05305 Conversion of Wind Power to Hydrogen



Systems Design and Technical Study for Converting Wind Power into Hydrogen

Rochester Institute of Technology

Kate Gleason College of Engineering

Team Members: Sarah Braymiller

Patrick Griffin

Michael Miller

Stephen Raymond

Justin Szratter

Project Team Leader: Quoc Khanh Ngo

Project Mentors: Professor Brian Thorn

Professor Andrew Carrano

Project Coordinator: Jacqueline Mozrall

Project Sponsors: United States Environmental Protection Agency

Harbec Plastics

Contact: 05305.hydrogenteam@

(585)-613-1578



Table of Contents

1.0 Recognize and Quantify the Need 4

1.1 Customer Background 4

1.2 Energy System Background 4

1.3 Mission Statement: 4

1.4 Product Description and Background 4

1.5 Scope Limitations 5

1.6 Stake Holders 5

1.7 Key Business Goals 6

1.8 Critical Performance Factors 6

1.10 Primary Markets 6

1.11 Secondary Markets 7

1.12 Order Winners 7

1.13 Research Financing 7

1.14 Statement of Work 7

1.15 Project Team: 8

2.0 Project Planning 8

2.1 Work Breakdown Structure 8

2.2 Team Activity Breakdown 8

3.0 Concept Development 9

3.1 Brainstorming 9

3.2 Concept Selection 9

4.1 Weighted Method for Feasibility 10

4.2 Formal Concept Selection 12

5.1 Overview 12

5.1.1 Hydrogen for use 12

5.1.2 Electrolyzer Integration 12

5.1.4 Electric Load and Efficiency 13

5.1.5 Hydrogen Production/Pressure 14

5.3 Fuel Cells 16

5.3.1 Basic Fuel Cell Principle 18

5.3.2 Cogeneration 19

5.3.3 Power Inverters 19

6.0 System Integration 22

6.1 Problem Statement 22

6.2 Summarize Known Information 22

6.3 Summarize Desired Information 22

6.5 Schematic and Given Data 24

6.4 Analysis 27

7.0 Detailed Financial Analysis 27

7.1 Overview 27

7.2 Overall System Costs 28

7.3 Strategies for Payback 28

8.0 People, Prosperity and the Planet 29

8.1 People- Public Health Benefits 29

8.2.1 Prosperity- Economic Development 30

8.3.1 Planet - Environmental Impacts 30

8.3.2 Planet- Comparing Energy Systems 32

Appendix A: Recognize and Quantify Need 36

A-1: Stake Holder Involvement 36

A-2: Critical Performance Factors 36

A-3: Truncated GANNT Chart 37

A-4 Team Work Breakdown 37

Appendix B: Feasibility Assessment 38

B-1: Concept Feasibility 38

References 39

1.0 Recognize and Quantify the Need

1.1 Customer Background

Harbec Plastics is a full service thermal injection mold manufacturer established in 1977. Using CAD/CAM systems in collaboration with modern CNC machining, Harbec offers a quick response in the production of customer orders. Today, Harbec has developed a niche market in the Rochester area by offering highly responsive customer service to customer demand. Harbec currently serves prototype, low, and medium volume customers.

1.2 Energy System Background

Harbec’s commitment to the environment has been a model for the community and manufacturing industry. This commitment to the environment has aided in the introduction of a Wind Turbine system in August 2001 to complement its contingent of low emission natural gas powered microturbines. This allows Harbec to offer a low emissions power system that can operates fully independent from the grid.

Currently, the plant utilizes the energy captured from the wind turbine during five of the seven days of its operation. This accounts for a total of 25% of the power requirements of the facility over a year’s time. The plant operates at minimum capacity over the weekend. During the plant downtime, the energy created by the wind turbine is sent back to the grid at no compensation. The purpose of this project is to economically justify the development a system to capture the wasted energy, convert the energy into hydrogen for use as an alternative energy source.

1.3 Mission Statement:

The purpose of this project is to explore and develop energy system designs that will convert, capture, and store excess energy created by the existing wind turbine at Harbec.

1.4 Product Description and Background

The product will be an energy system that uses hydrogen as the power source. It will be developed using existing market available components. This system will produce hydrogen, store, and utilize the hydrogen created and provide power to support Harbec Plastic’s manufacturing facility. The product will feature hydrogen due to its ability to produce energy and the pollutant free by-products.

Hydrogen is the most abundant resource on the planet. The main source of hydrogen can be found in the form of water. To capture the hydrogen from water there are several techniques. Each technique applies the same principle, 2H2O + energy => 2H2 + O2, water plus energy splits into hydrogen and oxygen. The abundance of hydrogen offers an attractive energy source.

To use hydrogen, several systems have been developed ranging from fuel cells, motors, and hybrid gas systems. These systems provide a feasible non-polluting alternative energy solution. The emissions created from hydrogen usage can be seen as the opposite reaction to hydrogen separation. Water and heat are generated, which are non-polluting emissions. However, at an industrial scale this system has not been applied. This allows for opportunity to innovate the industry.

Overall the system will feature the ability to produce electricity from hydrogen, integration into the co-generation system, and ability to capture and utilize excess hydrogen.

1.5 Scope Limitations

The following list presents the scope limitations determined by the USEPA and Harbec Plastics:

• Design considerations will be given primarily to commercially available products

• Designs must provide the conversion to hydrogen

• Design considerations must include a fuel cell system

• Designs should not increase emissions generated by the facility

• Design will be dependant upon the existing wind turbine at Harbec plastics for energy

• Design will be commercially safe

• Designs will produce a payback period of eight to ten years

• The project technical paper will be completed for submission to the USEPA by April 12th 2005

• The final project submission and presentation will be completed in May 2005

1.6 Stake Holders

The stakeholders[1] for the Conversion of Wind Power to Hydrogen project include:

• Harbec Plastics

• United States Environmental Protection Agency

• Rochester Institute of Technology

1.7 Key Business Goals

The development of this system would open the possibilities to procure, integrate, and operate a renewable energy power source industrially. The system will show the technical and financial feasibility of its implementation. Secondly, it will provide a global benefit through the reduction of pollutants created through conventional energy production. Developing a sustainable energy system would increase the visibility and potential industrial applications in using renewable energy systems.

1.8 Critical Performance Factors

The critical performance factors[2] given the business goals for the Conversion of Wind Power to Hydrogen Project include:

• Overall Cost

• Payback Period

• Energy generation

• Scalability (Physical Size)

• Marketability (Market Effect)

• Environmental Effects

• Social Effects

• Sustainability

These will be the factors in which all concepts and designs will be reviewed, analyzed, and chosen for study. The primary performance factors will be based on cost and payback. These will determine the overall scale and performance of the energy conversion system.

1.10 Primary Markets

The primary market for the energy system is Harbec Plastics. Similarly sized industries interested in the implementation and use of renewable energy systems is also considered a primary market. This system would provide these markets another source of energy to power manufacturing operations without variation in costs generally found in grid power. Specific to Harbec, successful implementation may lead to the purchase of a second turbine, and a size increase to the current energy system.

1.11 Secondary Markets

The secondary market for this energy system would be found within surrounding communities and area educational facilities. It would provide a “Green Example” to the students as well as to the community. It will drive interest in studying sustainable/renewable energy systems. Success on an industrial level can advance renewable technology into public use. These systems would decentralize power production and reduce grid dependency. These systems will also displace the amount of pollutants generated through the use conventional energy.

1.12 Order Winners

Order winners are a list of critical performance parameters that are likely to lead the customer to choose to implement the design concepts. Harbec will be influenced by critical parameters such as sustainability of the design, life cycle costs, and the overall environmental impacts of the design.

The critical factors that the EPA will be interested in involve the environmental and social effects as a result of this design. The EPA would like to see a final design that will have positive social, economic and environmental ramifications.

1.13 Research Financing

The United States Environmental Protection Agency will provide $10,000 to research and develop the renewable energy system. Product realization costs however will far exceed the allocated amount given by the EPA. However, The amount provided will allow the purchase of tools for environmental and product life cycle analysis, project research, and project modeling.

1.14 Statement of Work

This project will deliver:

• A renewable energy system that provides:

o Hydrogen conversion system

o Storage system

o Energy production system

o Integration components

• Detailed technical challenges associated with the energy conversion

• Financial and environmental justification for realizing the energy conversion

• A technical roadmap and program schedule for realizing the conversion

• A facilities analysis that demonstrates potential implementation of the system

This project will provide multiple detailed concepts for customer evaluation and approval for implementation. These deliverables will also be provided to the United States Environmental Protective Agency for competition and evaluation.

1.15 Project Team:

|Name: |Title: |Date: |

|Quoc – Khanh Ngo |Industrial Engineer, Team Member |12-17-04 |

|Stephen Raymond |Mechanical Engineer, Team Member |12-17-04 |

|Sarah Braymiller |Industrial Engineer, Team Member |12-17-04 |

|Justin Szratter |Mechanical Engineer, Team Member |12-17-04 |

|Michael Miller |Mechanical Engineer, Team Member |12-17-04 |

|Patrick Griffin |Mechanical Engineer, Team Member |12-17-04 |

|Brian K. Thorn |Industrial Engineer, Faculty Mentor |12-17-04 |

2.0 Project Planning

2.1 Work Breakdown Structure

The work breakdown structure was developed in conjunction with the project team. The decided methodology to approach this project was to separate and develop activities by concept. Using project management software, a GANTT[3] chart was created and it was determined that three concepts could be developed in detail prior to the EPA customer delivery date of, April 12th 2005. Given the time frame only two concepts could be explored. The scheduled start of the project was on December 12th 2004 and final validation of the project will be completed on April 7th 2004.

2.2 Team Activity Breakdown

The team[4] was divided into activities revolving around the overall main components and main deliverables involved within the system. These areas included the Technical Analysis (Power Systems, Electrolyzers, Storage, Integration, and Facilities), Financial Analysis (Feasibility and Assessment), Environmental Analysis, and Concept Generation.

3.0 Concept Development

3.1 Brainstorming

Ideas were generated outside of the scope requirements and recorded. This was our brainstorming stratagem. The initial ideas generated include:

Kinetic Energy Systems:

• Fly Wheel Energy Storage

Potential Energy Systems:

• Water Reservoir and Turbine

• Heavy Weight Lift

Conventional Energy Systems

• Super-Capacitor Storage

• Battery Storage

• Hybrid Electric and Gas

• Fuel Cells

• Natural Gas and Hydrogen Fuel for Micro Turbines

• Hydrogen Engine (developed in automobiles)

3.2 Concept Selection

Application of scope limitations filtered the list of concepts into three potential systems:

• Hydrogen Fuel Cell

• Hythane Micro-Turbine

• Hydrogen Engine

These three systems were feasible due to their use of Hydrogen. The systems that would be implemented via these three options would not increase the pollution footprint of Harbec. The next stage in concept selection was the development of potential system schematics. This aided in the visualization and realization of the necessary components and systems integration.

3.2.1 Concept Schematics

The following diagrams represent the basic system schematics:

Figure 1: Basic Hythane Schematic

Figure 2: Basic Fuel Cell Schematic

Figure 3: Basic Hydrogen Engine Schematic

The foundational components for each model are primarily the same. Each will require an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen, a water distiller to support the electrolyzer, a storage medium for the hydrogen, and the power production unit that will utilize the hydrogen to produce electricity.

