0
Research Papers

# Technical, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of PEFC Power Generation System Using Surplus Hydrogen Produced From an Oil Refinery

[+] Author and Article Information
Takahide Haneda

Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd., Energy System
Research Institute,
1-7-7, Suehiro-cho, Tsurumi-ku,
Yokohama 230-0045, Japan;
Systems Engineering,
Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology,
2-24-16, Nakacho,
Koganei 184-8588, Tokyo, Japan
e-mail: haneda@tokyo-gas.co.jp

Atsushi Akisawa

Institute of Engineering,
Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology,
2-24-16, Nakacho,
Koganei 184-8588, Tokyo, Japan
e-mail: akisawa@cc.tuat.ac.jp

Manuscript received March 21, 2017; final manuscript received June 1, 2017; published online June 27, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Robert J. Braun.

J. Electrochem. En. Conv. Stor. 14(4), 041001 (Jun 27, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: JEECS-17-1033; doi: 10.1115/1.4036956 History: Received March 21, 2017; Revised June 01, 2017

## Abstract

The potential of an energy system that comprises hydrogen-fueled polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEFCs), a steam reformer, and a hydrogen storage tank, using surplus hydrogen produced from an oil refinery, was evaluated using a mathematical model based on linear programming. The aim of this study was to optimize the capacity of the hydrogen-fueled PEFC, the hydrogen production of the steam reformer, and the utilization amount of the hydrogen storage tank in order to minimize the total system cost. Based on the optimization results, the system cost reduction and CO2 emission reduction effects were calculated in relation to the power generation efficiency and the installation cost of the hydrogen-fueled PEFC. As a result, the conditions for the hydrogen-fueled PEFC where a system cost reduction could be achieved in the PEFC power generation system, compared with the conventional system, were shown to be an initial cost lower than 3000 $/kW for a power generation efficiency of 50% or an initial cost lower than 5000$/kW for a power generation efficiency of 65%.

<>

## Figures

Fig. 1

Configuration of the conventional system

Fig. 2

Configuration of the PEFC power generation system

Fig. 3

City gas consumption of steam reformer at partial load

Fig. 4

Case 1: Monthly operation rate of the steam reformer with no monthly fluctuation

Fig. 5

Case 2: Monthly operation rate of the steam reformer with monthly fluctuation

Fig. 6

Correlations between capacity (p2) and initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 1

Fig. 7

Correlations between maximum hydrogen storage (V) in the hydrogen storage tank and initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 1

Fig. 8

Correlation between the annual average operation rate (r1) of the steam reformer and the initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 1

Fig. 9

Correlation between the annual average operation rate (r2) of the H2-PEFC and the initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 1

Fig. 10

Correlations between the system cost reduction and the initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 1

Fig. 11

Correlation between CO2 emission reduction and initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 1

Fig. 12

Correlations between capacity (p2) and initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 2

Fig. 13

Correlations between maximum hydrogen storage (V) in the hydrogen storage tank and initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 2

Fig. 14

Correlation between the annual average operation rate (r1) of the steam reformer and the initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 2

Fig. 15

Correlation between the annual average operation rate (r2) of the H2-PEFC and the initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 2

Fig. 16

Correlations between system cost reduction and initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 2

Fig. 17

Correlation between CO2 emission reduction and initial cost (c3) for different power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC, under the optimal conditions for case 2

Fig. 18

Comparison of the system cost reduction of the PEFC power generation system for the initial cost (c3) and power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC in cases 1 and 2

Fig. 19

Comparison of the system cost reduction of the PEFC power generation system for the initial cost (c3) and power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC with and without a hydrogen storage tank in case 2

Fig. 20

Comparison of the system cost reduction of the PEFC power generation system for the initial cost (c3) and power generation efficiencies (e) of the H2-PEFC at various hydrogen purification cost (c4) in case 2

## 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 Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections