Technology Assessment

Brighter BioEnergy Partners, LLC
Alternative Electrical Power Generation Technologies

Report Date: January 9, 2008

EquityNet, LLC 866.542.3638

________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 1

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 A Perspective on U.S. Electric Power Energy Generation (since 2006) ............................. 2 Study Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 5 A Perspective on Alternative Power Generation Technologies ....................................................... 6 3.1 Impact of Energy Price Volatility and Other Factors on Technology Deployment ............ 6 Specific Issues Addressed in this Study............................................................................................ 8 Study and Analysis Methodology..................................................................................................... 9 Identification of Fuel Cell Technologies ......................................................................................... 10 Overview of Fuel Cell Technologies ............................................................................................... 11 7.1 Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell ................................................................................................... 12 Identification of FuelCell Energy’s Direct FuelCells® ...................................................................... 14 8.1 Benefits of Fuel Cell Technology ............................................................................................ 14 8.2 FuelCell Power Generating Capacity Options ....................................................................... 14 8.3 FuelCell Energy, Inc and Potential Alternative Sources / Business Sector Competitors ........ 15 8.4 Performance of FuelCell Energy, Inc. ..................................................................................... 16 Integration with Brighter BioEnergy Partners’ Waste-to-Energy Conversion Processes .............. 18 Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Cost Trends ....................................................................................... 19 10.1 Basis for Power Generation Cost Comparisons ................................................................... 19 10.2 12-Year Trend in MCFC-Based Installed Capacity Cost ........................................................ 19 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 21 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ 23 12.1 References and Identification of Source Materials .............................................................. 23 12.2 Exclusions, Contact Information, and Disclaimers ............................................................... 24 12.3 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions .................................................................................. 24 12.4 Attachments ......................................................................................................................... 25

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0


9.0 10.0

11.0 12.0

________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 2

. and the presence of certain financial incentives to adopt this technology. which are generally cleaner and more efficient than coal plants. and fuel cells. could reduce operational and fiscal constraints on the proposed project. On-site use of the off-gases for electrical power generation. LLC a sound basis for selecting an electrical power generation technology to be combined with their anticipated waste-to-power conversion system(s). coal-fired plants continue to be the primary source of electric baseload generation in the U. Capital and operating costs for high-temperature fuel cells and associated low-level heat recovery units (LLHRU) were examined in light of trends over at least the past 10 years.0 INTRODUCTION 1. combined with low-level heat recovery. ultra-clean fuel cells operating on natural gas qualify as renewable.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY From data available from the U. This type of fuel cell.1 percent.1. Natural gas generation showed the highest rate of growth of the traditional energy sources from 2005 to 2006. Brighter BioEnergy Partners expects to use a plasma arc converter system. including: fuel flexibility. and in 5 states. coal’s share of total net generation decreased in 2006.. Currently. and quantitative projections of costs at the likely time of deployment by Brighter BioEnergy Partners are presented. potentially in association with biodigesters being used for certain biogenic and agricultural wastes. even though total net generation increased by 0. Recommendations are provided for possible next phases of design studies and more detailed engineering and cost analysis. However. Department of Energy. Five primary factors led to the identification of high-temperature fuel cells as the alternative technology of choice. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 1 .S. wind. State and Federal incentive programs for purchasing and operating ultra-clean technologies contribute to making high-temperature fuel cells an attractive alternative to traditional power generation systems. October 17. operational reliability. the use of high-temperature (molten carbonate) modular fuel cells is identified as presenting the greatest opportunity. efficiency. Further.” Source: Wall Street Journal. pp A17 The study and analysis reported here were designed to provide essential independently (non-vendor)-derived information to provide Brighter BioEnergy Partners. is specifically identified. Most of the new electric power plants placed into service in the United States since 1999 have been natural gas-fired plants. it has been and continues to be aggressively pursuing costreduction efforts in fuel cell power plants. minimizing environmental impact. as produced and placed into commercial service by FuelCell Energy. FuelCell Energy appears to be a sound company and a leader in fuel cell technology development and commercial deployment. 22 states have RPS laws on their books.S. Using 8 criteria considered for the identification and qualification of alternative electrical power generation technologies. For its primary waste-to-power conversion technology. A number of states are seeking to secure cleaner energy sources and are legislating Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) to mandate that utilities provide a certain amount of their electricity from renewable sources such as solar. 2007. “Electricity demand is far outpacing new supply sources….

2 BACKGROUND The primary waste-to-power conversion technology is expected to use plasma arc potentially in association with bio-digesters being used for certain biogenic and agricultural wastes. Exhibit 1. excess electrical energy produced could be sold into the grid. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Municipalities. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 2 . which normally correspond to increases in demand for electric power. milder temperatures than in the previous year contributed significantly to the relatively flat rate of increase in electric power generation. Notwithstanding these indicators of robust economic activity. could reduce these project constraints. Waste Heat Recovery (Fuel Cells) OUTFLOWS Co-products (minimized wastes & discharges) Last Revised July 28. 1.1 of this report (Integration with Brighter BioEnergy Partners’ Waste to Energy Conversion Processes). Such off-gas streams may not be suitable for sale or direct injection into natural gas transmission lines without substantial and expensive treatment and measure for quality control that could impose sub-optimal operating conditions on the primary waste-to-energy system components.1 (above) shows the essential context for captive electrical power generation. 2008 RRG On-site use of the off-gases for electrical power generation.3 A PERSPECTIVE ON U. combined with low-level heat recovery. and the Federal Reserve’s tally of total industrial production showed a 3.1.065 million megawatt hours (MWh). albeit still high-level. Liquid Waste Streams (treatment & recycle) Solids Power Generation. Electrical Power Generation Concept Fuels (for backup & process optimization) INFLOWS (waste streams & fuels) Regional / Local Area Industries.S.S. the U.2 percent from 2005 to 2006. real gross domestic product increased 3.4 percent in 2006. With appropriate contractual arrangements in place. A more complete. ELECTRIC POWER ENERGY GENERATION DATA (2006 DATA) Net generation of electric power increased 0. Both systems produce off-gases with good energy content but with stream composition variable depending on waste stream (feedstock) input and process operating variables. Exhibit 1. schematic representation of the Brighter BioEnergy Partners system is shown in Exhibit 9.1. & Agriculture Wastes Systems Concept (Flow Diagram) Integrated Waste-to-Energy Conversion Systems Gas Utilities (electrical grid) Steam Electricity Water.0 percent increase in 2006. rising to 4.

