Exergetic and thermoeconomic analysis of a 200-kW phosphoric acid

fuel cell plant

Ho-Young Kwak
a,
*
, Hyun-Soo Lee
a
, Jung-Yeul Jung
a
, Jin-Seok Jeon
b
, Dal-Ryung Park
b
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Chung-Ang University, 221, Huksuk-Dong, Dongjak-Ku, Seoul 156-756, South Korea
b
R&D Center, Korea Gas Corporation, Ansan 425-790, South Korea
Received 9 February 2002; revised 9 February 2002; accepted 7 April 2004; available online 4 May 2004
Abstract
Exergetic and thermoeconomic analysis were performed for a 200-kW phosphoric acid fuel cell plant which offers many advantages for
co-generation in the aspect of high electrical efciency and low emission. This analytical study was based on the data obtained by in-eld
measurement of PC25C fuel cell plant to nd whether this system is viable economically. For 100% load condition, the electrical efciency
obtained, 43.7% turned out to be much better than that for the 1000-kW gas turbine co-generation plant. However, the calculated unit cost of
electricity with the initial investment cost per power of fuel cell plant of 3000 $/kW, 0.068 $/kWh turned out to be 125% higher than the cost
obtained for the 1000-kW gas turbine co-generation plant. This fuel cell system may be viable economically when the initial investment cost
per power is reduced to the level of the gas turbine co-generation plant of 1500 $/kW.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Exergy analysis; Fuel cell plant; Modied Productive structure; Phosphoric acid fuel cell; Thermoeconomic analysis
1. Introduction
Exergetic analysis permits to predict the performance of
energy systems as well as the efciency of each component
of the systems. On the other hand, thermoeconomic analysis
provides a tool to estimate the unit cost of products properly
and the monetary loss associated with the entropy
generation in the components of the system. One of the
merits of the fuel cell system is that considerable entropy
generation occurred during combustion process inevitably
at gas burner can be saved by reformer where endothermic
reaction takes place, even though only 40% of the chemical
exergy of natural gas is utilized to produce electricity at fuel
cell stack and the life time of the system is shorter [1].
In this study, exergetic and thermoeconomic analysis
were performed for a 200-kW phosphoric acid fuel cell
(PAFC) plants which offers many advantages for co-gen-
eration in the aspect of high electrical efciency and low
emissions [2] to nd whether the system is
viable economically. This system analysis based on the
detailed conservation laws employed the data obtained by
the in-eld measurement of PC25C fuel cell power plant
(ONSI corporation), installed and operated at Korea Gas
Corporation.
The exergy-balance equation developed by Oh et al. [3]
and the corresponding cost-balance equation by Kim et al.
[4] were utilized in this analysis. Detail computational
works on the estimation of property values were done by
using the polynomial for gases [5] and the equations
suggested by International Formulation Committee for
water and steam [6]. For hydrocarbon fuels, Benedict
WebbRubin equation of state [7] was utilized. Rearrange-
ment of the components depending on their function of the
PAFC system was done to apply the developed cost-balance
equation with integrated exergy stream [8] to the system
concerned. The performance and the unit cost of products of
the system were evaluated at various loads.
For 100% load condition, the electrical efciency of the
PAFC system was about 43.7%, which turned out to be
much better than that for the 1000-kW gas turbine co-
generation plant [4]. However, the calculated unit cost of
electricity with the initial investment cost of fuel cell
plant of 3000 $/kW, 0.068 $/kWh turned out to be 125%
higher than the cost obtained for the gas turbine co-genera-
tion plant.
0016-2361/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2004.04.002
Fuel 83 (2004) 20872094
www.fuelrst.com
* Corresponding author. Tel.: -82-28205278; fax: -82-28267464.
E-mail address: kwakhy@cau.ac.kr (H.-Y. Kwak).
2. Cost-balance equation based on modied productive
structure analysis
A general exergy-balance equation that is applicable to
any component of thermal system may be formulated by
utilizing the rst and second law of thermodynamics [3].
With some modication on the exergy-balance equation for
