storage Tank

Fig.1: Courtesy of Mossau Company

The shown device is a fully operational device called Blue Hamster based on the idea
to harvest hydrogen in the summer with surplus energy from solar systems and wind
generators.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 4

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

The prototype is fully operational and will suit most of the client’s needs for three major
client groups, which have cheap energy sources that are not fully utilized (e.g. solar
panels, wind or water generators nearby.)

• House owner with 2-4 family members

• Mansions or larger houses where the devices can be stacked.
• Small companies for cutting peak power.

It is understood that the device is not cheap, and it will not be more cost-efficient than
a large power station.
The costs for the prototype are around 160,000 Euros installed at the customer, which
would not fit in most owner’s budget for a power supply system.

The motivation to install this kind of devices are:

• Environmentally friendly (climate change prevention)
• Utilization of abandon power, beneficial to climate change prevention
• Cutting peak power (typically, a company is rated according to their peak power
consumption. Therefore, it makes a difference if a company can cut this peak
even for a few minutes.)
• Become fully autonomous
• Unique solution for remote locations.

The proof of concept prototype has successfully demonstrated that a complete

hydrogen cycle is possible with relatively small space and standard industrial
components. Successfully combined, the boxes/components can be configured to
almost any customer demand within the range of 2-18 people needs. However, a real
market research is required to estimate what sizing would be required to meet market
requirements.

Problem solving procedure

The system has several dependencies, which influence the design. These
dependencies also influence each other and are segregated into seven individual
components. It is important to solve the dependencies to find a solution that is
acceptable to the customer.

As a rule of thumb, an electrical system needs to be overdesigned because they have

no stretchable limits like a mechanical system. However, too much overdesign will
increase the cost and it will not be beneficial to the customer. The key is to find exactly
what the demand is and go as close as possible to the limits to keep the cost down.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 5

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Batteries
Persons
Power Demand
Peak Power
DC Voltage
Power Demand
Size Quantity

Cost Habits

Inverter
Peak Power

DC Voltage

Quantity

Cost

Surplus Energy

Power Demand Blue Hamster

Master module

Fuelcell Electrolyser Hydrogentank

Size in Watts Size Size

Running time Hydrogenproduction Pressure

Hydrogen Demand Quantity Space

Cost Cost Cost

Fig.0: Influencing diagram of hydrogen energy cycle systems

First, one must find the key driver, which is the prime element that determines the size
of the design. From the direction of arrows, it is apparent that the persons module is
the prime element that influences all other components in deciding the design.

Now data need to be found to determine the needs of the persons, which can be
substantiated by intensive market research and consumer data. Once it is found the
the equation can be solved and the design can be fixed. It would be an ideal case for
the sales department if there were only one remaining question: how many persons
are in one household?

The system should be flexible enough to cover from a single household with 2-4
persons up to six Apartment blocks with 6-18 people. For small communities with more
than six Apartments, the system can be duplicated or repeated multiple times.

Customer needs
To understand customer needs we should find out the power consumption behaviour
of customers. Meanwhile, there is a large fleet of private houses, which have installed
solar systems on the top of roofs. These owners will be the prime target as customers.
Each house has a solar converter, which is feeding the house with electricity and feed
abandon energy back into the grid.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 6

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

The house can earn a substantial amount of money from feeding the grid with power.
However, the total cost of the solar system is not covered by the amount earned by
feeding the grid plus the government subsidy. In the best case, the breakeven can be
reached after 20-25 years in operation. However, after these 20-25 years of operation,
[13] the power output of the solar cells is so much degraded and guaranteed high
compensation for power generation is gone.

The owner of these systems has the dilemma that he cannot use the energy he
produces at the time he needs and for the power he is feeding the grid he is getting
<10% of the original compensation.[13] Additionally, he has to buy expensive power
from the grid when he needs power but does not have it himself. Therefore, these solar
systems installed on the tops of the roofs of many houses become more of a burden
than a benefit after the sponsored time of 20-25 years. Solar energy is still not
competitive without government subsidies.

A similar situation is with the windmill owners. The grid owner can switch the windmills
remotely off when there is low power demand. Therefore, most windmills are running
only 6-8 hours a day on average, which does not match with the business model. With
a longer running time of the windmill, the ROI would come much faster.

What is needed is to decouple the power production time with the power demand time
with a long term energy storage system. Hydrogen as a long term storable energy
carries will be a solution for decoupling the production and consumption of energy over
time.

The following graphic is visualizing the gap from demand to supply.

Fig.2. Solar energy production and home energy consumption during a day

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 7

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

As long as the energy cannot be stored or used when it is produced, it is totally wasted.
[14] The data from Fig.2 has been derived from photovoltaic solar systems that are
installed worldwide and connected over the internet to the OEM supplier. As part of the
PV solar system a frequency converter is installed which is tracking the demand of the
habitants precisely. Due to the huge fleet of solar systems installed the consumption
data are recorded, published and can be considered as a reliable source. Every
economist can understand if you cannot sell a product at the time you have it and
when you have it there is no customer, then there is no way to make money
successfully. Most grid systems are “regulated” by government or agencies and
therefore free trade is not possible.

For understanding the customer needs, we must go more in detail and obtain data
precisely reflecting the customer’s behaviour. Fortunately, these data are available in
detail from the databases of the solar power converter companies. They track each of
their products at customer sites and make the data available to the owners to justify
their investment as well as to show what amount of energy their fleet of equipment
have produced. Additionally the system tracks as well the climate conditions (sunshine
and temperature) at multiple distributed locations, which is beneficial for the weather
forecast agencies.

Fig 3.: Standardized power consumption depending on days per week.

German – English Translation
Sonntag Sunday
Samstag Saturday
Werktag Working day
keine Einschränkung No limitation (to publish)
Quelle Source of information

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 8

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

We can see clearly that the consumption of energy is varying over the day of the week.
It is understandable because we normally have a job and we are not at home during
working days, therefore the power consumption during working days is the lowest. On
Saturday, we are at home, washing clothes, vacuuming the house and cooking food
for the whole family. Therefore, the power consumption is the highest on Saturdays.
On Sunday, the focus is on cooking lunch and dinner. It is for the whole family and
therefore the cooking time is longer and more intense than on other days. Generally,
the peak power is in the evening when people are normally at home, cooking food and
watching TV.

An electric system would be ideal if the consumption would be constant. Then the
production cost would be the lowest and the grid could be stabilized best. [12]
Unfortunately, constant demand is not the reality and therefore storage devices are
needed to even out the demand.

Custom behaviour model

Process models can be used to provide an accurate representation of a reality based
on a set of key principles.[7] The recorded data from customer behaviour (fig 3) are
detailed enough to generate a formula for simulation. As we have already noticed that,
the consumption varies from Workdays, to Saturdays and Sundays because people’s
behaviour differ during the week.

Consequently, we cannot ignore it, if we want to build a realistic model that is applicable
for one year. The model needs to be considered over one year because alternative
energy resources and demand varies from summer to winter. In particular, the longer
days and sunlight / solar energy are ideal to harvest in summer and the harvested
energy can be used in the winter. As storage media, we are considering hydrogen
because it can be stored indefinitely in a tank for a certain time. Hydrogen does not
have the problem of a battery whose charge depletes over time within a month.
Therefore, batteries can be only considered as a short-term storage device. [15]

For building a model covering one week, we need three equations, for working days,
Saturdays and Sundays. We are using Excel to develop these formulas. The formulas
are used to calculate the energy demand for sizing the equipment and the possible
amount of energy that can be harvested in summertime.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 9

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Time Load workday INTEGRAL Time2 Sunday INTEGRAL3 Time3 Saturday INTEGRAL5
0 40 34.0 0 35 37.5 0 45 36.5
1 28 24.5 1 40 32.5 1 28 24.5
2 21 19.5 2 25 23.5 2 21 20.5
3 18 17.5 3 22 21.5 3 20 20.0
4 17 17.0 4 21 20.5 4 20 20.0
5 17 21.0 5 20 20.0 5 20 20.5
6 25 40.5 6 20 21.0 6 21 23.0
7 56 60.5 7 22 23.5 7 25 35.0
8 65 62.5 8 25 37.5 8 45 52.5
9 60 58.0 9 50 60.0 9 60 65.0
10 56 55.5 10 70 74.0 10 70 71.0
11 55 57.5 11 78 89.0 11 72 72.5
12 60 62.5 12 100 95.0 12 73 74.5
13 65 63.5 13 90 82.5 13 76 75.5
14 62 57.5 14 75 66.5 14 75 73.5
15 53 51.0 15 58 55.0 15 72 71.5
16 49 49.5 16 52 51.0 16 71 70.5
17 50 55.0 17 50 55.0 17 70 74.0
18 60 72.5 18 60 67.5 18 78 88.0
19 85 85.0 19 75 77.5 19 98 99.0
20 85 77.5 20 80 75.0 20 100 86.0
21 70 62.5 21 70 62.5 21 72 66.0
22 55 47.5 22 55 47.5 22 60 57.0
23 40 40.0 23 40 37.5 23 54 49.5
Load workday ∫f(x)*dx 1192 Sunday 1233 Saturday 1346
Conversion Factor in KWH rounded up 1.2 1.3 1.4
Mean 49.66666667 Mean 51.375 Mean 56.041667
Standard Error 4.08809985 Standard Error 5.0118745 Standard Error 5.1942273
Median 55 Median 51 Median 65
Mode 60 Mode 40 Mode 20
Standard Deviation 20.0275173 Standard Deviation 24.55307 Standard Deviation 25.446413
Sample Variance 401.1014493 Sample Variance 602.85326 Sample Variance 647.51993
Kurtosis -0.617668864 Kurtosis -1.071463 Kurtosis -1.134424
Skewness -0.248823979 Skewness 0.2264561 Skewness -0.220784
Range 68 Range 80 Range 79
Minimum 17 Minimum 20 Minimum 20
Maximum 85 Maximum 100 Maximum 100
Sum 1192 Sum 1233 Sum 1345
Count 24 Count 24 Count 24
Largest(1) 85 Largest(1) 100 Largest(1) 99
Smallest(1) 17 Smallest(1) 20 Smallest(1) 20
Confidence Level(95.0%) 8.456878868 Confidence Level(95.0%) 10.367852 Confidence Level(95.0%) 10.745078
Relatively load/workday 100% 103% 113%
Fig. 4: Data for power demand model

The chart (Fig 3) is standardized to 100%, which is ideal because we can enter the
total peak consumption equal to 100%. If we know the household, how many people
are inside, we can multiply it with the peak demand (equal to 100%) but our model can
only be applied if we know the number of persons in the household. The peak power
depends on the customer. (Fig 5) The prime customers are listed in the chart below in
green. Single households are normally living in apartments and therefore it will be
difficult for these households to have the facility to host a hydrogen energy device.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 10

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Persons/unit 1 2 3 4 5 House Mansion

Demand
kW/h 1500 2500 3500 4250 5250 8000 16000
+10% 1650 2750 3850 4675 5775 8800 17600
+20% 1800 3000 4200 5100 6300 9600 19200
-10% 1350 2250 3150 3825 4725 7200 14400
-20% 1200 2000 2800 3400 4200 6400 12800

Fig.5: power demand per person depending on the living conditions.

Additionally, we will consider more than just the standard case. We will consider that
the power consumption will rise by +10 and +20% due to additional demand and more
consumption at home that makes our life more convenient (e.g. Electric car). On the
other hand, we will also consider a reduction of demand based on energy saving
devices (Edison light bulb and new LED) and environmentally friendly behaviour.