3 percent in 2005 to 89. generation from coal declined only one other time (between 2000 and 2001).) Petroleum-fired generation fell 47. In 2006.3 percent and reaching 813 million MWh. Since 1995.0-20.3 percent in 2006. Average annual growth in natural gas-fired electric power generation from 1995 to 2006 was 4. Coal’s share of total net generation continued its slow decline over the past decade. combined with the reduction in coal-fired generation contributed to the rise in nuclear generation’s share of total net generation. 2001 was the only year in which net generation by renewable resources was less than 2. which all contributed to high natural gas prices nationally and to lower natural gas electric power generation in Gulf Coast states.1 in 2006.4 percent average annual growth for both coal and nuclear power generation. It also reflects a reduction in net summer coal-fired generating capacity.6 percent in 1998. other than hydroelectric. Petroleum’s share of total net generation peaked at 3. has accounted for 2.1 percent of net generation.6 percent of total net generation during the period 1995 through 2006. net electric generation in 2006.5 percent.0 percent in 2006. Continued growth in nuclear generation is due to the improved capacity utilization (the capacity factors for nuclear plants have increased nearly 17.6 percent share of total net generation with an annual average growth in net generation of 1. Between 1995 and 2006. which are generally cleaner and more efficient than coal plants. experienced one of the most severe droughts in history from 1999 through 2004. its share of total net generation decreased notwithstanding that total net generation increased by 0. on average.0 percent of total net generation (1. although the level was still lower than the peak year for hydroelectric production over the past decade (356 billion kilowatt-hours in 1997). plus improved capacity utilization.3 percent in 1995 to 7.6 percent of total net generation. and Wilma. By 2006.4 percent of U. and nuclear energy. In that time. compared to 1. from its peak of 52. Net generation at nuclear plants increased 0.9 percent). reflecting the cumulative effects of the growth in natural gas-fired capacity and upgrades of nuclear power plants that emerged following 1997. to 289 million MWh. Net generation from conventional hydroelectric plants increased 7.0 percent over 2005. to 64.S. petroleum-fired electric power generation has declined at an average annual rate of 1. Rita. (The western U. only partially offset by 542 MW of new capacity. These three sources consistently provided between 84.6 percent in 2006. Part of the growth in 2006 was attributable to the disruption of natural gas supplies in 2005 due to Hurricanes Katrina. with 967 MW retired or de-rated. and natural gas prices returned to a more competitive level. natural gas. more normal conditions had returned to the region. Natural gas generation showed the highest rate of growth from 2005 to 2006 of the traditional energy sources. This was attributable to continued growth in natural gas and nuclear generation. However.6 and 88. The large decrease in 2006 is directly attributable to sustained high petroleum prices following the 50.1 percent from 2005 to 1. renewable generating capacity. Coal-fired plants continued to be the primary source of baseload generation. Over the past decade. Renewable energy sources. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 3 .1 percent. Electricity generation from coal in 2006 fell 1.7 percent in 2006 to 787 million MWh.4 million MWh and accounted for only 1.6 percent. Conventional hydroelectric power’s contribution declined from 9. contributed 2. as petroleum prices declined only 3. despite the fact that no new nuclear units had been constructed.The three primary energy sources for generating electric power in the United States are coal. It declined thereafter to a low of 1.6 percent in 2006. increasing 7. upgrades produced 346 MW of incremental capacity and capacity factors increased from 89. The increase in capacity. nuclear generation ranged from an 18.991 million MWh.6 percentage points over the last decade) and to incremental capacity upgrades to existing units.8 percent in 1997 to 49.3 percent. In the past decade. Most of the new electric power plants placed in service in the United States since 1999 have been natural gas-fired.4 percent from 1995 through 2006.S.1 percent price increase in 2005.

1 ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 4 . Wind generators produced 26.6 percent and accounted for 2. which contributed 95 percent of the 1 growth in renewable energy.6 million MWh..4 percent of net generation in 2006.3 percent higher than in 2005.S.D.Renewable energy. The greatest growth in the renewable sector was in wind generation. 2007). grew 10. Electric Power Annual with data for 2006.O. 49. other than hydroelectric.E. Energy Information Administration. (November. Energy Information Administration. U.

3. 8..e. 5. 2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES This study and analysis were designed to provide independently. LLC. Be fully compatible with other technologies in the Brighter BioEnergy Partners Waste-to-Energy Project Integrate with plasma arc and/or bio-digestion and utilize off-gases from those units with a minimum of treatment and cost Be responsive to environmental imperatives. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 5 .2. preferably superior conversion of gaseous fuels to electrical power and allow integrated low-level heat recovery Anticipate a technological response to future costs associated with carbon emissions Capture emerging technology and reduce risk of competitive obsolescence Provide inherently safe and flexible operational capabilities Require no technological break-through. 4. non-vendor-derived essential information as a sound basis for selecting an optimal electrical power generation technology for integration into the waste-toenergy conversion project being considered by Brighter BioEnergy Partners. 6. or invention for commercial deployment (i. 7. have a low inherent commercial risk). Among criteria considered during the identification and qualification of alternative electrical power generation technologies were that the alternatives must: 1. discovery. particularly atmospheric emissions and water usage and/or discharge Provide efficient.

continue to emerge in the market as a viable energy option for distributed electrical power and cogeneration. Critical Thinking About Energy: The Case for Decentralized Generation of Electricity. and microturbine applications for distributed and Bowman Power Systems. technology has improved and natural gas distribution now blankets the country. and Brennan Downes. e.0 A PERSPECTIVE ON ALTERNATIVE POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES Popular arguments for the consideration of alternative energy technologies abound. --------------------------- A primary motivation for undertaking this study and analysis was achieving a general awareness of the technical advances and declining cost of fuel cell technologies and the multiple advances apparently available when that technology is used in application environments similar to those in which Brighter BioEnergy Partners’ waste-toenergy project is to be situated. Elliott Energy Systems. These smaller engines and gas turbines are good neighbors and can be located next to users in the middle of population centers. distributed generation (DG) equipment and combined heat and power (CHP) systems. Price volatility clearly impacts the perspectives and actions of end-use customer and energy services companies as they relate to installation. compared to remote or central generation of the same power. 2 Casten. and the emissions have been steadily reduced. To provide a meaningful context for the study and analysis of fuel cell technologies. Several thousand of these units (priced from $850 to $1. Furthermore. Thomas R. reduce vulnerabilities.1 IMPACT OF ENERGY PRICE VOLATILITY AND OTHER FACTORS ON TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT Price volatility in the natural gas and electricity markets affects decisions regarding owning and operating emerging energy technologies—specifically. among others. A key factor in the success of gas turbine electrical power generation has been the use of natural gas as a fuel. composed mostly of methane and CH4.500 per kilowatt) have been sold and installed in the last two years by Capstone. Natural gas. and cut greenhouse gas emissions in half. Some advocates of microturbines compare their future status in the electrical power industry to that of the PC in a computer industry once dominated by mainframe systems. a limited comparison study of other gas-fueled power generation technologies is necessary. resolve these matters. ownership. producing the lowest level of CO2) among hydrocarbon fuels. of course. By 1970.g. January 2005. the relatively low long-term price of natural gas and its availability through pipelines and from LNG plants and tankers helped drive the market for gas turbine power plants. massproduced engines and turbines cost less per unit of capacity than large plants. Highly centralized generation of electrical power is a paradigm that has outlived its usefulness. called microturbines. such as supplying electrical power and heat for fast food restaurants. Skeptical Inquirer magazine. and operation of DG/CHP systems and is a particularly sensitive matter in Texas. Time and the marketplace will.. However.csicop.html ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 6 . has been called the "prince of fuels" because it has the highest heating value and is environmentally the most benign (that is.3. the previously wasted heat can be recycled from these decentralized generation plants to displace boiler fuel and essentially cut the fuel for electric 2 generation in half. In the past. http://www. including conventional co-generation approaches. Microturbines are geared toward solving on-site energy demands. These small gas turbines—ranging from 30 to 400 kW—are typically fueled by natural gas. 3. gas-fired turbines in combined cycle. Very small gas turbines. Decentralized generation could save $5 trillion in capital investment. reduce power costs by 40 percent.