4.0 Concept Feasibility Assessment

4.1 Weighted Method for Feasibility

To assess the feasibility of the concepts, a weighted feasibility chart was developed and used to compare between the systems. This aided in assessing which concept to develop first. The attributes that were used in the development of this assessment were given weights and each concept was rated based on each attribute. Listed below are the attributes[5] given by the weighted feasibility chart:

• Sufficient Technical Background

• Research Material Availability

• Overall Cost Feasibility

• Implementation Costs

• Concept Expectation

• Concept Completion by April

• Existing Technology

• New Technology (Innovation)

• Commercial Availability

• Scalability

The following matrix (Figure 4) features the weighted feasibility chart along with the attributes, concepts, and relative weights involved. The baseline concept used in this evaluation was the fuel cell. It was chosen arbitrarily.

Figure 4: Weighted Feasibility Assessment

The attributes that carried the highest weights were scalability (13%), availability for implementation (18%), customer concept expectation (18%), and the overall cost justification of the project (18%).

4.2 Formal Concept Selection

The fuel cell energy system was selected as the primary concept to explore and develop. It will be followed by the Hythane concept. These will be evaluated in detail based on technical feasibility, economic feasibility, and sustainability. The Hythane concept will be explored in detail during Senior Design II in place of project implementation.

5.0 Feasibility Analysis and Synthesis of System Components

5.1 Overview

The overall fuel cell system will be limited by the power production of the wind turbine. Component selection was a key issue because a balance was required between system capabilities and system costs. Our detailed design criteria will examine and determine the technical challenges as well as solutions to systems integration.

5.1.1 Hydrogen for use

Hydrogen is an attractive fuel because it has the highest energy to weight ratio of any molecule. Systems that use hydrogen for fuel vary from fuel cells, internal combustion engines, and hybrid mixes such as hythane. Hydrogen is currently being created through the use of reformers that convert petroleums, such as methanol, MTBE, and gasoline, into natural gas and hydrogen. This process also produces CO2, a gas responsible for global warming and nitrous oxides (NOx). Creating hydrogen through electrolysis and renewable energy produces zero toxic emissions.

5.1.2 Electrolyzer Integration

Limited primarily to NASA and military applications during the last century, electrolyzers are still an emerging commercial technology. They are only produced by few companies. Researched companies that produce electrolyzers include:

• Stuart Energy[6]

• Teledyne Energy[7]

• Proton Energy[8]

• Norsk Hydro[9].

Electrolyzers however, have hidden costs; a unit alone would not be helpful. Many additional components such as: water purifiers, H2 and O2 storage vessels, and compressors are needed to integrate it into a hydrogen energy system. Several factors need to be taken into account when choosing an electrolyzer.

Key Factors for integration include:

• Hydrogen production

• Electric Load

• Efficiency

• Feed Water

• Cost

To ensure the least amount of emissions generated, only the use of an electrolyzer will be considered in the system model. Since reformers create emissions and require non-renewable energy it will not be considered as a viable hydrogen production unit.

5.1.3 Feed Water

PEM[10] electrolysis requires two fuels, water and electricity. The feed water usually needs to be purified prior to electrolysis either through conventional distillation or reverse osmosis. If hydrogen is being produced to run fuel cells, the water by-product of the fuel cell may be pure enough that it can be run back into the electrolyzer, creating a closed loop system that would reduce overall water requirements. The closed loop water system could also offer potential for use within the onsite co-generation system, which would increase co-generation efficiencies by offering more heat.

5.1.4 Electric Load and Efficiency

Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power are intermittent and cannot supply constant power. Harbec’s 250kW Fuhrländer turbine produces 300,000kWh per year, which provides an average output of 34kW. To optimize hydrogen production the concept will utilize multiple smaller units that operate on less than 34kW. This would allow operation during troughs of energy production and multiple units during peak production. Scalability allows for flexibility in system implementation. Generally larger units will be more efficient, but in the case of electrolyzers, research[11] shows that production efficiencies are dependant upon the manufacturer.

5.1.5 Hydrogen Production/Pressure

To determine the amount of hydrogen production that would be generated by the system the maximum facility downtime period was observed. At Harbec, this period is four days. Therefore maximum operating time for the electrolyzer would be 96 hours. During this time, hydrogen production would range from 12.1 to 68.9 m3. A compressor would be required to store the gas at these ranges.

Electrolyzer production rates are typically given in scm/h, scm3 stands for standard cubic meter, or rather the volume of hydrogen normalized to 101.325kPa and 298K. The calculations to determine the volume at a desired pressure are listed in Figure 5.1.5A.

|Calculating volume at a certain pressure |

| [pic] |Equation 1: Mass |

| |·PN = 101.325 kPa |

| |·TN = 298 K |

| |·VN = Electrolyzer Spec. (Nm3) |

| |·R = 4124 J/kg·K |

| [pic] |Equation 2: Volume |

| [pic] |Equation 3: Sub Eqn1. Into Eqn2. |

| |·T = outlet temperature |

| |·P = desired pressure |

Figure 5.1.5A Volume calculation at desired pressure

|Company |Model |mass (kg) |m3 at respective |m3 at 3000psi |

| | | |output pressure | |

|Teledyne Energy |HM-50 |22.16 |34.44 |1.31 |

|Teledyne Energy |HM-100 |44.32 |68.88 |2.62 |

|Proton Energy |HOGEN H-2 |15.83 |12.13 |0.94 |

|Proton Energy |HOGEN H-3 |23.75 |18.19 |1.40 |

Figure 5.1.5B Electrolyzer’s production at unit’s output pressure and at 3000psi.

The HOGEN-3 produced the smallest volume/least mass, which in turn would require a smaller pressure vessel. However, it is not nearly as efficient as the HM-50. The HOGEN-3 actually uses more energy than the HM-50 to produce less hydrogen.

5.1.5.1 Cost

In the end the choice was between the HM-50 and the HOGEN H-2. Teledyne’s HM-50 is more efficient but the $130,000 price tag was overly expensive as compared to Proton Energy’s HOGEN-2 which costs only $75,000. However a scaled version of the HOGEN-2 operating at the HM-50’s efficiency (6.1 kW·h/Nm3) would cost $110,655. From this point of view the $20,000 difference can be justified. Since hydrogen generation directly influences costs savings, the increase in hydrogen production would increase the costs savings.