Load Workday
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
y = -6E-05x6 + 0.0031x5 - 0.0471x4 + 0.0206x3 + 4.3112x2 - 21.173x + 42.628
0
R² = 0.8595
0 5 10 15 20 25

Fig.6. Power diagram for working days

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 11

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Load Saturday
120

100

80

60

40

20

y = -7E-05x6 + 0.0042x5 - 0.0901x4 + 0.72x3 - 0.1901x2 - 13.16x + 44.04

0
R² = 0.9209
0 5 10 15 20 25

Fig.7. Power diagram for Saturdays

Load Sunday
120

100

80

60

40

20

y = -0.0002x6 + 0.0136x5 - 0.3423x4 + 3.8323x3 - 17.663x2 + 23.179x + 32.347

0 R² = 0.872
0 5 10 15 20 25

Fig.8. Power diagram for Saturdays

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 12

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Average power consumption per person.

Fig.9: Average Power consumption per person in one household

As a calculation basis reviewing cost, the price of electric power in Germany from
2011 until 2018 is considered. As a basis for the cost model, 0.295 € per KWH is
considered as a solid cost model. If the price per KWH goes higher, the return of
investment will become shorter for hydrogen energy devices.

Power cost development

Fig.10: Current price in average per years

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 13

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

All the values and curves are standardized in percentage in relation to the peak
power, which depends on the persons per household, only. Therefore, we can use
the persons as a key input for the model because it is precisely known what the
average consumption of a person is. The daily consumption varies during the entire
year and varies from country to country a little bit, which we consider as D in our
model. D is as well the date of the year, which switches from workdays to Saturdays
and Sundays.

The electric power consumption varies continuously from winter to summer. It is

understandable because in summertime the people need lesser light and stay more
outside than stay at home. Heating is too not required. The model (Fig.11) can
deliver data on how much energy can be harvested in summer to generate hydrogen
and how much energy/hydrogen is needed in winter.

Fig.11 basic calculation model scheme

The selector needs some input to vary the peak power (depending on number of
persons) per day over the year.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 14

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Fig. 12 Power demand per month

From this chart, [Fig 12] we can see the customer behaviour. Power demand is
inverse to temperature. As for peak consumption, we will note that January is the
peak month, and May the lowest month of the year.

The model is built with enough accuracy to calculate the power consumption
distribute over entire year.

February 75% Power consumption over a year

March 63% 120%
April 56% 100%
May 47%
80%
June 50%
July 49% 60%
August 50% 40%
September 53%
20%
October 54% y = 0.0003x 4 - 0.0079x 3 + 0.09x 2 - 0.4601x + 1.3775
0% R² = 0.9868
November 56%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
December 69%
Fig. 13 Power consumption per month

Now we have all data for building a model base on:

• Peak power based on the customer (customer)

• Consumption over the year (date selector)
• Detailed power consumption curve per day based on the type of day
• Spread over the year [Fig.13]

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 15

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

The accuracy of the formula is quite precise, (R 2 = 0.98, 0.87, 092, 0.85) therefore,
we can assume that the customer behaviour is within the predicted trends.

However, in order to be sure that we have found the mean customer behaviour, a
sensitivity study is needed to investigate possible scenarios. The energy
consumption per household is not coordinated and completely random. A Monte
Carlo simulation can find out what would be a possible boundary and what can the
customer expect from the system.

Monte Carlo Simulation

With a Markov chain Monte-Carlo Simulation method, we are using the formulas [Fig.
6, 7, 8 and 13] to let variables run randomly. The simulator lets a theoretical
consumer switch on and off electrical devices. Each electrical device consumes
energy. [Fig 14] The sum of all energy consumption will be recorded and evaluated.
Each household has standard devices, which have almost the same power
consumption range:

Electrical device Watt/h Ontime/d kW/h Per € cost per day kwh/d kwh/a Cost per a
Computer 400 8 0.26 € 0.83 € 3.20 1168 304 €
Water heater 4000 1.2 0.26 € 1.25 € 4.80 1752 456 €
Light 200 4 0.26 € 0.21 € 0.80 292 76 €
TV 120 4 0.26 € 0.12 € 45.55 175 46 €
Dish washer 850 3 0.26 € 0.66 € 2.55 931 242 €
Cooker&Oven 4000 3 0.26 € 3.12 € 12.00 4380 1,139 €
coffee machine 1000 2 0.26 € 0.52 € 2.00 730 189 €
Air conditioning 2500 3 0.26 € 1.95 € 7.50 2738 712 €
Refrigde 35 8 0.26 € 0.07 € 0.28 102 27 €
Microwave 700 1.5 0.26 € 0.55 € 2.10 767 199 €
Vacuum cleaner 1500 1 0.26 € 0.39 € 1.50 548 142 €
HIFI 1000 2 0.26 € 0.52 € 2.00 730 190 €
Dryer 1000 2 0.26 € 0.52 € 2.00 730 190 €
Waching machine 1200 2 0.26 € 0.62 € 2.40 876 228 €
Iron 1000 1 0.26 € 0.26 € 1.00 365 95 €
Sauna 7500 0.15 0.26 € 0.29 € 1.13 411 107 €
Hair dryer 800 0.5 0.26 € 0.10 € 0.40 146 38 €
Water cattle 2000 1 0.26 € 0.52 € 2.00 730 190 €
Freezer 500 3 0.26 € 0.39 € 1.50 548 142 €
Heat pump 10000 3 0.26 € 7.80 € 30.00 10950 2,847 €
Electric Heater 500 12 0.26 € 1.56 € 6.00 2190 569 €
Toaster 1000 0.5 0.26 € 0.13 € 0.50 183 47 €
Electric Grass Cutter 1400 0.2 0.26 € 0.07 € 0.28 102 27 €
Electric Grill 1400 0.2 0.26 € 0.10 € 0.40 146 38 €
Fig. 14: Power consumption of different household devices

The heat pump will not be taken into consideration because the power consumption
is too high and it would overshoot the peak power inappropriately. The usage of

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 16

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

primary power such as gas should be preferred for environmentally friendly houses
for heating and cooking.

Fig.15: Distribution of power consumption.

The Fig 15 is taken from the homepage of the German federal grid agency, therefore
it is written in German. For better understanding, the following translation can be
used.

TV/Audio/Information Technik TV, HIFI, and IT devices

Kühlen und Gefrieren Refrigerator and freezer

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 17

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Waschen und Trocknen Washing and Drying

Kochen Cooking
Licht Illumination
Spülen Dishwasher
Sonstiges Miscellaneous
*Daten beziehen sich auf einen The data is valid for a 3-person
Dreipersonenhaushalt, household without heating with electrical
Wasseraufbereitung ohne Strom power

With the known devices per household, the utilization per day and the distribution in
average over a day, we use our Monte Carlo Model as follows:

Fig.16: Monte Carlo Simulation Model

The total sum of power is limited based on the nature of the maximum power
available in an autonomous system. To determine the max. necessary peak power
over a year, the simulation should provide data based on the distribution per category
under the consideration that the operation hours of the devices could be modified.
Under Miscellaneous are considered following loads:

Coffee machine 1000W

Toaster 1000W
Grass Cutter 1400W
Electric Grill 1400W
Water Kettle 2000W
Iron 1000W
Fig. 17: Typical main power consumers per household under miscellaneous

It gives the simulation more flexibility and the result will be more realistic to human
behaviour.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 18

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

The simulation was run for 100000 days and with an increment of a minute over a
day. The theoretical persons could switch on and off power at a random choice with
following the average distribution of Fig.15.

The collected data was averaged from minutes to one hour. The reduced data were
subject of statistical evaluation.
Electrical device Watt/h Category Prio % h Minutes Max power Value Days
Light 200 Light 1 9 2 120 5000 100000
Microwave 700 Cooking 2 11 1.5 90
Cooker&Oven 2000 Cooking 2 11 2 120 Results Mean W
Oven 2000 Cooking 2 11 2 120 Mean 4808
refrigde 35 Cooling Freezing 3 17 8 480 Standard Error 11
Freezer 500 Cooling Freezing 3 17 3 180 Median 4814
Dryer 1000 Washing/Drying 4 13 2 120 Mode 4668
Washing machine 1200 Washing/Drying 4 13 2 120 Standard Deviation 356
Hair dryer 800 cleaning 5 7 0.5 30 Sample Variance 126482
Dish waher 850 cleaning 5 7 3 180 Kurtosis 1
Vacuum cleaner 1500 cleaning 5 7 1 60 Skewness 0
TV 120 TV/Audio/PC 6 27 4 240 Range 2884
Computer 400 TV/Audio/PC 6 27 8 480 Minimum 3050
HIFI 1000 TV/Audio/PC 6 25 2 120 Maximum 5934
Coffee machine 1000 Misc 7 16 2 120 Sum 4692449
Iron 1000 Misc 7 16 1 60 Count 976
Toaster 1000 Misc 7 16 0.5 30 Largest(1) 5934
Electric Grass Cutter 1400 MIsc 7 16 0.2 12 Smallest(1) 3050
Electric Grill 1400 MIsc 7 16 0.2 12 Confidence Level(95.0%) 22
water cattle 2000 Misc 7 16 1 60

Monte Carlo Simulation

Day Cat1% Cat2% Cat3% Cat4% Cat5% Cat6% Cat7% Peak W up to device Mean W
1 2 173 14 50 69 22 32 6085 11 5082
2 3 177 12 44 78 31 46 5820 16 5162
3 3 180 15 48 74 30 34 5700 7 4926
4 2 176 12 45 79 28 41 5920 17 5291
5 3 183 14 55 78 30 40 5435 18 4422
6 3 180 12 50 70 30 47 5700 9 4850
7 3 189 15 49 91 36 40 5385 11 4284
8 2 198 17 49 87 31 37 5335 17 4584
9 3 201 15 60 89 31 46 5000 9 4170
10 2 172 13 54 70 28 54 5820 15 5304
11 3 189 13 56 86 32 48 5385 14 4748
Fig.18: Monte Carlo Simulation result over 100000 days

With the obtained data, a suitable power inverter can be selected that can feed the
load. Off the shelf, standard power inverter should be selected because of cost and
reliability. According to the simulation, the mean value is 4808W, with a Maximum at
5934W.

A 5000W rate frequency converter would have the capability to provide enough
power to cover this demand. (Fig.19) The next smaller converter with 3000W would
not be suitable because it cannot cover the required range (3050 to 5934 Watt). It
would give too many restrictions to daily life, which would decrease the acceptance
level.

The following charts show two converters from different companies. (Fig.20, 21)
Both companies have a suitable type available. (5000W). It can be seen for the
available power range and higher, both companies are using 48V as Battery power.
Consequently, the buffer battery size is chosen too. (48V is equal to 4 car batteries in
series)

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 19

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Fig.19. Standard Solar Power Inverter Victron

German -English Translation
Phoenix Wechselrichter Phoenix Inverter
Parallel und 3 Phasen Betrieb Parallel and 3 phase operation
Bereich Eingangsspannung Input voltage range
Ausgang Output
Ausgangsdauerleistung Permanent output power (depending on
ambient temperature)
Frequenz frequency

Leistung P30 / Batteriespannung Transferstrom Ladestrom

Inverter
Pnom [VA] Unom [V] Imax [A] Imax [A]
XTH 5000-
5000 / 4500 48 50 80
48
XTH 6000-
6000 / 5000 48 50 100
48
XTH 8000-
8000 / 7000 48 50 120
48
Fig. 20: Standard Solar Power Inverter Struder
German – English translation
Inverter Inverter (power inverter)
Leistung Electrical power (Voltage * Current)
Batteriespannung Battery voltage
Transferstrom Transfer current
Ladestrom Battery Charging current

With the availability off the shelf inverters, it is possible to combine them in parallel.
The parallel configuration gives the flexibility to match the power demand

Possible Inverter Combinations The pairing of inverters is required

Inverter for Fig. 22 to propose which
Power 3000 5000 8000 10000 inverter combination would be
0 3000 5000 8000 10000 suitable to the household/number
3000 6000 8000 11000 13000 of persons.
5000 8000 10000 13000 15000
8000 11000 13000 16000 18000
10000 13000 15000 18000 20000
Fig. 21: Standard Solar Power Inverter combinations

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 20

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Fig. 22: Peak Power consumption per person

Conclusion:

With two inverters, we can cover from a single couple house up to a household with
16 people or 8 living units (of two persons). The inverter split has as well a positive
side effect. Two inverters can work as redundancy and enable an energy source
sizing.

Battery Sizing
The batteries in the system are required to cover the instant demand of the inverter.
The response time of the fuel cell is not as fast as a battery. As a backup for the fuel
cell, one day full back up is considered for the battery. The battery sizing considers
that the battery will not discharge below 40% most of the time (working days), which
will help for a longer lifetime of the batteries. On Saturdays and Sundays, we allow
the batteries to be discharged lower, otherwise the battery size and the cost will
significantly increase. (See influential diagram Fig.0)

As we have seen from the Monte Carlo simulation, the full demand happens
infrequently. With energy awareness from the customer and behaviour change, the
discharge can be kept under control during the week.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 21

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Energy Storage Sizing for 48 Voltage Batterie Discharge 40%

Workday Sonnday Saturday
Load integral over one day ∫f(x)*dx 1192 size 1233 1346 total energy demand
Conversion Factor in KWH W=>KWH 1.2 Batterie 1.3 1.4 per year
Inverter Size in Watt KW/h/d A/h A/h KW/h/d A/h Discharge KW/h/d A/h Discharge Watts/h/a KWH/a
3000 3600 75 125 3900 82 35% 4200 88 30% 1360800 1361
5000 6000 125 209 6500 136 35% 7000 146 31% 2268000 2268
6000 7200 150 250 7800 163 35% 8400 175 30% 2721600 2722
8000 9600 200 334 10400 217 36% 11200 234 30% 3628800 3629
10000 12000 250 417 13000 271 36% 14000 292 30% 4536000 4536
11000 13200 275 459 14300 298 36% 15400 321 31% 4989600 4990
13000 15600 325 542 16900 353 35% 18200 380 30% 5896800 5897
15000 18000 375 625 19500 407 35% 21000 438 30% 6804000 6804
20000 24000 500 834 26000 542 36% 28000 584 30% 9072000 9072

Fig 23. Battery Sizing and total power consumption per day, month and year

The energy demand per year will be used for sizing the fuel cell and the hydrogen
tank. Meanwhile, Lithium batteries are commonly available and in an affordable
range. Based on the power requirements in Fig 23. Green column following battery
configurations will be considered.

Lipo Battery Selected

Price per
kwh Selected piece
4800 1*4800- $2,258.00
7000 1*7000 $3,438.00
9600 1*9600 $4,276.00
10500 1*10500 $5,157.00
14000 1*14000 $7,054.00
17500 1*17500 $8,595.00
19200 2*9600 $8,552.00
21000 2*10500 $10,314.00
28000 2*14000 $14,108.00
Fig. 24 Cost for LiPo Battery pack industrial type

The selected batteries packs are fit into a 19” rack and therefore ideal for the blue
hamster design. (see fig.31)

Fuel Cell
The fuel cell converts the energy back from hydrogen to electricity. Therefore, we can
consider the fuel cell as an electrical generator that produces the energy to charge
the batteries. The fuel cell can work discontinuously which will be triggered to start if
the batteries charge is at 40% level and no cheap energy source is available from the
grid or PV system.

To define the size or the fuel cell we can solve the integral of Fig. 6, 7 and 8 and
obtain a number, which is the area under the curve. We need to know the workload
(kWh) that we need to provide.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 22

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Load workday ∫f(x)*dx 1192 Sonnday 1233 Saturday 1346

Conversion Factor in KWH rounded up 1.2 1.3 1.4
Mean 49.666667 Mean 51.375 Mean 56.04167
Standard Error 4.0880999 Standard Error 5.011874 Standard Error 5.194227
Median 55 Median 51 Median 65

Monday 55 BZ Cost Shandon Cantian Jan2019

Tuesday 55 Watt Euros Euro/Watt
Wednessday 55 1000 5,000 € 5.00 €
Thursday 55 3000 10,000 € 3.33 €
Friday 55 5000 12,000 € 2.40 €
Saturday 51 10000 22,000 € 2.20 €
Sunday 65
Mean 56 min Size of the Fuelcell
Fig. 25 Determination of the fuel cell size in relation to the peak power, price per fuel
cell per Watt

We can now try to match the power requirement with a combination of fuel cells with
different power outputs.

Option 1 two fuel cells

Fuell cell size selected Configuration oversized Spare Capacity Total cost
Inverter Size in Watt 56% 58% 60% A B Sum Min. Max %
3000 1680 1740 1800 1000 1000 2000 320 200 16.00% 10,000.00 €
5000 2800 2900 3000 3000 3000 200 0 6.67% 10,000.00 €
6000 3360 3480 3600 3000 1000 4000 640 400 16.00% 15,000.00 €
8000 4480 4640 4800 5000 5000 520 200 10.40% 12,000.00 €
10000 5600 5800 6000 3000 3000 6000 400 0 6.67% 20,000.00 €
11000 6160 6380 6600 5000 3000 8000 1840 1400 23.00% 22,000.00 €
13000 7280 7540 7800 5000 3000 8000 720 200 9.00% 22,000.00 €
15000 8400 8700 9000 10000 10000 1600 1000 16.00% 22,000.00 €
20000 11200 11600 12000 10000 3000 13000 1800 1000 13.85% 30,000.00 €
Fig. 26 Dual channel configuration or fuel cell and cost estimate

Yellow: More hydrogen can be produced than needed and configuration can
potentially reduce the size of channel B.

Red: The spare capacity can be used to reduce the size of the battery. Additional
engineering is required to suit customer requirements if cost is a concern.

Alternatively, we can consider the price of a fuel cell and check if a single fuel cell is a
better option.

