Research Papers

Cogeneration of Heat and Electricity: A Comparison of Gas Turbine, Internal Combustion Engine, and MCFC/GT Hybrid System Alternatives

[+] Author and Article Information
S. Bargigli1

Department of Chemistry, University of Siena, Via Aldo Moro 2, 53100 Siena, Italysilviabargigli@hotmail.com

V. Cigolotti, A. Moreno

Hydrocomb Unit, ENEA-CR Casaccia, 00060 Rome, Italy

D. Pierini, F. Iacobone

 University of Rome 3, 00060 Rome, Italy

S. Ulgiati

Department of Sciences for the Environment, Parthenope University of Naples, 80133 Naples, Italy

Union for the Co-ordination of Production and Transmission of Electricity.


Corresponding author.

J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol 7(1), 011019 (Nov 11, 2009) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3120270 History: Received January 31, 2008; Revised January 01, 2009; Published November 11, 2009; Online November 11, 2009

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a feasibility study of the supply of electricity and heat to a large user (i.e., a public hospital in Northern Italy) by means of a molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) hybrid system in comparison with other technologies. The study investigated three alternative options in order to meet the user’s demand: internal combustion engine, gas turbine, and a hybrid system (molten carbonate fuel cells and gas turbine, MCFC-HS), which is currently under development by Ansaldo Fuel Cell Ltd. and ENEA. The user requirement was the yearly supplies of 6.65GWhe/year and 21.64GWhth/year. Due to demand fluctuations over the year, integration by electric grid and/or additional thermal boilers was also required and investigated. The approach integrates the usual mass balance with large scale material flow accounting, embodied energy analysis, exergy efficiency, and emergy synthesis, within a LCA perspective. Results show that the best performance from the point of view of energy and exergy efficiency is shown by the MCFC-hybrid system. The latter is also characterized by the lowest embodied energy demand and cumulative material demand as well as by the lowest requirement for direct and indirect environmental support (emergy method). However, the small thermal energy supply of the MCFC-HS compared with the large thermal needs of the hospital calls for a larger use of the additional boiler. The latter device worsens the local-scale emissions of the system, compared with the other alternatives investigated. Results point out that a proper choice cannot only be based on the individual performance of an even well performing technological device, but also needs to be tailored on the system’s characteristics and dynamics, in order to adequately match supply and demand.

Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

General structure of the system investigated. Due to their different performances, cogenerative units 1–3 may require a different demand for integration from electric grid and auxiliary boilers.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Main energy and material input/output flows for cogenerative Option 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Main energy and material input/output flows for cogenerative Option 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Main energy and material input/output flows for cogenerative Option 3



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