5.1.5.2 Component Selection

In particular Harbec wanted us to focus on hydrogen as an energy storage device. An electrolyzer is a fundamental component for all hydrogen based concepts. Through the analysis above, Teledyne’s HM-50 looked to be the best choice. It operates at the lowest power, 17kW, and is also very efficient. Initially one unit would be utilized but in the future supplemental units could be added. Theoretically, 14 units could operate simultaneously at the peak output of the turbine; however this number may be reduced depending on the load from the compressors. After four days of operation the hydrogen, pressurized to 3000psi, would occupy 1.3 m3. These values are critical for the next phases: choosing a compressor, pressure vessel fitting, and determining the proper fuel cell.

5.2 Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen storage will be an essential part to our project in that the amount we will be allowed to store will directly affect how much energy we can produce from our processes. There are three methods to storing hydrogen. The first and most practical, is storing the gas in pressure vessels. The second is refrigerating the hydrogen down to its liquid temperature and storing it in tanks. And finally, the hydrogen molecules can be bonded to metal powder and recovered at a later time with heat.

Use of pressure vessels is attractive due to the potential for 100% return. Hydrogen gas needs to be pressurized to at least 2640psi. The molecules being so small and spread apart, this pressure ensures efficiency of the storage space. The pressure vessel itself needs to be obtained from a pressure vessel distributor such as Taylor-Wharton or Coyne and not from a gas distributor such as Air Products and Chemicals Inc. Another approach to the pressure vessel idea would be the storage within the windmill tower itself. This would be a separate direction due to the fact that the tower currently at Harbec is not suited to be a storage device. Harbec would have to build a new tower with design specifications allowing it to be treated as a pressure vessel. This could save them up to 30% of the cost of storing in regular pressure vessels. Another problem that occurs in pressure vessels is hydrogen embrittlement. This is a process by which the hydrogen erodes the steel lining of the vessel eventually causing failure. This is something that would have to be monitored to ensure that maintenance would be provided at critical times in order to preserve the vessel.

The refrigeration of hydrogen down to its liquid temperature (15-20K) is very impractical. The refrigeration device would require maintenance beyond our capacity. Another factor is that the melting point and boiling point of hydrogen are so close together that it would be impossible to maintain a system incurring just one of the two. Therefore we could expect losses in the transfer of states from gas to liquid and back. This is unfeasible due given the objectives of the project.

The third possibility is bonding the hydrogen to a metal such as Fe (iron), Ti (titanium) or other metal hydrides. This is a process by which the hydride, in powder form, is injected with a hydrogen spray, causing the metal and gas to bond as well as producing heat. When heat is added to the compound later, the hydrogen is released from the bond and can be recaptured for use[i]. The problem with all this is that like the liquification process it requires maintenance beyond our abilities. Thus, the use of pressure vessels is, at this point, the only solution we have that would do us any good.

5.3 Fuel Cells

The first recognized fuel cell was developed in 1838 in England by William Robert Grove. Grove’s fuel cell produced 12 amps at 1.8 volts. Fuel cell development has continued over the years, with perhaps the most high-profile user being NASA. NASA first used fuel cells on the Apollo spacecraft, and continues to use them today.

Each individual fuel cell produces a small amount of power. To provide a useful level of power, fuel cells are usually combined into “stacks.” Consider a hypothetical fuel cell capable of producing 1amp at 1 volt. This fuel cell can provide 1 watt of power:

P = I * V

1 W = 1 v * 1 A

Now, consider a stack of 6 of these hypothetical fuel cells. Here are some possible stacks that could be built:

Figure 5.3A: In this case, the stack can provide 1 amp at 6 volts, for a total of 6 Watts of power.

[pic]

Figure 5.3B: In this case, the stack can provide 2 amps at 3 volts, for a total of 6 Watts of power.

[pic]

Figure 5.3C: In this case, the stack can provide 3 amps at 2 volts, for a total of 6 Watts of power.

[pic]

Figure 5.3D: In this case, the stack can provide 6 amps at 1 volt, for a total of 6 Watts of power.

The above examples show how a stack of individual fuel cells can be designed to provide the voltage and current needs of a specific load.

5.3.1 Basic Fuel Cell Principle

[pic][ii]

Hydrogen enters the fuel cell and comes into contact with the anode. Air or oxygen enters the fuel cell and comes into contact with the cathode. Two electrons are liberated from each hydrogen atom. The resulting protons (hydrogen nuclei) pass through the electrolyte to the side of the fuel cell containing the cathode and oxygen. Since the electrons are unable to pass through the electrolyte, they are forced to travel from the anode to the cathode through an external circuit. This creates a positive DC current flow from the cathode to the anode, powering the external circuit. Upon reaching the cathode, the electrons and protons combine with the oxygen and become water. The only waste gas from this process is water vapor. If a hydrogen source other than pure hydrogen is used, such as natural gas, the “reforming” process of breaking the fuel down into usable hydrogen will produce additional emissions.

Many different types of fuel cells exist, using many different types of electrolytes. The above descriptions and diagrams refer to a PEM (proton exchange membrane or polymer electrolyte membrane) type fuel cell.

5.3.2 Cogeneration

In general, most fuel cells operate on the range of 30 – 40 % efficiency. Much energy is lost as waste heat. By capturing and using the waste heat, the overall efficiency of the system can be increased to over 80 percent. The heat can be used for many purposes, such as directly for heating a building, operating boilers, cooling a building by using absorption chillers, or even increasing the efficiency of a natural gas micro-turbine by warming the intake air.3

Harbec considers itself to be a “thermally enlightened” company – they already have the infrastructure inside their plant for capturing the waste heat from their 25 natural gas powered micro-turbines. This heat is used for heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. Capturing and using the waste heat from a fuel cell would be a simple matter of running a short length of air duct from the fuel cell to the existing waste heat recovery system.