Option 2 one fuel cell

Fuell cell size selected Configuration oversized Spare Capacity Total Cost
Inverter Size in Watt 56% 58% 60% A B Sum Min. Max %
3000 1680 1740 1800 3000 3000 1320 1200 44.00% 10,000.00 €
5000 2800 2900 3000 3000 3000 200 0 6.67% 10,000.00 €
6000 3360 3480 3600 5000 5000 1640 1400 32.80% 12,000.00 €
8000 4480 4640 4800 5000 5000 520 200 10.40% 12,000.00 €
10000 5600 5800 6000 10000 10000 4400 4000 44.00% 22,000.00 €
11000 6160 6380 6600 10000 10000 3840 3400 38.40% 22,000.00 €
13000 7280 7540 7800 10000 10000 2720 2200 27.20% 22,000.00 €
15000 8400 8700 9000 10000 10000 1600 1000 16.00% 22,000.00 €
20000 11200 11600 12000 10000 10000 -1200 -2000 -12.00% 22,000.00 €
Fig. 27 Mono channel configuration or fuel cell and cost estimate

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 23

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Light green: one fuel cell configuration with 5000W or 10000W size

Green: based on cost, a single fuel cell configuration is beneficial

Yellow: based on customer requirements the selected 10000W can potentially be

downgraded to 5000W.

Red: the fuel cell cannot provide the peak demand in the wintertime. Additional
engineers or larger battery sizes will be required.

As we can see clearly, the option 2 with one fuel cell beats the option 1 with a parallel
configuration in all size cases except in the 20000 W case. In this case, additional
engineering is required to close the gap of the undersupply of 17%. The possible
solution is to back up the batteries by a larger battery pack or a large PV solar array
or windmill generator of more power from the grid.

Alternatively, the customer power consumption can be interlocked, e.g. if the storage
is lower the estimated power demand for essential electrical devices then
unnecessary wastage of energy can be blocked by a control system. (Smart homes)
If people want to live a green life, the awareness of depleting resources and the
careful utilization of power should be accepted.

Power to gas
We have found a method to estimate a power demand for a home. Now we
investigate what will be the proper size of a hydrogen generator suitable for the
power demand.

As a hydrogen generator, we are considering PEM electrolyser because they can

generate hydrogen with pressure up to 30 bar and they do not need any additional
compressors. The hydrogen is used as a long term energy carrier stored indefinitely
in tanks. We can produce hydrogen in the summer and release it in the winter.

demand Electrolyser
Household Fuelcell Configuration 1.2
Inverter Size in Watt Persons 56% 40% A B C D Surples W Surplus Wh
3000 2 1680 4200 5000 800 960
5000 4 2800 7000 5000 3000 1000 1200
7000 5000 5000 3000 3600
6000 5 3360 8400 5000 5000 1600 1920
8000 6 4480 11200 5000 5000 3000 1800 2160
11200 5000 5000 5000 3800 4560
10000 8 5600 14000 5000 5000 5000 1000 1200
11000 9 6160 15400 5000 5000 5000 1000 600 720
15400 5000 5000 5000 5000 4600 5520
13000 11 7280 18200 5000 5000 5000 5000 1800 2160
15000 12 8400 21000 5000 5000 5000 5000 -1000 -1200
20000 18 11200 28000 5000 5000 5000 5000 -8000 -9600
Fig.28 Quad configuration of an electrolyser

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 24

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Orange: Electrolyser sizes for 3000W and 1000W should be avoided, if commercially
beneficial. It would simplify the production process, spare part handling,
maintenance, and service cost if only one type of electrolyser is produced.

Red: For households up to 12 persons we have the same issue as we have with fuel
cell. We will have an undersupply of hydrogen, which will affect the power availability
during the wintertime.

The electrolyser is quite costly. The size has a direct impact on the cost. In contrast
to a fuel cell, an electrolyser does not have a significant reduction in cost for a larger
size. Additionally, there are only three sizes available, which would fit into a 19” rack
design.

To cover all possible design scenarios we need to take the largest electrolyser and
stack it into multiple channels A, B, C, and D with 5000W. Depending on the supplier
agreement, it might be possible to get a better price if bigger quantities of one type is
ordered, only.

In this case, we need to have an additional supply of hydrogen, which can be a

standalone system or a hydrogen bottle battery as back up. Additionally, engineering
is required to design an optimal customer solution.

Multiple electrolysis stacks are beneficial in comparison to one single electrolyser.

They are maintenance intensive and need to be regularly repaired. They need
maintenance like any other chemical plant. In case of maintenance, the drawer to be
repaired can be taken out and another electrolyser can take over the production of
hydrogen.

Tank sizing
The sizing of the hydrogen tank depends on the amount of hydrogen, which can be
accumulated for 6 months. In the storage cycle, it is considered that in summertime,
the hydrogen will be stored and in wintertime, it will be used.
Tank Sizing For 6H A day
Electrolyseur configuration Efficiency 75%
nominal
H2 yearly Running Running
Electrilys Produktio productio Energy time per time per Tank size Tank Size
Persons KWH/a er Watt n m3/h Surplus n Qm content day year /h Tank size 30bar 300bar 700 bar
2 1360.8 5000 1.1 960 462.528 1387.584 6 2190 8 1 0.40
4 2268 10000 2.2 1200 578.16 1734.48 6 2190 10 1 0.50
5 2722 10000 2.2 1920 925.056 2775.168 6 2190 15 2 0.70
6 3629 15000 3.3 2160 1040.688 3122.064 6 2190 17 2 0.80
8 4536 15000 3.3 1200 578.16 1734.48 6 2190 10 1 0.50
9 4990 20000 4.4 5520 2659.536 7978.608 6 2190 44 4 1.90

Fig.29 Sizing of hydrogen pressure tanks

The maximum tank storage pressure makes a big difference in the size of the
hydrogen tank. Three pressure ratings have been considered 30 bar, 300 bar and
700 bar, which are common in the industry. The tank size is calculated based on the

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 25

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

running hours of the electrolyser and the production rate. (Running time *hour rate
(QM)* 6 months / pressure= tank size (QM))

A general recommendation cannot be given for the selection of the tank size because
it totally depends on the location and preference of the customer. If there is space, a
lower pressure tank (max. 30 bar) is recommended because the electrolyser can
produce directly the max. Storage pressure of 30 bar. Therefore, no extra hydrogen
compressor is needed, which saves energy that can be used for producing more
hydrogen.