the non-adiabatic components to account the exergy losses
due to heat transfer, the general exergy-balance equation
may be written as with integrated exergy stream
_
E
CHE
x
-
X
input
_
E
BQ
x;i
2
X
output
_
E
BQ
x;j
0
@
1
A
-
X
inlet
_
E
x;i
2
X
outlet
_
E
x;j
!
- T
o
X
inlet
_
S
i
2
X
outlet
_
S
j
-
_
Q
CV
=T
!
=
_
E
W
(1)
where
_
E and
_
S denote the ow rate of exergy and entropy,
respectively, and
_
Q
CV
in the fth term denotes the heat
transfer interaction between a component and environment.
The superscripts CHE, BQ and W denote chemical exergy,
steam and work (or electricity), respectively.
Assigning a unit exergy cost to each decomposed exergy
system, the cost-balance equation corresponding to the
exergy-balance equation given in Eq. (1) may be written as
_
E
CHE
x
C
o
-
X
input
_
E
BQ
x;i
2
X
output
_
E
BQ
x;j
0
@
1
A
C
BQ
-
X
inlet
_
E
x;i
2
X
outlet
_
E
x;j
!
C
E
-T
o
X
inlet
_
S
i
2
X
outlet
_
S
j
2
_
Q
CV
=T
o
!
C
S
-
_
Z
[k]
=
_
E
W
C
W
(2)
where C
o
;C
BQ
;C
E
;C
S
and C
W
are the unit cost of fuel,
steam, gas exergy and negentropy, and electricity, respect-
ively. The term
_
Z
[k]
includes all nancial charges associated
with owning and operating the kth plant component. Eqs. (1)
and (2) are two basic equations used in this analysis. We call
the exergy-costing method based on these equations as
modied productive structure analysis (MOPSA) one in the
sense that the cost-balance equation given in Eq. (2) yields
the productive structure of thermal system at hand [4],
which has been suggested and developed by Lozano and
Valero [9] and Torres et al. [10].
3. Cost equation for plant component
All costs due to owing and operating a plant depend on
the type of nancing, required capital, expected life of a
component, etc. The annualized (levelized) cost method of
Moran [11] was employed in this study.
The amortization cost for a particular plant component
may be written as present worth (PW)
PW = C
i
2S
n
PWF(i; n) (3)
where C
i
is initial investment cost and PWF(i; n) is the PW
factor. The PW of the component may be converted to
the annualized cost by using the capital recovery factor
CRF(i; n); i.e.
_
C ($=year) = PW CRF(i; n) (4)
Dividing the levelized cost by 8000 annual operating hours,
we obtain the following capital cost for the kth component
of the plant.
_
Z
k
= f
k
_
C
k
=(3600 8000) (5)
The maintenance cost is taken into consideration through
the factor of f
k
= 1:06 for each plant component whose
expected life is assumed to be 15 years.
4. System descrition for 200-kW phosphoric acid
fuel cell plant
A schematic of a 200-kW phosphoric acid fuel cell
(PAFC) is given in Fig. 1, and shows every state point
which we accounted for in this analysis. Every state in the
plant is described by three digits. The rst digit indicates
a specic uid stream (0 for natural gas, 1 for air, 2 for
hydrogen-rich gas, 3 for steam, 4 for water and 5 for ue
gas), and the second digit indicates each component in the
plant (1 for the rst heat exchanger [HTX1], 2 for CO
shift converter [COSC], 3 for reformer [RFM], 4 for gas
burner [GASB], 5 for the air preheater [HTX2], 6 for fuel
cell stack [FCS], 7 for the third heat exchanger [HTX3], 8
for steam/water separator [SWS] and 9 for the fourth heat
exchanger [HTX4]). The nal digit indicates the inlet (1)
and outlet (2) stream of working uids at each component.
The fuel cell plant consists of fuel process system
([HTX1], [COSC], [RFM], and [GASB]) which converts
natural gas into hydrogen-rich gas, power system ([FCS])
which converts chemical exergy of gas into electricity by
electrochemical process and thermal management system
([SWS], [HTX4], and water treatment system [WTS]). At
full load condition, the air to [GASB] and the fuel ow
rate to the system are approximately 248 and 35 kg/h,
respectively. The air ow rate to the cathode in [FCS] at
the full load is about 678 kg/h. Part load condition can
be achieved by controlling the air ow rate to [GASC]
and to the cathode in [FCS] and the fuel ow rate to
[RFM]. More detailed description including the rst law
of thermodynamics for the major components is as
follows.
4.1. Fuel process system
Hydrogen-rich gas needed for the electrochemical
reaction in [FCS] can be produced from the natural gas
(primary CH
4
) via the reforming process of steam from
[HTX1]. The possible reactions in the reforming process
H.-Y. Kwak et al. / Fuel 83 (2004) 20872094 2088
[12] are given as
C
n
H
m
- 2nH
2
O !nCO
2
- 2n -
1
2
m