5.3.3 Power Inverters

As stated previously, fuel cells have a DC electrical output. In many cases, this must be converted to some other form in order to be useful. In the case of the Harbec plant, the useful forms of electric power are 480v AC three-phase power to drive the manufacturing equipment, or 120v AC single-phase power to drive the office areas.

Many commercial fuel cell packages come with power inverters to produce this DC-to-AC conversion. If the fuel cell selected for this project does not come with an integrated power inverter, one must be purchased separately.

Any inverter to be used for this application must be capable of “grid-parallel” operation. AC voltage is a sinusoidal waveform, given by the following equation:

V(t) = A*sin(ω*t + φ)

Where A, is the amplitude of the wave, ω is the angular frequency, and φ is the phase of the wave.

Producing the correct amplitude and angular frequency is a straightforward job for inverters. Anyone can buy a relatively cheap inverter that can plug into a car’s 12v DC cigarette lighter and convert the car’s power into 120v AC electricity to power a television, video game system, or similar devices. In an application with only one AC power source, the phase of the output power is not important.

However, if multiple AC power sources are used in parallel to power the same circuitry, the phase of the waveform becomes crucial. In addition to matching amplitudes and frequencies, all sources must share the same phase. Ideally, all power sources would have the exact same waveform, and plotting the waveforms together would result in a graph like the one below, where the outputs of the two sources are indiscernible.

[pic]

Figure 5.3.2 A Waveform Voltage sources with matching amplitudes, frequencies and phases

However, if the sources are out of phase, a plot of their outputs will look like the figure below.

[pic]

5.3.2B: Waveform Voltage sources with matching amplitudes and frequencies, and different phases

At first glance, the above waveforms look like they may not be too far off from each other. However, consider the case where the angle is 3 radians. One source is attempting to drive the load circuitry at 16.9v, while the other source is trying to apply –90.8v to the load. This results in 107.7 volts being applied across the wires, connecting the two sources. Assuming ideal voltage sources and a resistance of 1 Ohm in the wire, this will produce a current of:

I = V/R

107.7v/1Ohm = 107.7 amps

Using the power formula shown earlier, the instantaneous power applied to the wire itself would be 11.6kW, which would melt nearly any wire. In a real-world application, this would hopefully pop the sources’ circuit breakers before any damage could be done to the system or to the sources themselves.

This illustrates why a grid-parallel inverter would be needed for this project. The extra control circuitry needed to match the phase of the inverter output to the rest of the grid is what contributes most significantly to the cost of a grid-parallel inverter.

The other main considerations when searching for possible power inverters for this project are power outputs capability and the input voltage and current levels. There are a wide range of power output levels and types for commercially available power inverters. However, most grid-parallel inverters seem to be set up for solar-panel applications, and require higher voltage and lower current levels (for example, 400 volts and 12 amps) than most of the commercially available fuel cells in the 1kW to 5 kW range can supply (for example, 100volts and 50 amps).

6.0 System Integration

6.1 Problem Statement

The operation of the desired system is at a level that is above the type of equipment used in a laboratory experiment or a science class demonstration, but is much lower than any industrial mass production project today. This type of limitation on the system creates a narrow range of system components that can be used by defining their maximum and minimum operating capabilities. The model used to specify the system components must integrate them in such a way that the goals and constraints are satisfied in conjunction with optimization of operation.

6.2 Summarize Known Information

The known limitations and constraints for the system design are as follows:

• Power to operate system components provided by windmill

▪ 300,000 kW per year

• Floor Space allotted for system implementation

▪ 400 sq. ft.

• Expected Payback:

▪ 8-10 years

• Emissions:

▪ 0 emissions (Green Power)

6.3 Summarize Desired Information

When composing the system it is important to coordinate the component properties to allow for efficient and proper operation of the system. In order to accomplish this task the following system component properties should be considered:

Table 6.3A: Key components and elements involved in Integration

6.4 Assumptions

The assumptions for the limits and constraints are as follows:

• Power provided by the windmill for the production of hydrogen is an evenly distributed portion of the energy provided each year.

• The Windmill operates continuously

6.5 Schematic and Given Data

With the large demand for alternative systems and applications in industry today it was very possible that a system such as the one this paper is addressing may exist. Research for stationary fuel cell applications through the RIT science direct database resulted in the finding of technical papers, which applied stationary fuel cell concepts to different applications. Some examples of the system set ups are shown below.

Figure 6.3B System Setup for Wind Turbine/Fuel Cell System[?]

Figure 6.3C: Wind Photovoltaic Hydrogen Storage System[?]

From these concepts which were explored in the papers the component set up of these systems was modified to fit the application of this paper. Modifications include the removal of component batteries, photovoltaic cells, and simplification of energy consuming loads. The resulting stripped down fuel cell system is shown here.

Figure 6.3D

From the base design of the fuel cell system further modifications were made to increase the probability for the system to be implemented. Such modifications as the replacement of the fuel cell with a hydrogen internal combustion engine can provide for the possibility of higher power output.

[pic]

Figure 6.3E

Another alternative energy system set up was one which was suggested by Harbec. In the past they have tried to implement an experimental system which used hydrogen in a mixture of natural gas to burn in their microturbines. The hydrogen is used to displace a small volume of natural gas through the microturbines, which ultimately should reduce the cost of operation by reducing the amount of natural gas used. This system set up is the most simplistic of the systems in the sense that the hydrogen load is the microturbines that are already installed.

Figure 6.3F

6.4 Analysis

From these system schematics any set of components can be put in place and the system can be analyzed for cost, efficiency, space, etc…. Now the same system can be analyzed by replacing the fuel cell with another. The process of replacing components, the plug and play technique of integration and collecting data can spiral out of control by overlapping components and component selection. A system of how to step through the integration is needed.