superior power quality. End-use customers making DG/CHP investment decisions may implicitly or explicitly address energy price volatility in the investment/planning context. The thermal energy from the heat recovery system can be used either for direct process applications or indirectly to produce steam. or chilled water for process 3 cooling. http://files. CHP offers individual and societal energy and environmental benefits over electric-only systems. a heat recovery system captures and converts the energy in the prime mover’s exhaust into useful thermal energy. pumps. and fans. to informal considerations of impacts. hot air for drying.) In both DG and CHP applications.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 7 . in both central power generation and distributed generation applications. hot water. Or. along with some utilities and independent power producers. CHP systems achieve increased efficiency in fuel use. the mechanical energy from the prime mover drives a generator for producing electricity.. This uncertainty has a number of potential implications for investors.Distributed generation is the strategic placement of electric power generating units at or near customer facilities to supply on-site energy needs. to neglecting the issue entirely. 3 Henning. and commercial facilities are the principal users of CHP. independence from the grid. it might cause them to delay decisions to purchase appliances and equipment. Distributed generation projects can be designed to produce electric or mechanical power only or to produce electric or mechanical power and thermal energy (CHP). e. from demanding a higher rate of return on a project. For example. It may also drive rotating equipment. it might cause them to invest in different types of equipment than they might otherwise. such as compressors. DG benefits as compared to power from the grid for energy users may include enhanced reliability. The five most common types of on-site generation technologies include: • • • • • reciprocating engines small gas turbines steam turbines microturbines fuel cells (Except for fuel cells. Price volatility in this sense refers to long-term uncertainty about energy price levels that influences investment planning. in a dual-fuel capable system rather than a dedicated-fuel system. Natural Gas and Energy Price Volatility (2003). reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. institutional. these technologies are known as prime movers and convert fuel to shaft power or mechanical In the case of CHP applications.g. Combined heat and power (CHP) is the generation of electric or mechanical power and thermal energy simultaneously from the same fuel source.harc. Industrial. and enhanced reliability of the electrical grid. and lower energy costs. The ways in which potential DG/CHP investors could take price volatility into account are varied.

0 SPECIFIC ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS STUDY In this study and analysis. ultimately resolving largely to the use of high-temperature fuel cell technology in Brighter BioEnergy Partners’ waste-to-energy project: • Optimum project use of high to moderate fuel-value off-gases from both plasma arc converters for MSW and bio-digester systems for biogenic and agri-wastes. • • • • ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 8 . consideration was given to the following points.4. both anticipating a range of feedstock compositions (with resulting variability in off-gas composition) Capital and operating costs projections for the project Consideration of potential environmental benefits and / or negative impacts (on a comparative basis against traditional electrical power generation technologies) Operational flexibility and system expandability allowed by adoption of the technology Providing a description of any potential constraints imposed on the project by adoption of the technology identified during the course of the study.

but was not limited to. were collected and organized for presentation herein. Capital and operating costs for high-temperature fuel cells and associated low-level heat recovery units (LLHRU) were examined in light of trends over at least the past five years. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 9 . FuelCell Energy's Direct FuelCell (DFC). and quantitative projections of costs at the likely time of deployment by Brighter BioEnergy Partners were developed. Descriptive performance information for a specific supplier of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFCs).5. the following steps and procedures: • • • • Background research and data collection Projections of technology trends and costs (for high-temperature fuel cells and competitive technologies) Interim conferencing (telephonic) with client and subject matter experts for the target technology analysis of integration issues Report preparation by project managers and vetting by participating subject matter experts.0 STUDY AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY EquityNet used its well-established process for providing the study and analysis proposed here. This is a multi-step process that included.

000 per kilowatt (whichever is lowest) of total project costs. Specifically. Certain units are rated at 47% efficient in the generation of electrical power and up to 80% efficient overall in Combined Heat and Power (CHP) applications. it grants a Federal investment tax credit of 30% or $1. Reliability: Locating fuel cell-based power plant on-site and implementing real-time monitoring capability assures end-users of increased reliability. synthesis gas. Fuel cells also have the potential to substantially reduce if not eliminate emissions generated by fossil-fuel-based backup generators that are often required by facilities employing wind and solar power. In many places where off-gases and digester gas production volumes and compositions are variable. Environmental Impact: With increasing energy demands and costs coupled with the growing public awareness of the need for energy conservation. Because of their very low emission of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx). MCFC-based power plants have also been designated as "Ultra-Clean" by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and exceed all 2007 CARB standards.0 THE IDENTIFICATION OF FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES Five primary factors led to the identification of fuel cells as the alternative technology of choice. which generally have an overall availability of 35%. such as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program and Renewable Energy Standards (RES). fuel cell power plants are designed to operate with automatic blending with natural gas. as well as dramatically lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). Efficiency: Fuel cell power plants are highly efficient in the use of hydrocarbon-rich gaseous fuels and have an inherent Low Heating Value (LHV) efficiency. including fuel flexibility. Typical fossil fuel-powered plants operate at about 35% electrical power generation efficiency. as well as five-year accelerated depreciation. efficiency. making it a renewable energy source. and operational reliability. Fuel Flexibility: A number of industrial and municipal facilities and agricultural plants generate wastes with high-energy values. minimizing environmental impact. The electricity generated by a fuel cell power plant can supplement or displace retail power consumed at adjacent facilities or sold to the grid. These waste streams can be used in turn to generate hydrocarbon-rich offgases. Fuel cell power plants can harness the hydrocarbon gases (largely methane) in these byproducts and then use the gas to power the system in lieu of natural gas. fuel cell power qualifies under several governmental and other environmental certifications. Financial Incentives: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides substantial financial incentives for fuel cell power plants. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 10 . the presence of certain financial incentives to adopt this technology. Unlike wind and solar technologies. fuel cell power plants are increasingly being chosen for on-site or distributed power generation. fuel cell technology operates independently and has an availability of over 95%. High temperature fuel cell-based power systems offer clear efficiency advantages in comparison to other forms of distributed power generation. a necessary requirement for applications such as manufacturing facilities and hospitals.6. California’s SelfGeneration Incentives Program (SGIP) includes an $80 million annual allocation for renewable and ultraclean distributed generation technologies. or biogas in subsequent waste-to-energy processes.

