0
Research Papers

Study on the Polymer Membrane-Type Fuel Cell and Hybrid Hydrogenation Engine System Considering Improvement of Efficiency for Partial-Load Operation

[+] Author and Article Information
Shin’ya Obara

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ichinoseki National College of Technology, Takanashi, Hagisho, Ichinoseki 0218511, Japanobara@indigo.plala.or.jp

Itaru Tanno

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tomakomai National College of Technology, Nishikioka 443, Tomakomai, Hokkaido 0591275, Japanitaru@me.tomakomai-ct.ac.jp

J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol 5(4), 041003 (Sep 05, 2008) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2889054 History: Received July 04, 2006; Revised July 07, 2007; Published September 05, 2008

Power demand patterns, such as for houses, fluctuate sharply. Therefore, if fuel cell cogeneration is installed in a house, partial-load operations with low efficiency frequently occur. On the other hand, if the hydrogen rate of hydrogenation gas-engine generation is increased at the time of low load, emission cleanup and brake thermal efficiency improve. So, in this paper, a hybrid cogeneration system that combines a hydrogenation gas engine and a solid polymer membrane-type fuel cell is proposed. So, operation of a fuel cell or a gas engine with the threshold value of load is investigated. In this paper, four systems were investigated by numerical analysis: independent hydrogenation gas-engine operation, solid polymer membrane-type fuel cell independent operation, that operates a fuel cell or a gas engine with the threshold value of load, and operation using a fuel cell to a base load. As a result, the operating method corresponding to a base load in polymer membrane-type fuel cell had the highest total efficiency. In this case, gas-engine generator (NEG) is operated corresponding to load fluctuation. Moreover, in the comparison results of carbon dioxide emissions, the hydrogenation operation of NEG achieved the best result.

Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

System configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

System operation: (a) OM-A, (b) OM-B, (c) OM-C, and (d) OM-D

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Eefficiency characteristic model of OM-C

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Output characteristics of NEG: (a) hydrogenation rate and thermal efficiency (5) and (b) amount of optimal hydrogenation (5)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Amount of CH4 and hydrogenation when getting the maximum thermal efficiency

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Relation between a production of electricity and gross power generation efficiency

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Output model of NEG

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

CO2 emission characteristics of NEG

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Output model of 5kW PEM-FC system

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

The characteristic model of the load factor of a PEM-FC with reformer, and power generation efficiency. The area of the electrode including the anode and cathode of the fuel cell stack is 1m2, respectively, and the reformer efficiency is 73%.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Relation of fuel supply and output of 10kW NEG with a boiler (OM-A)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Relation of fuel supply and output of 10kW PEM-FC with a boiler (OM-B)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Relation of fuel supply and output of 5kW NEG and 10-kW PEM-FC hybrid operation (OM-C)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Relation between fuel supply and output of OM-D: (a) 5kW NEG with a boiler and (b) 5kW PEM-FC with a boiler

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Power and heat demand model for ten houses: (a) power demand model and (b) heat demand model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Analysis results of fuel consumption: (a) January, (b) May, (c) August, and (d) fuel consumption of each operation method

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Analysis results of efficiency: (a) power generation efficiency and (b) total efficiency

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Analysis results of carbon dioxide emissions: (a) January, (b) May, (c) August, and (d) carbon dioxide emissions of each operation method

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Analysis results of heat balance: (a) OM-A, (b) OM-B, (c) OM-C, and (d) OM-D

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In