In the case of space being a concern, higher pressure is the only option of choice.
Higher compressed hydrogen reduces the required space/volume significantly
because the pressure is in the denominator of the equation. However, the higher
pressure comes with a price that a compressor is needed, which is very costly and
consumes energy that cannot be recovered from the process. If possible, a
compressor should be avoided.

Final Arrangement
The final arrangement will be suitable for households from 2 to 18 people. Based on
standard components and technical requirement determined by customer’s demand
the final arrangement of the system can be demonstrated as follows:

Final Configuration Inverter Fuel Cell Elektrolyzer Batterie Water Tank Hydrogentank
Size Channel A B C D LIPO 30bar 300bar 700bar
Persons Watt A B Watts Watts Watts Watts Watts KW/h Liters qm qm qm
2 3000 3000 3000 5000 4800 internal 20L 30 3 1
4 5000 5000 3000 5000 5000 7000 internal 20L 40 4 2
5 6000 3000 3000 5000 5000 5000 9600 external 100L 60 6 3
6 8000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 10500 external 100L 80 8 4
8 10000 5000 5000 10000 5000 5000 5000 14000 external 100L 80 10 5
9 11000 6500 6500 10000 5000 5000 5000 17500 external 100L 100 11 5
11 13000 6500 6500 10000 5000 5000 5000 5000 19200 external 200l 120 12 7
12 16000 8000 8000 10000 5000 5000 5000 5000 21000 external 200l 140 14 7
18 20000 10000 10000 10000 5000 5000 5000 5000 28000 external 200l 160 16 10

Fig.: 30 Final Configuration of master model and Blue Hamster

Orange: For 12 to 18 people households, the design should be verified again to fit
the customer demands. E.g. with the current set up the hydrogen generation will not
be enough, and external hydrogen generators must be added to suit the demand. In
the design of the master module, it has to be considered to control external hydrogen
producers. It can be realized by a bus connection or a hardwired signal for requesting
more hydrogen.

Yellow: The design is at the limit and additional engineering will be required. E.g., the
battery pack should be redundant and combinations of larger battery sizes could
compensate for the lack of hydrogen production.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 26

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Decision Process
With Fig 30, we have found a design configuration, which is matching the customer
demands. Now for the sales team, it is very easy to select a design that should meet
customer needs.

How
many
persons?

Space Standard
<12 yes constrains no
Design

no
Split the
project in yes <18
two parts

no
yes
Additional
Engineering

no

Implement
Do able? yes additional measures

For up to 11 people per household, it can be considered as a standard product, which

does not need any customization.

From 12 -18 people, it has to be investigated:

• can power be restrained by power control (Smart homes)
• more efficient electrical devices (LED lights) installed
• convert to another energy source (cooking with gas instead of electric oven)

For existing buildings, it might not be possible. Then an external source of hydrogen
which can supplement the electrolyser constrains has to be found.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 27

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Possible options for engineering are:

• add an industrial battery as standby

• add an external electrolyser or
• the system can be split into two parts

The decision process is clear and does not leave any ambiguity.

Summary
For the final design of the Blue Hamster, a configuration was found which suits
customer’s condition for a 2 to 11 person building with off the shelf products. The
design can be utilized with additional engineering and additional components up to 18
persons per building. However, from 12 to 18 persons per building more refined design
will be needed to suit customer requirements, mainly to find a cost-optimized solution.
The cost of additional engineering can be absorbed by larger projects.

However, this is not a showstopper for the selected design because buildings with 12
to 18 persons are rare and exist mainly in big cities. It can be expected that big cities
have additional requirements for size and regulations. E.g., the selection of storage
tank will be a challenge because it depends mainly on space available and local
regulatory requirements, which is unique at every location.

The following figure should depict what is the outcome of the decision tree based on
available data.

Fig. 31 Overall arrangement

The size of each equipment can be found in Fig.30 as a variable of persons.

The shown energy cycle has substantial losses, which are generating heat. If the
system is installed within the house, it can contribute to the heating system as well.
December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 28
Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Conclusion
The design proposal is suitable to cover most of the customer's needs in Germany and
potentially in Europe. (2-18 persons). It is capable to even out the unstable grid power
demand and therefore it is a big plus if countries with unstable grid situations could
introduce this device more and more.

The concept is already proofed therefore we limited the study only on the arrangement
of components and their sizing. It was demonstrated that with off the shelf products
most of the customer needs could be met. A cost reduction can be expected in mass
production. Now the Master Module needs to be redesigned to manage the
configurations found. [Fig30]

In general, it is stated that this system is the solution to enable further expansion of the
alternative energy industry. The dilemma of alternative energy not having a storage
capacity is solved, too. Because if this system is installed in mass quantities and
decentralized at the final user, it creates so much storage that windmills, solar farms,
and bio plants have always enough storage capacity to enable them to run in steady
state. It makes the entire alternative energy industry more profitable and competitive.

The system might be expensive, but it avoids the need for a complete upgrade of the
German power grid system to suit electromobility and expansion for alternative energy
production. It provides hydrogen for cars as well if communities group together and
select a higher pressure of hydrogen tank (300-700bar).

The system has the potential to make an entire society completely free from toxic
pollutants, create more independence from grid power and free from the domination of
conglomerates. On the other hand, it will help grid owners to stabilize the grid of
communities. Small companies can have a better price for the power supply because
stable, predictive power is cheaper than unexpected power demand. [14, 15]

The study will give clear guidance for the designers to develop this system further.
It is now time for the engineers to make it market competitive and ready for the market.