however. fuel cells are increasingly being deployed as stationary and decentralized sources and in mobile units.0 OVERVIEW OF FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES Growing demands for electrical power coupled with fuel cost pressures and environmental constraints have created a need for new efficient and sustainable sources of energy and electricity. commercial. Example of a Direct Fuel Cell Power Plant Three types of fuel cell appear to be most likely to continue being commercialized:    High-temperature solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) High-temperature molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) Low-temperature polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEM) Selection of a fuel cell technology for a specific application and in optimum response to local conditions requires the detailed consideration of a number of factors. and industrial uses. Fuel cells operate much like a battery.7. Unlike a battery. using electrodes and an electrolyte to generate electricity.1. As long as there is a constant fuel source. Exhibit 7. fuel cells will generate electricity. Further. including but not limited to: ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 11 . Fuel cells have become an increasingly promising potential source of power for military. fuel cells never lose their charge.

and its ability to operate at such high electrical power generation efficiency. It is the least expensive method. 3.0 (Identification of Fuel Cell Technologies). is the most common method of producing commercial bulk hydrogen as well as the hydrogen used in the industrial synthesis of ammonia.-D. 6. Modeling and control of processes and systems Base loading requirements Materials selection and analysis for fuel cells Fuel cell stack design and development Anticipated operational lifetimes. 4. pointed to MCFC as the 4 technology of choice. materials for state of the art PEM fuel cells. The non-combustion. polymer electrolyte membranes for direct methanol fuel cells. and their suitability for operation above 100°C. Inc. This volume provides informative chapters on thermodynamic performance of fuel cells. A general description of the MCFC technology with an integrated heat recovery system is provided in conjunction with Exhibit 7. The rapid advances in fuel cell system development have left current information available only in scattered journals and Internet sites. fuel cells are electrochemical devices that combine fuel with oxygen from the ambient air to produce electricity and heat. analytical modelling of direct methanol fuel cells. See Tim Zhao. provides in-depth coverage of the topic over a broad scope.1 MOLTEN CARBONATE FUEL CELL (MCFC) In essence. 2. electrochemical process is a direct form of fuel-toenergy conversion. Elsevier. At high temperatures (700 – 1100 °C) and in the presence of a metal-based catalyst (nickel). The material used for the electrolyte and the design of the supporting structure determine the type and performance of the fuel cell.0 (Study Objectives). 5 Steam reforming (or hydrogen reforming or catalytic oxidation) is a method of producing hydrogen from hydrocarbons. and Trung Van Nguyen. K. CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2 Additional hydrogen can be recovered by a lower-temperature gas-shift reaction with the carbon monoxide produced. 5. Unlike other fuel cell designs. 5 7. On an industrial scale. Advances in Fuel Cells. and maintenance cycles Capability for handling fuel variability including gas-reforming technology Consideration of these factors in addition to the criteria set out herein in Section 2. it is the dominant method for producing hydrogen.1. and it is much more efficient than conventional heat engine approaches. Steam reforming of natural gas. macroscopic modeling of polymer-electrolyte membranes. A recent book.2 (see notes). ISBN 10: 0-08-045394-5. MTBF. Advances in Fuel Cells. This internal reformation ® ® process is a key ingredient to the MCFC Direct FuelCell (DFC ) produced by FuelCell Energy. Fuel cells incorporate an anode and a cathode. the prospects for phosphonated polymers as proton-exchange fuel cell membranes. It is therefore MCFC technology that is analyzed in further detail in this report. MCFC internally reforms readily-available fuels such as natural gas or anaerobic digester gas into the hydrogen gas required to actually power the fuel cell system. Kreuer. with an electrolyte in between (similar to a battery). steam reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The reaction is summarized by: 4 ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 12 CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 . and methanol reforming processes. 499 pages. as well as water. and the five “primary” factors set out in Section 6. sometimes referred to as steam methane reforming (SMR).

the emission of CO2 is reduced due to the high efficiency of the fuel cells and the absence of combustion that avoids the production of NOx and particulate pollutants. along with CO2 recycled from the anode side. Note 8: Using fuel cell technology. reacts with the electrons to produce carbonate ions that pass through the electrolyte to support the anode reaction. the fuel thereby being humidified before being supplied to the anodes of the fuel cells.e.. i.2. Notes 4 & 5: Residual fuel (4). The O2 supplied to the cathode. the fuel is converted to hydrogen. most of which is used in the electrochemical reaction. The gas is then consumed electrochemically in a reaction with carbonate electrolyte ions that produces water and electrons. fuel not consumed in the electrochemical reaction in the fuel cell stack. Hydrogen is created in the fuel cell stack through a reforming process. The cathode side receives oxygen from the surrounding air. An inverter is used to convert the DC output to AC. as described above. Note 2: Fuel and water are heated to the required fuel cell temperature in a heat-recovery unit that transfers heat from system exhaust gases. which are porous nickel (Ni) catalysts. Note 9: With heat that can be extracted in the production of electric power (a bottoming process). Block Flow Diagram of MCFC System Note 1: Water and fuel are preheated. co-generation using fuel cells can represent a significant increase the efficiency of the power plant. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 13 . which produces hydrogen from the reforming reaction between the hydrocarbon fuel and water. Note 7: Cathode exhaust gas exits the system through the heat exchanger used to preheat the fuel and water supplied to the heat recovery unit. A fuel cell power plant consists of multiple fuel cells arranged in stacks to provide the required system voltage and power) and the equipment needed to provide the proper gas flow and power conversion. is supplied to a catalytic reactor (5) to heat incoming air. The heated humid fuel stream is sent to the fuel cell stacks where. Note 6: The heated air flows to the cathode to provide the cathode reactants (oxygen from the air and carbon dioxide from the anode reaction). Note 10: The electron flow through the external circuit produces the desired power (DC current). Note 3: Fuel and air reactions for the molten carbonate fuel cell occur at the anode and cathode.Exhibit 7.