In producing and optimal system it is important to first recognize that the total output of energy is limited by the amount of hydrogen stored. Thus in order to maximize energy output the system must maximize hydrogen production. This is the start of the analysis for this paper. Starting with the fuel cell concept an electrolyzer is selected from a list composed of technical specifications. The supporting components of the distiller and compressors are selected next. At this point if the total power consumption exceeds the total power provided by the windmill, then the size of the electrolyzer is scaled down and the selection is repeated. Once the combination of the largest electrolyzer and supporting components are selected without exceeding the windmill power production, the amount of hydrogen and oxygen produced can be determined. This determination allows for the selection of the necessary hydrogen and oxygen storage components by volume. With the volume of hydrogen now known the process of stepping through the different size of fuel cells in order to consume the hydrogen within 6 days begins. After this fuel cell is identified the total space of the system in compared to the area allotted to the project. If this area criterion is met then the total cost of the system is put through a specific financial analysis. If the financial analysis returns an 8-10 year payback for the system after implementation, then the system is optimized, efficient, and feasible.

7.0 Detailed Financial Analysis

7.1 Overview

This section will describe the systems economic analysis, the primary decision making metric for our customer.

In order to achieve the payback period of ten years, the financial analysis was performed alongside the analysis and synthesis of the concept. This played a crucial role in determining the overall scale of the system as well as the level of feasibility. The financial analysis was performed using the key factors given below:

These factors and associated assumptions include:

• Electrical output

• Oxygen output

• Hydrogen output

• Gas Displacement (Hythane Concept)

• Maintenance costs

• Overall system cost

• Gas purchasing costs and trends

• Electric purchasing costs and trends

• Oxygen purchasing costs and trends

• Hydrogen purchasing costs and trends

• Interest rates

• Depreciation (MACRS)

• Price Growth

• Grants, Tax Codes

7.2 Overall System Costs

The overall system cost is the primary factor within the financial model. Balancing component scale and customer expectations in terms of payback was difficult to achieve given the pricing and quotes of the components. The detailed list of components and associated costs can be found in Appendix E-8. The building and infrastructure costs are minimal as the customer has allocated space for the system. Installation costs are estimated to be approximately $50,000 to account for systems integration costs and infrastructure changes will amount to approximate $25,000. The system components cost amounted to $310,000 after installation and after integration it will amount to approximately $385,000. An addition 10% was added to the final cost to account for slack. Quotes had to be assumed for the storage and control systems of the project. This was due to the inability to retrieve quotes from the respective suppliers.

7.3 Strategies for Payback

Justifying the system will be difficult therefore strategies have to be implemented in order to develop a feasible payback model. These strategies include:

• Modular System Implementation

• Developing the system component wise, beginning with the electrolyzer can aid in cost justification by reducing initial costs

• Use more aggressive average area wind speeds instead of the minimum

• Develop the system on a smaller scale

• Using smaller scale components can aid in cost justification

• Seek out government grants and tax breaks for green power

• Implement N years from the current date

• Assumptions

• Cost of technology will decrease over time

• Gas prices increases exponentially

• Electric grid costs increases exponentially

Developing a feasible model will rely on developing various implementation scenarios and simulations.

8.0 People, Prosperity and the Planet

Wind power is a renewable energy source which means it can never be depleted. Wind power is a homegrown, "green" energy source that also promotes our energy independence. Using two blocks (one block is equal to 100 kwh) of wind energy every month for one year reduces carbon dioxide emissions the equivalent to planting 146 trees or not driving 2,338 miles.[?] More of the nation’s energy needs can be met through clean, wind-generated electricity. Supporting wind energy can help the environment and make the nation a better place to live and work.

8.1 People- Public Health Benefits

Power plant emissions create smog, which can lead to acute health problems such as persistent coughing, wheezing, and headaches. On high ozone days children and the elderly are especially at risk and are advised to remain indoors. Similarly, conventional power production makes fine particulates that are toxic in nature and can be linked to premature deaths from heart and lung disease, including cancerx. Utilizing wind energy will help to reduce power plant emissions and therefore will enable better health in the future.

8.2 Prosperity- Public Relations

A dedication to wind positions companies as environmental leaders in the eyes of their customers, vendors and employees. Companies who generate or utilize wind power can receive a “Green” label signifying their commitment to the environment. In addition, this commitment has been know to increase employee and customer loyalty. Companies using green power typically receive their community’s support, approval, and admiration. This devotion enhances the company’s image, which can be an advantage over competitors.

8.2.1 Prosperity- Economic Development

It has been shown that producing electricity from wind instead of from coal, nuclear, natural gas, and oil resources will not cause people in this region to lose their jobs. Economic studies have shown that wind power provides more jobs per unit of energy than other forms of energy[?]. Using wind power created in New York keeps money spent on electricity in the state's economy. Farmers and other landowners where wind farms are built are the recipients of a long-term source of income. In addition, wind turbines use less than 5% of the land on which they are sitedvi. More than 95% of their land is still left over for other profitable activities, such as farming, ranching, or forestry. Wind energy creates jobs and revenue for rural communities, both in royalties to landowners and as a tax base.

Wind power is produced locally and paves the way to reducing the United State’s need for imported oil. The more wind energy that is purchased, the more wind farms will be developed. Currently, wind energy costs more to produce that conventional energy. Although, by improving turbine technology a market will be developed and continue to drive the price down.

8.3.1 Planet - Environmental Impacts

The production of electricity generates more pollution than virtually any other single industry in the United States. Traditional energy production creates many unwanted side effects that endanger the environment. These unwanted side effects include acid rain, poor air quality, nuclear waste disposal, and global warming. Wind power is a new environmentally friendly alternative energy source that is clean, abundant, domestic, and can never be depleted. It is pollution free and makes electricity with no combustion, no smoke, and no waste. Production of toxic emissions are harmful to people and the environment.