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 29

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Bibliography/ References:

1. Antonio Scipioni, Alessandro Manzardo Jingzheng Ren "Hydrogen Economy", Supply

Chain, Life Cycle Analysis and Energy Transition for Sustainability, Elsevier,
ISBN: 978-0-12-811132-1
2. A. Dillon , The Hydrogen Cycle Generation, Storage and Fuel Cells, Materials
Research Society (15. Januar 2006)
ISBN-10: 155899839X
3. James Maclave,Terry Sincich, Statistics, 13 Edition,Pearson,
4. ISBN 10: 0-13-408021-1
5. Étienne Garbugli ,Lean B2B: Build Products Businesses Want, 5. März 2014
6. Jennifer. E. Rowley: Strategic Management Information Systems and Techniques,
Blackwell Pub, 1994, ISBN: 978-1855542105 Michael Guy Deighton, Facility
Integrity Management, Elsevier,
ISBN: 978-0-12-801764-7
7. Alejandro A. Franco, Physical Multiscale Modelling and Numerical Simulation of
Electrochemical Devices for Energy Conversion and Storage, Springer
ISBN 978-1-4471-5676-5
8. Hanane DadDougui ,Hydrogen Infrastructure for Energy Applications,
ISBN: 978-0-12-812036-1
9. Christian Rober & George Casella, Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, Springer 2004,
ISBN 0-387-21239-6
10. https://www.tdworld.com/digital-innovations/article/20970438/grid-stability-
challenges-and-solutions-for-todays-grid
11. https://www.energycentral.com/c/gr/how-do-we-stabilize-grid-higher-penetration-
renewables
12. Dirk C. Jordan and Sarah Kurtz, Photovoltaic Degradation Rates, NREL Journal
Article NREL/JA-5200-51664 June 2012
13. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/56277/why-is-electrical-energy-so-
difficult-to-store
14. H. Aoife M. Foley,Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier,
ISSN: 1364-0321

Figures:
Fig.0: Influencing diagram of hydrogen energy cycle systems.

Fig.1: Depiction of Blue Hamster (energy harvester) Courtesy of Mossau Company

Fig.2: Solar production and energy consumption per home

https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-self-consumption-overview

Fig.3: Standardized power consumption depending on days per week.

Source: Wikipedia, VDEW, Fronius

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 30

Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Fig.4: Data for power demand model Source: JFE LTD Germany

Fig.5: power demand per person depending on the living conditions.

https://www.stromverbrauch-haushalt.de/einfamilienhaus-energieverbrauch.htm

Fig.6: Power diagram for working days, Courtesy of JFE LTD Germany 2019

Fig.7: Power diagram for Saturdays, Courtesy of JFE LTD Germany 2019

Fig.8: Power diagram for Sundays, Courtesy of JFE LTD Germany 2019

Fig.9: Average Power consumption per person in one household

https://www.energieheld.de/blog/energieverbrauch-eines-
wohnhauses/#Stromverbrauch

Fig.10: Current price in average per year

https://www.energieheld.de/blog/energieverbrauch-eines-
wohnhauses/#Stromverbrauch

Fig.11: basic calculation model scheme, Courtesy of JFE LTD Germany 2019

Fig.12: Power demand per month https://www.teslaownersalberta.com

Fig.13: Power consumption per month, Courtesy of JFE LTD Germany 2019

Fig.14: Power consumption of different household devices, Courtesy of JFE LTD

Germany 2019

Fig.15: Distribution of power consumption. German Federal Grid Agency

Fig.16: Monte Carlo Simulation Model, Courtesy of JFE LTD Germany 2019

Fig.17: Typical Main Power consumer per household, Courtesy of JFE LTD Germany
2019

Fig.18: Monte Carlo Simulation result over 100000 days, Courtesy of JFE LTD
Germany 2019

Fig.19: Standard Solar Power Inverter Victron https://www.victronenergy.com

Fig.20: Standard Solar Power Inverter Struder

https://www.studer-innotec.com

Fig.21: Standard Solar Power Inverter combinations

Fig.22: Peak Power consumption per person, Courtesy of JFE LTD Germany 2019

Fig.23: Battery Sizing and total power consumption, per day, month, year

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 31

 Comenius University Faculty of Management Bratislava

Fig.24: Cost for LiPo Battery pack industrial type

https://greenakku.de/Batterien/Lithium-Batterien/48V-Lithium:::7_56_142.html

Fig.25: Determination of the fuel cell size in relation to the peak power, the price per
fuel cell per Watt, Shandon Cantian 2019

Fig.26: Dual channel configuration or fuel cell and cost estimate, Courtesy of JFE
LTD Germany 2019

Fig.27: Mono channel configuration or fuel cell and cost estimate, Courtesy of JFE
LTD Germany 2019

Fig.28: Quad configuration of the electrolyser, Courtesy of JFE LTD Germany 2019

Fig.29: Sizing of hydrogen pressure tanks, Courtesy of JFE LTD Germany 2019

Fig.30: Final Configuration of master model and Blue Hamster, Courtesy of JFE LTD
Germany 2019

Fig.31: Overall arrangement JFE LTD, Free Internet, and Mossau Company, Struder

Contact: Frank Jordan, MSC. Electrical Engineering

[Lecturer/] PhD.-student at Comenius University Bratislava

Faculty of management
Šafárikovo námestie 6,
818 06 Bratislava 1

E-mail: FJ1808@web.de

First Peer-Reviewed by
prof. RNDr. Michal Greguš, PhD.,
Dean
Faculty of Management,
Comenius University in Bratislava,
Odbojárov 10,
820 05 Bratislava 25,
Slovak Republic

Second Peer-Reviewed by
Prof. Dr. Vera Bennarova
Faculty of Management,
Comenius University in Bratislava,
Odbojárov 10,
820 05 Bratislava 25,
Slovak Republic

December 19 Decision Tree for alternative energy hydrogen devices Page 32

View publication stats