State and federal incentive programs for purchasing and operating ultra-clean technologies such as DFCs clearly make the technology an attractive alternative to traditional power generation systems. FuelCell Energy has been aggressively pursuing cost-reduction efforts in molten carbonate fuel cell power plants. the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF) is subsidizing 68 MW of new fuel cell power plants as part of its "Project 100" program that is encouraging the installation of 100 MW of new renewable energypowered systems by state utilities. “Ultra-Clean” baseload power. The system has an electrical efficiency rating of 47%.2 FUELCELL POWER GENERATING CAPACITY OPTIONS FuelCell Energy’s DFC300MA® system is a self-contained electrical power generation system capable of providing high-quality baseload power up to 300 kW. wind. FuelCell Energy’s DFC1500MA® system is a self-contained electrical power generation system capable of providing 1.0 of this report. hotels. FuelCell Energy’s Direct FuelCell (DFC ) power plants meet these emission requirements and qualify for the SGIP.0 IDENTIFICATION OF FUELCELL ENERGY'S DIRECT FUELCELLS® 8. The DFC1500MA is easily installed in comparison to other power generation technologies due to its modular design. giving it higher efficiency than other distributed generation plants of similar size with virtually no air pollution. and a small footprint (600 sq. Internationally. (This was due to a favorable technical report on the performance and availability of the DFC power plant at a municipal wastewater treatment facility in the city of Fukuoka. food/beverage processing plants. and grid congestion relief. States seeking to secure cleaner energy sources are legislating Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) to mandate that utilities provide a certain amount of their electricity from renewable sources such as solar. 7 days a week. The DFC1500MA features ultra-low emissions and low operating noise and is suitable for locations where traditional power generation technologies are not feasible or desirable. and Pennsylvania) Ultra-Clean fuel cells operating on natural gas qualify as renewable.) The company also works closely with local governments to advance fuel cell technologies. with 47% efficiency 24 hours a day. ft). Featuring ultra-low emissions. including manufacturing facilities. universities. and utilities.) ® ® 8. Hawaii. hospitals. An industry leader in fuel cell technology. New York. In Japan. As of the date of this report.2 MW of high-quality baseload power.1 BENEFITS OF FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY FuelCell Energy's Direct FuelCell (DFC) power plants appear at this stage of analysis to be an economical solution for reliable. the DFC300MA is suitable for locations where traditional power generation technologies are not feasible or desirable. low operating noise. Twenty-two states currently have RPS laws on their books. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 14 . In Connecticut. Maine. the South Korea Ministry of Commerce. The system is suitable for a wide range of applications.8. (See cost trend details in Section 10. The DFC300MA can be used for low-cost on-site power generation. FuelCell energy received the government’s endorsement for DFC products operating on anaerobic digester gas. and fuel cells. distributed energy grid support. in five states (Connecticut. Industry and Energy instituted a green energy program in 2006 that is providing financial assistance for environmentally efficient power systems such as fuel cells. cogeneration and Combined Heat and Power (CHP).

including renewable wastewater gas. manufactures. or may be competitive with. or UTC Fuel Cells. Europe. thin. products. and Korea.” that “Other companies. materials handling. engages in the design. Ballard Power Systems was founded in 1979 as Ballard Research. information technology. are currently engaged in the development of products and technologies that are similar to. United Technologies Corp. automotive.3 FUELCELL ENERGY.S. Energy Conversion Devices. develops. Inc. The company operates in two segments (United Solar Ovonic and Ovonic Materials). and food processing. hospitals.The DFC1500MA can be used for low-cost on-site power generation. some of which have substantially greater resources than ours. FuelCell Energy is developing hybrid products and planar solid oxide fuel cell technology products. and production processes for the alternative energy generation. Inc. and sells carbon fiber products primarily to automotive manufacturers for automotive transmissions. Canada. and changed 7 its name to Ballard Power Systems. develops. Delphi. Its products serve various commercial and industrial customers. our products and technologies. manufacturing facilities. The company has operations primarily in the United States. manufacture. The company is headquartered in Burnaby. The United Solar Ovonic segment designs. Inc.fuelcellenergy. The system is suitable for a wide range of applications. and sale of fuel cell power plants for electric power generation. energy storage. http://www. which are lightweight. distributed energy grid support. flexible. and material products. biogas from beer. Its power generation segment offers PEM fuel cell products and services for the residential co-generation. Automotive segment provides PEM fuel cell products and services for fuel cell vehicles. Japan. and gas diffusion layer materials for the PEM fuel cell industry. hotels. Connecticut. and information technology markets. Rolls Royce and Acumentrics). It operates in three segments: power generation. manufacture. as well as natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels.” While several companies in the U. phosphoric acid fuel cells (UTC Fuel Cells). and universities. energy storage. commercializes materials. and durable products for converting sunlight 6 7 ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 15 http://www. alternative energy generation. telecommunications/data centers. Inc. The company's power plants generate approximately 200 million kWh of power using various fuels. In addition. hospitals.ballard. Canada. as well as grid support applications for utility customers. Emerging fuel cell technologies (and companies developing them) include proton exchange membrane fuel cells (Ballard Power Systems. and solid oxide fuel cells (Siemens Westinghouse Electric Company. large hotels. and Plug Power). and Combined Heat and Power (CHP). General Electric. manufactures. development. Its core carbonate fuel cell products include Direct FuelCell and DFC Power Plants. engages in the development. and back-up power markets. and sale of proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells. INC AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SOURCES / BUSINESS SECTOR COMPETITORS FuelCell Energy notes in its 10K “Risk Factors. FuelCell Energy was founded in 1969 and is 6 headquartered in Danbury. cogeneration. Inc. and grid congestion relief. manufacturing. including wastewater treatment. Japan. FuelCell Energy. The company's carbonate fuel cell products electrochemically produce electricity from hydrocarbon fuels. including wastewater treatment plants. are involved in fuel cell development. Canada. FuelCell Energy appears to be the only domestic company engaged in significant manufacturing and commercialization of carbonate fuel cells.. 8. and sells proprietary thin-film solar (photovoltaic or PV) modules. and government facilities. universities. and . such as natural gas and biomass fuels. The company has operations in North America. Inc. Material products segment designs. Ballard Power Systems.