Figure 7.31A: RG&E Fuel Emissions

Figure 8.31A illustrates the typical mixture of resources that RG&E (the energy company in this region) uses to create their electricity. The mixture energy from these sources: nuclear (55%), hydroelectric energy (7%), coal (28%), natural Gas (7%) and other resources (3%).[?] The majority of these energy sources

Another environmental concern that many communities have involving energy production is its effect on the wildlife. Some people believe that wind turbines will harm the animals in the neighboring environment. Though, it is proven there is no danger to the surrounding wildlife. When wind farms are sited correctly they do not have a negative impact on birds. Several of the early wind farms, specifically Altamont Pass in Northern California, have resulted in the death of raptors, such as hawks and eaglesvi. In these areas these birds of prey occasionally perch on top of the wind turbines in order to get a better view while hunting. When the wind begins to blow, these birds would get caught in the spinning blades. To prevent these deaths, studies are now conducted to understand bird migration patterns to ensure the safe placement of wind farms. Now wind farm sites have been found to be free of ground prey and bodies of water that attract birds, and are not within hunting range of raptor nests or located on bird migratory routes. In addition, modern wind turbine designs are significantly more bird-friendly. Modern design concepts include solid tubular towers, which are used to prevent birds from perching on them. Also, the turbine blades themselves rotate much more slowly than earlier designs. The bird deaths at the Altamont Pass site should however, be considered in context. There were 183 bird deaths there over a two-year period and wind turbines are not responsible for all of these deaths. Automobiles are the cause of 57 million bird deaths a year, more than 97 million birds die by flying into plate glass each year, and approximately 1.5 million birds die from collisions with structures (towers, stacks, bridges, and buildings) every year - according to the Audubon Societyvi. Nevertheless, any bird deaths from wind turbines are not just a problem morally but they can also be a problem legally if a protected bird such as a red-tailed hawk or golden eagle is injured or killed.

8.3.2 Planet- Comparing Energy Systems

An analysis was performed in order to determine the environmental impacts of using hydrogen as an energy source versus traditional energy resources. As mentioned before RG&E gets its power from a number of different sources, some of which include coal, oil and gas. Generating power using these resources releases contaminants into the atmosphere. The major contaminates that this analysis was focused on are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon dioxide.

Sulfur dioxide belongs to the sulfur oxide family of gases. This family of gases dissolves easily in water. Sulfur exists in all raw materials including crude oil, coal, and ore.[?] Sulfur oxide gases are produced when fuel that contains sulfur is burned. Once sulfur dioxide dissolves in water vapor acid is formed. Sulfates are formed when this acid interacts with other gases and particles in the air. Sulfates and other products of sulfur dioxide can be very harmful to human beings and their environment. The hazardous impacts of sulfur dioxide include respiratory effects, visual impairment, acid rain, plant and water damage, along with aesthetic damage statues and sculpturesviii.

A comparison was made in the environmental analysis as to how many pounds of sulfur dioxide emissions are produce by traditional energy systems versus fuel cells. The amount of power that a fuel cell generates was calculated. Then it was determined how much emissions are generated for that amount of power using traditional resources.

Chart 8.3.2A illustrates the sulfur dioxide emission ate for each of these systems. [pic]

Figure 8.3.2A: Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

The chart shows that a coal power plant would produce the most sulfur dioxide emissions with 348.66 lbs/yr. The oil power plant has the second highest emission rate with 19.61 lbs/yr, while a gas plant has approximately 0.10lbs/year. Both the microturbine and hydrogen systems have no sulfur dioxide emissions.

The next major contaminate that the analysis focused on was nitrogen dioxide. When fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process, nitrogen oxides are created. Nitrogen dioxide can be seen as a reddish- brown layer over metropolitan cities.[?]

Nitrogen dioxide can also be very harmful to people and the environment. It is one of the main ingredients responsible for the formation of ground-level ozone, which can initiate serious respiratory problems. Along with respiratory problems this chemical has also been known to cause visual impairment. In addition to health problems, nitrogen dioxide contributes to environmental problems such as the formation of acid rain, deteriorates water quality, and contributes to global warming.[?]

Figure 8.3.2B Nitrogen Dioxide shows that an oil power plant would produce the most nitrogen dioxide emissions at a rate of 142.59 lbs/year. It depicts the emissions of nitrogen dioxide from coal, gas and oil plants versus a fuel cell system.

The next major emitting system is the coal power plant with an emission rate of 38.92 lbs/yr. The gas power plant and the microturbine system produce approximately the same amount of nitrogen dioxide emissions. All of these emissions would not be released with the fuel cell.

The last contaminate that was focused on in our analysis was carbon dioxide. Carbon Dioxide is a by-product of fossil fuels. While moderate levels of carbon dioxide are good for the environment, high levels of carbon dioxide could cause many problems. Global warming advocates say that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to ecological disaster, including wild swings in weather patterns, desertification, spread of hot-climate infectious diseases, and greater risks of severe, damaging weather.[?]

Figure 7.3.2C illustrates the carbon dioxide rates for all of the systems in the analysis versus a fuel cell system.

All of the above systems create fairly high levels of carbon dioxide emissions when compared a fuel cell. Wind power and hydrogen energy systems produce none of the toxic emissions associated with traditional energy systems. Implementing these systems would reduce overall emission rates.

Appendix A: Recognize and Quantify Need

A-1: Stake Holder Involvement

Harbec Plastics

• Provides the resources necessary for product implementation.

• Primary customer

• The product will directly effect the company

• A prototype will be installed at the customer site

• Requires project justification

United States Environmental Protection Agency

• Secondary customer

• Requires environmental analysis in product implementation

• Requires presentation and justification project implementation

Rochester Institute of Technology

• Secondary customer

• Provides technical support

• Requires technical documentation and research

• Requires presentation and project justification for implementation

A-2: Critical Performance Factors

Overall Cost

The overall cost of the project will drive the implementation of the project. It will aid in determining the Net Present Value and project payback. The overall cost includes the summation and pricing of the primary system components as well as the secondary support components.