engages in the design. Plug Power was founded in 1997 9 and is based in Latham. The company's customers include telecommunications companies.” The company operates in the United States. Michigan. which include proton exchange membrane. and fuel processing technologies. The company also engages in precommercialization activities for various emerging technologies. The company offers its GenCore product. principally amorphous and disordered materials. builders and building contractors. competition in this electrical power generation sector arises from such companies as Caterpillar. FuelCell Energy is working to develop next-generation fuel cell products focusing on a combined-cycle Direct FuelCell/Turbine® (DFC/T) power plant. and internationally. It is also developing its GenSys product. It licenses NiMH battery technology to NiMH battery manufacturers. Plug Power. development. Ovonic is developing “rugged. such as licenses and joint ventures. together with its subsidiaries. 8 9 http://www. In addition to developments in fuel cell technologies. It focuses on platform-based systems. the co-production of hydrogen. It sells these PV modules to commercial roofing materials manufacturers. principally for consumer applications and produces proprietary positive electrode nickel hydroxide materials for use in NiMH batteries. New York. government entities. General Electric Company. which offers remote continuous power for light commercial and residential applications. Germany. who incorporate these PV modules into their products and services for commercial sale. Cummins. It has strategic partnerships with Honda R&D Co Ltd. which it sells to licensees of its NiMH battery technology. utilities. fuel cell. efforts to improve productivity. Ingersoll Rand. of Japan. and manufacture of on-site energy systems for energy consumers worldwide. broadband. China. which provides direct-current back-up power for telecommunication. Italy. Japan. and Ovonic biofuel reformation technologies. 8.energyconversiondevices. and develops materials and products based on its materials science technology.into electricity. prototype fuel cell systems that provide electricity and heat to a home or business. and Pemeas.4 PERFORMANCE OF FUELCELL ENERGY. such as Ovonic solid hydrogen storage technologies. and long-term profitability. kW-scale metal hydride fuel cells targeted at backup and mission-critical power for military and commercial applications. The company is commercializing NiMH materials and consumer battery technology through this segment internally and through third-party relationships.plugpower. Significant competition may also come from gas turbine companies like General Electric. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 16 . and Detroit Diesel: companies that manufacture mature combustion-based equipment. and distribution partners.. Solar Turbines and Kawasaki. Inc. and operating and cost features. and have well-established manufacturing. INC. electricity and heat (DFC/H2). The company also sells PV modules for ground-mounted and residential applications and. Vaillant http://www. and industrial uninterruptible power supply market applications. as well as hydrogen fuel for a fuel cell vehicle. Energy Conversion 8 Devices was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Rochester Hills. utility. distribution. competitiveness. A significant indicator of the health and future prospects of a company is the extent of its on-going R&D work. including various engines and turbines. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC). which have recently made progress in improving fuel efficiency and reducing pollution in large-size combined-cycle natural gas-fueled generators. Ovonic metal hydride fuel cell technologies. Engelhard Corporation. for some applications. and solar power installers/integrators. The Ovonic Materials segment invents. and liquid fueled military applications. manufactures and sells framed PV products.

705 $152.395 2005 $17.790 ($67.972 $30.71) $223.000 4.000 Revenue 2.750 $31.000 30.414) ($1.25) $289.65) $206.client.S.774 $33.398 $12.652 $100.656 $33.231 ($48.000 60. Financial Performance Data FISCAL YEAR END October 31.370 ($74.01 ($1.000 Revenue Backlog 70. annual reports at http://fcel. regarding the status of the company.081 $17.709 $33.514 $11. ten-year program is to develop multi-MW class SOFC power plants operating on coal-based syngas.702 $220.520 $130. in 2006.510 $202.83) $236. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory to re-direct its Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) program to coal-based solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) power plant development.000 40. Product Revenue & Backlog 12. FuelCell Energy.288 ($84.085 $153.440 2004 $12.538 2003 $16.The historical trends related to product revenues and the prospect for future revenues reflected in the backlog of orders.51) ($0.363 $205. The data displayed in Exhibit 8.cfm.25) $— ($1.000 8.386 ($87. Inc.1 were uniquely developed as part of EquityNet’s research and show these factors as an indicator of FuelCell Energy’s marketplace performance.54) $265. (Dollars in thousands.803 $271. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 17 Backlog . 10 $85 million.65) $— ($1.000 20.000 10. if any.263) ($1. Exhibit 8.1.000 6.222) ($1.84) $0.71) $— ($1. except per share data) Product sales and revenues Research and development contract revenues Total Revenues Net loss to common shareholders Basic and diluted loss per share: Continuing operations Discontinued operations Net loss to common shareholders Total assets Total shareholders’ equity Total cash and investments 2002 $ 0 12/28/08 10.2.964 $179.795 $120. Marketplace Performance of FuelCell Energy.407) ($1.587 10 See FuelCell Energy. The objective of this new 3-phase. Exhibit 8.03) ($1.960 2006 $21.000 0 12/31/99 12/30/00 12/30/01 12/30/02 12/30/03 12/29/04 12/29/05 12/29/06 12/29/07 Also of note. FuelCell Energy was selected by U.840) ($1. are also significant indicators of the robustness of an enterprise. Inc. Inc.636 $18.000 50.575 $41.

INFLOWS Electrical Power Generation Considerations Last Revised: Oct 27. minimized waste) Power Generation (Alternatives &/or Multiple units) ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 18 . Five primary indicators point to the use of such high-temperature fuel cells as the alternative technology of choice. could reduce these project constraints. using high-temperature fuel cell technology combined with an integrated low-level heat recovery. LLC: System . and operational safety and reliability. minimizing environmental impact. excess electrical energy produced could be sold into the grid. Exhibit 9. Storage/Handling OUTFLOWS (co-products.0 INTEGRATION WITH BRIGHTER BIOENERGY PARTNERS’ WASTE-TO-ENERGY CONVERSION PROCESSES The primary waste-to-power conversion technology that Brighter BioEnergy Partners is expected to use is plasma arc conversion – potentially in conjunction with bio-digesters for certain biogenic and agricultural wastes.1. Fractionation. With appropriate contractual arrangements in place. On-site use of the off-gases for electrical power generation.9. including fuel flexibility. Both systems produce off-gases with good energy content but with a variable composition depending on waste stream (feedstock) input and process operating conditions. the availability of certain financial incentives to adopt this technology. 2007 / RRG Coal TDF Waste Streams Feedstock (backup & energy balance) Feedstocks (Handling / blending) Utilities BioEnergy Conversion System(s) Electrical (Grid) Waste Streams Solids Stream Raw Gases Stream Waste Treatment & Recycle (on-site) Solids Treatment & Materials Handling Gas Treatment. System Concept for Considering Alternatives in Electrical Power Generation BioEnergy Partners. energy efficiency. Such off-gas streams may not be suitable for direct sale or for injection into natural gas transmission lines without substantial and expensive treatment and measures for quality control that could impose sub-optimal operating conditions on the primary waste-to-energy system components.