Energy generation

The energy generated by the system will directly affect the cost savings of the system. It provides the positive cash inflow for financial justification.

Scalability

The scale of the system or modularity of the system will aid in future upgrades from the base model to increase overall system power or efficiency.

Marketability

The market effect of the product will determine future investments into similar types of renewable energy systems.

A-2: Critical Performance Factors Continued

Environmental Effects

The environmental factors of the project will show the effects of the system on the environment versus conventional energy usage.

Social Effects

The social factors of the project will show the effects of system implementation of the community

Sustainability

Sustainability will determine the lasting effect of the implementation on the people, planet, and prosperity.

A-3: Truncated GANNT Chart

[pic]

A-4 Team Work Breakdown

|Quoc Khanh Ngo |Financial analysis and |Justin Szrattler |Hythane system feasibility |

| |facilities planning | | |

|Patrick Griffin |Electrolyzer solutions |Paul Williams |Wind Turbine and |

| | | |Power system |

|Michael Miller |Storage solutions |Sarah Braymiller |Sustainability Analysis and |

| | | |facilities |

|Stephen Raymond |Systems Integration | | |

Appendix B: Feasibility Assessment

B-1: Concept Feasibility

• Sufficient Technical Background

o This attribute is based on the students technical knowledge and ability to complete the project

• Research Material Availability

o This attribute is based on the availability of research material for the project. It also accounts for the feasibility of developing quotes for the project components.

• Overall Cost Justification Feasibility

o This attribute is based on whether or not the concept will fall within the eight to ten year payback period based on heuristic modeling

• Implementation Costs

o This attribute is based on the amount of financial resources that will be allocated towards the concepts for development

• Concept Expectation

o This attribute is based on the customer expectations from the concepts. What the concepts are, and their performance

• Concept Completion by April

o This attribute accounts for the nature of the project and the ability/time to produce more than one in depth concept.

• Existing Technology

o This attribute accounts for whether or not design work applies in concept

• New Technology (Innovation)

o This attribute accounts for the design aspect of the project, and how much design work goes into the concept

• Commercial Availability

o This attribute accounts for whether or not the concept can be developed due given the availability of the project

• Scalability

o This attribute accounts the modularity of the system and its ability to grow in size.

References

-----------------------

[1] Explanation of Stakeholder Involvement can be found in Appendix A-1

[2] An explanation of these factors can be found in Appendix A-2

[3] A truncated GANTT Chart can be found in Appendix A-3

[4] The team breakdown can be found in Appendix A-4

[5] Detailed descriptions of the feasibility attributes can be found in Appendix B-1

[6] Stuart Energy –

[7] Teledyne Energy –

[8] Proton Energy –

[9] Norsk Hydro – http:/

[10] PEM – Proton Exchange Membrane

[11] Appendix 5.1.4

-----------------------

[i] “Holcomb Fuel Cells” Department of Defense

[ii] “Types of Fuel Cells.” Fuel Cells. US Department of Energy. 01-07-04.

[iii] “Datta, Velayutham, and Prasad Goud. Fuel Cell Power Source For a Cold Region”

Journal of Power Sources 106 (2002) 370-376

[iv] “Shakay, Aye, and Musgrave. Technical Feasibility and Financial Analysis of Hybrid Wind-Photovoltaic With Hydrogen Storage for Cooma.”

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 9-20

[v] "Frequently Asked Questions." Catch the Wind. RG&E. 25 Jan. 2005

     .

[vi] "Frequently Asked Questions." New Wind Energy. Niagara Mohawk. 25 Jan. 2005

     .

[vii] "Product Content Label." Catch the Wind. RG&E. 25 Jan. 2005

     .

[viii] “SO2:  What is it? Where does it come from?” Six Common Air Pollutants. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2 Feb. 2005

.

[ix] “NO2:  What is it? Where does it come from?” Six Common Air Pollutants. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2 Feb. 2005

.

[x] “Chief Causes for Concern.” Six Common Air Pollutants. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2 Feb. 2005

.

[xi] “EPA's Declaration of Carbon Dioxide as Pollutant Makes All of Us Polluters.” Primer on Climate Change. 2 Feb. 2005

.

“HOGEN Technical Specifications.” Proton Energy Systems. 10 Jan. 2005 .

“Hydrogen Generation.” Stuart Energy. 16 Jan. 2005 .

“Technical Data Standard Plant.” Norsk Hydro. 18 Jan. 2005 .

“TITAN Hydrogen/Oxygen Generators.” Teledyne Energy Systems, Inc. 12 Jan. 2005 . Path: Titan_HM_june02.pdf; Titan_EC_june02.pdf; Titan_HP_june02.pdf.

Zittel, Werner, Dr. “Hydrogen in the Energy Sector.” HyWeb. 7 Aug. 1996. 2 Feb. 2005 .

-----------------------

[pic]

baseline 5= much better than baseline

baseline 3 = same as baseline 4 = better than

worse than baseline concept 2 = worse than

baseline, score each attribute as: 1 = much

Evaluate each additional concept against the

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Resources, Outputs, and Integration

Key Components

Hydrogen

Engine

[pic]

Kinetic Energy

Relative Weight

Hythane

Fuel Cell

Sufficient Technical Background

3.0

3

5

3

0%

Research Material Availability

3.0

1

3

5

9%

Overall Cost Feasibility

3.0

3

2

2

18%

Implementation Costs

3.0

3

2

2

7%

Concept Expectation

3.0

1

1

1

18%

Concept Completion by April

3.0

3

3

3

9%

Existing Technology

3.0

3

5

4

2%

New Technology (Innovation)

3.0

2

5

2

7%

Commercial Availability

3.0

5

2

2

18%

Scalability

3.0

3

1

1

13%

Weighted Score

3.0

2.8

2.1

2.1

Normalized Score

100.0%

91.9%

71.1%

69.6%

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download