500 per kW of installed capacity. often quoted in the 50 to 70 percent range. But when the need to externally produce mostly pure hydrogen from a hydrocarbon fuel is included.1 BASIS FOR POWER GENERATION COST COMPARISONS Around the world. For geothermal sites in California and Nevada.0 MOLTEN CARBONATE FUEL CELL COST TRENDS 10. the average capital cost of incremental generation capacity may be somewhat lower. (Regular steam plants are $1. Recently. to values in excess of $ per installed kilowatt (kW). at about $2. with capital cost of as much as $5.300 gross MW of most-likely incremental capacity available from both California and Nevada.500 gross MW is available at a capital cost less than the average of $3.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 19 . Of the 4.200 to $1. 10.600 per kilowatt. Roughly one-third of the capital investment required to build new coal generation capacity is dedicated to air and water pollution control equipment.000 per there has been a great deal of attention focused on fuel cells and their high thermal or thermodynamic efficiencies. the capital cost of incremental generation capacity averages about $3. overall thermal efficiencies can drop to about 30 percent for a 200 kW unit.100 per kW. determined by states on a case-by-case basis. Considering geothermal fields only within California.000 per kilowatt.000 gross MW of incremental generating capacity is available at a capital cost below the 12 average of $2.ceednet. with a capital cost in the range of about $600 per kilowatt. about 2.000 per kW (for a small expansion at an existing project). These new plants will be subject to stringent EPA requirements including New Source Performance Standards to reduce emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides. and nuclear plants cost $1.10. about 2. commercial-diameter well) • Confirmation drilling (up to achieving 25% of required capacity at the wellhead) • Development drilling (up to achieving 105% of required capacity at the wellhead) • Construction of the power plant (including ancillary site facilities) • Transmission-line costs The capital cost for specific geothermal projects ranged from about $1.950 per kW.000 per kW (for deep.geothermal. natural gas-fired turbine combined-cycle plants are regularly operating at efficiencies well above 50%. low-temperature resources at remote locations). The Clean Air Act also requires the use of Best Available Control Technology. For California sites alone. Ultimately.500 to $3. Molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs) internally reform gas into the hydrogen gas required to power the fuel cell system. these future state-of-the-art generating facilities will lead to a cleaner 11 environment.2 12-YEAR TREND IN MCFC-BASED INSTALLED CAPACITY COST With both the technical feasibility demonstrated and compatibility of the use of fuel cells (MCFC) with the technologies for waste-to-energy conversion anticipated by Brighter BioEnergy Partners appearing to have 11 12 http://www.950 per installed kW. and mercury. particulate matter. and this internal reformation process is a key ability to operations with high electrical power generation efficiency. These cost estimates include the following components: • Exploration (up to siting of the first deep. Building 154 Gigawatts of new coal-fueled capacity by 2030 would entail capital investments on the order of $230 billion at an average capital cost of $1.pdf www.) The capital investments needed to support electric-generating capacity growth are substantial.

while costs for certain other systems have increased. largely due to increasing requirements to meet environmental constraints.numerous advantages. Comments made previously in Section 3. The fuel gases in that project are to be produced from multiple waste streams (and may reasonably be taken to be “renewable” energy sources independent of pressures on natural gas pricing). the likely determining factor for the adoption of MCFC for use in their project will be costs – for both installed capacity and operational. Exhibit 10. The cost for installed capacity for MCFC has consistently trended downward for more than a decade (Exhibit 10.000-hour charge life and maintenance cycle ratings demonstrate the potential to further reduce MCFC operational costs. but they may be substantially less where fuel (natural gas) costs are included. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 20 . Operational costs for MCFC-based power generation facilities (of the size anticipated by Brighter BioEnergy Partners) are projected to be similar to those for other power generation plants.1.0 of this report concerning the impact of natural gas pricing on energy costs are ameliorated to a large degree in the Brighter BioEnergy Partners’ proposed project. Fuel Cell (MCFC) Market Price: Trending Towards Grid Parity Source: FuelCell Energy (including projections from 2006 through 2009).1 below). Projections for technical improvements that will extend the present 40.

as produced and placed into commercial service by FuelCell Energy. installed cost. independently-(non-vendor)-derived information as a sound basis for selecting an optimal electrical power generation technology for integration into the waste-toenergy conversion project being considered by Brighter BioEnergy Partners. these should be discussed with potential project participants. A recommendation for a possible next phase of design studies and more detailed engineering and cost analysis are provided assuming a conventional three-phase approached as outlined below. A few software tools are available for performing some of the Level II modeling. at least monthly (but preferably projected hourly) energy load profiles. If all section criteria are met and the potential payback period. and capital cost needs are acceptable to the project participants and decision makers. Level I analysis may also provide rough estimates of energy cost savings. and all costs relating to environmental and other permits are also developed." even after another site walkthrough for a more detailed site evaluation. and the end user continues to be interested and has the financial capability to move forward. The results of Level II analysis should be discussed in detail with project participants and decision makers. After the identification of candidate technologies against a set of predetermined project criteria.11. This technology assessment serves as the Level I Analysis. This type of fuel cell. This level of analysis is performed using a detailed engineering and financial model that uses. and analysis. at the best. Level III (Detailed Engineering Design and Analysis) The purpose of this level of effort is to perform a detailed engineering analysis and develop firm cost estimates for the project. systems simulation. The cost accuracy of this level of analysis is. then it may be recommended that a Level II analysis be conducted. ± 30 percent. The scope of this level of effort also includes developing one-line drawings for the conceptual design (including equipment sizes). this level of analysis typically uses "rules-of-thumb" or typical performance characteristics of various technology systems and averages of annual costs. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 21 . cost bids are obtained for those components. Using explicit criteria for the identification and qualification of alternative electrical power generation technologies. and payback period for selected technologies. it is important to point out the "limited accuracy" of this level of analysis. If results of Level I analysis are encouraging. Level II Analysis (Conceptual Design and Preliminary Financial Analysis) The purpose of the Level II analysis is to ascertain with a much higher degree of confidence that a technology system is technically and financially viable. Level I Analysis (Alternatives Identification and Screening Analysis) The primary purpose of the Level I analysis is to establish whether a technology is potentially a "good candidate" for use in a proposed project.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study and analysis were designed to provide essential. detailed procurement specifications are developed for all system components. the use of high-temperature (molten carbonate) modular fuel cells is identified as presenting the greatest opportunity. The cost accuracy of Level II estimates is typically about ± 20 percent. In this level of effort. is specifically identified as a best fit to the selection criteria. If the results of the analysis are still attractive and do not reveal any "show-stoppers. LLC. The results of this level of analysis are estimates of annual cost savings based on the profiles generated by the model. a contract should be considered to have an experienced A&E firm conduct the next level (Level III) analysis. During these discussions.

Based on the results of this study and analysis. it is recommended that Brighter BioEnergy Partners and its associated enterprises and agencies. undertake a Level II Design and Analysis as its project planning proceeds. revised estimates are developed for a payback period and return on investment. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 22 . Many (if not most) projects that reach this stage are ultimately implemented. after due consideration of the present study and analysis.Based on the estimates of firm costs.

stationary power for buildings and other distributed generation applications. C. Department of Energy. http://www. American Gas Foundation for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ISBN-13: 978-1410219602 Fuel cells are an important technology for a potentially wide variety of applications including micropower. auxiliary power. http://files.pdf Henning.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 23 . First. This includes transportation and auxiliary power applications for the first U. California Energy Commission. 2006. Jim.S. 1st edition.eia. and K. Geothermal Inventory: New Study Highlights Geothermal Resources Available for Development in California and Nevada. S. Eugene M. calculation examples for fuel cells are included for the wide variety of possible applications. 2005. Michael Sloan. The intermediate temperature solid-state fuel cell section is being developed. ISBN-13: 978-1856173872 “The growing interest in fuel cells as a sustainable source of energy is pulling with it the need for new books to provide comprehensive and practical information on specific types of fuel cell and their application. High-temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells: Fundamentals. the handbook includes a separate section on alkaline fuel cells. and Maria de Leon. Fuel Cell Technology: Reaching Towards Commercialization (Engineering Materials and Processes). and an updated index assists the reader in locating specific information quickly. Nigel. Natural Gas and Energy Price Volatility. 2004.ceednet. Finally. 2001. and central power. Design and Applications. Electric Power Annual with Data for 2006. In this edition.geothermal. www.pdf Lovekin. Trisko. transportation power.” (Amazon Review). hybrids are also included as a separate section for the first time. Elsevier Science..) Singhal. ISBN-13: 978-1852339746 (Fuel Cell Technology is a one-volume survey of the state-of-the art research in fuel cells.12. Hybrids are some of the most efficient power plants ever conceived and are actually being demonstrated. These applications will be in a large number of industries worldwide. America Needs New Power Plants!. Kendall (eds. This edition of the Fuel Cell Handbook is more comprehensive than previous versions in that it includes several changes.pdf National Energy Technology Laboratory. U. November-December 2004 GRC Bulletin. This landmark volume on solid oxide fuel cells contains contributions from experts of international repute and provides a single source of the latest knowledge on this topic. Springer. Sammes. 1st edition. Department of Energy.0 APPENDIX 12. an updated list of fuel cell URLs is included in the Appendix. 242-244. Fuel Cell Handbook.doe. 2007. In addition.harc. 2006.1 REFERENCES AND IDENTIFICATION OF SOURCE MATERIALS Energy Information Administration. University Press of the Pacific.

CT 06790 860-496-1111 Contacts providing information for this Report: Andy Skok (Canada) Technical Product & Marketing 203.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS EquityNet. Inc. LLC is not a law firm. Business planning or strategic market analysis or planning.6068 askok@fce. Contact Information FuelCell Energy. nor Comprehensive determination of potential patent(s) infringement. Issues that may have a legal impact are considered from a layperson’s perspective using the reasoning expressed or implied within the report.12. John Franceschina (New York) Technical & Business Development 631. Should such matters be material to the users of this Manufacturing Facility 539 Technology Park Drive Torrington. AND DISCLAIMERS Exclusions The information provided to Brighter BioEnergy Partners in this Study and Analysis does not provide or nor does it include: • • • • Detailed engineering design.4458 jfranceschina@fce.574. CONTACT INFORMATION. Comprehensive development plan evaluation or validation other than as it provides the context for technology identification and potential for future deployment. ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 24 . proper legal counsel should be obtained. nor should it be considered to be a substitute for an analysis of the proponent’s business plan as would be done in full investor due diligence. Global Headquarters 3 Great Pasture Road Danbury. CT 06813 203-825-6000 12. It does not constitute or provide a level of information adequate to stand alone in consequential business decision Disclaimer This report is for an initial study and analysis of alternatives in electrical power generation technologies to specifically complement Brighter BioEnergy Partners’ waste-to-energy conversion system including certain elements of an assessment of technologies.2 EXCLUSIONS.825.

Nothing in this report is intended to replace any third party's independent sole judgment. are cautioned that EquityNet. if any. it was prepared on a non-advocacy basis. There is no intent to predict any reviews. assumptions. 2007 (most recent financials filing) DFC300MA Product Specifications DFC1500MA Product Specifications (NOTE: These attachments are not included in this sample reported as accessed via the EquityNet research services webpages. and this project was not intended as an analysis or assessment of system practicability or functionality (all claims accepted as presented in the patent application). LLC has reviewed any such documents. LLC has no duty to you. and then only in the event of proper attribution. LLC’s report was performed in the employ of our client. relative to any legal considerations or impact are outside the skills of the consultants. or actions by the USPTO. to the extent that EquityNet. it is acknowledged that evaluation of same. allowances. or decision to seek counsel. said other parties may be assured that while EquityNet. EquityNet. EquityNet. Possession of this report. LLC did not review “prior art” as required by USPTO of the patent applicant and did not provide information on patent applications filed but not yet published. the consultants will not make a specific effort to confirm the validity of any of the information.This study will be based upon information obtained from sources that. Other than any specific exceptions described within the report. its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. and therefore no warranty is expressed or implied. or a copy. Inc. This report is further subject to any other contingencies. in reliance on the Client’s representations. 12.) ________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY 25 .4 ATTACHMENTS FuelCell Energy. SEC 8-K form. due diligence. Contact Information Sheet FuelCell Energy. does not carry with it the right of publication of all or any part of this report without the expressed written consent of the consultants. LLC has not reviewed any legal documents. with exceptions. All such other parties will be considered “unintended users” under the terms of our engagement. as noted herein. However. and accordingly. the consultants believe to be reliable. Said other parties. December 11. Should you provide copies or the right of review to others. however. Neither our findings nor this report constitutes advice for any specific action. In addition. Inc. and limiting conditions set out elsewhere within this report.