H
2
(6)
C
n
H
m
- nH
2
O !nCO - n -
1
2
m

H
2
(7)
The chemical reaction in [RFM] including these endother-
mic reactions may be written as
aC
aj
H
bj
- bC
ak
H
bk
- cC
al
H
bl
- dC
am
H
bm
- yH
2
O
!fn
at
CO
2
- (1 2f )n
at
CO - (1 - f )n
at
-
1
2
n
bt
!
H
2
- y 2(1 - f )n
at

H
2
O (8)
where aa
j
- ba
k
- ca
l
- da
m
= n
at
;
ab
j
- bb
k
- cb
l
- db
m
= n
bt
;
and f is the ratio of the reaction given in Eq. (6) to the
reaction given in Eq. (7), which may be determined from the
heat balance for [RFM] and [GASB]. The value of f which
affects the outlet temperature of the hydrogen-rich gas
stream in [HTX1] is about 0.7950.80. Applying the rst
law to [RFM], we obtain
Q
RFM
- Q
EX
RFM
=

h
RP;RFM
(9)
where

h
RP;RFM
is the enthalpy of combustion for the reaction
given in Eq. (8), which is given by

h
RP;RFM
=
X
product
n
e
(

h
0
f
-D

h)
e
2
X
reactant
n
i
(

h
0
f
-D

h)
i
=fn
at
(

h
0
f
)
CO
2
-(12f )n
at
(

h
0
f
)
CO
2(1-f )n
at
(

h
0
f
)
H
2
O
2a(

h
0
f
)
C
a
j
H
b
j
2b(

h
0
f
)
C
a
k
H
b
k
2c(

h
0
f
)
C
a
l
H
b
l
2d(

h
0
f
)
C
a
m
H
bm
- fn
at
(D

h)
CO
2
-(12f )n
at
(D

h)
CO
n
-(1-f )n
at
-
1
2
n
bt
(D

h)
H
2
-[y2(1-f )n
at
]
(D

h)
H
2
O
o
T
e;RFM
2 a(D

h)
C
a
j
H
b
j
-b(D

h)
C
a
k
H
b
k
n
-c(D

h)
C
a
l
H
b
l
-d(D

h)
C
a
m
H
b
m
-y(D

h)
H
2
O
o
T
i;RFM
(10)
where

h
0
f
is the enthalpy of formation and D

h is the sensible
enthalpy. The heat transfer rates, Q
RFM
and Q
EX
RFM
are heat
exchange with environment and gas burner, respectively.
The reformed hydrogen-rich gas is cooled by the natural
gas and steam in [HTX1], and the remaining CO gas from
[RFM] is converted to CO
2
in [COSC] through the following
reaction. These gases are fed into the anode in [FCS].
fn
at
CO
2
- (1 2f )n
at
CO - (1 - f )n
at
-
1
2
n
bt
!
H
2
- [y 2(1 - f )n
at
]H
2
O !pCO - (n
at
2p)CO
2
- (2n
at
2p) -
1
2
n
bt
!
H
2
- [y 22n
at
- p]H
2
O (11)
Fig. 1. Schematic of 200-kW phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFC) system (modied from Ref. [12]).
H.-Y. Kwak et al. / Fuel 83 (2004) 20872094 2089
The concentration of CO gas leaving [COSC] may be
estimated by the following equation
[CO] =
[CO
2
][H
2
]
[H
2
O]
K
P
(T) (12)
where [ ] in Eq. (12) denotes gas concentration and K
P
(T) is
the equilibrium constant for the reaction, CO - H
2
O !
CO
2
- H
2
[13].The rst law in [COSC] is given by
[a(D

h)
C
a
j
H
b
j
-b(D

h)
C
a
k
H
b
k
-c(D

h)
C
a
l
H
b
l
-d(D

h)
C
a
m
H
b
m
]
T
i;COSC
-Q
COSC
=

h
RP;COSC
-[a(D

h)
C
a
j
H
b
j
-b(D

h)
C
a
k
H
b
k
-c(D

h)
C
a
l
H
b
l
-d(D

h)
C
am
H
bm
]
T
e;COSC
(13)
where Q
COSC
is the heat exchange with environment and the

h
RP;COSC
is the enthalpy of combustion for the reaction given
in Eq. (11). That is

h
RP;COSC
=[p2(12f )n
at
][(

h
0
f
)
CO
2(

h
0
f
)
CO
2
-(

h
0
f
)
H
2
O
]
- p(D

h)
CO
-(n
at
2p)(D

h)
CO
2
n
- 2n
at
-
1
2
n
bt
2p

(D

h)
H
2
-[y22n
at
-p]
(D

h)
H
2
O
o
T
e;COSC
2 fn
at
(D

h)
CO
2
n
-(12f )n
at
(D

h)
CO
- (1-f )n
at
-
1
2
n
bt
!
(D

h)
H
2
-[y2(1-f )](D

h)
H
2
O
o
T
i;COSC
(14)
The heat required for the endothermic reactions in [RFM] is
supplied from the combustion process in [GASB]. The
unconsumed hydrogen-rich gas after the anodic reaction in
[FCS] with additional natural gas from line are burned with
heated air from[HTX2]. This combustion process in [GASB]
may be described as
a
/
C
a
j
H
b
j
-b
/
C
a
k
H
b
k
-c
/
C
a
l
H
b
l
-d
/
C
a
m
H
b
m
-n
to
O
2
-3:728n
to
N
2
-0:044n
to
Ar-[n
wv
-y22n
at
-p]H
2
O
-eH
2
-(n
at
2p)CO
2
-pCO!(n
at
-n
/
at
)CO
2
-
1
2
(n
bt
-n
/
bt
)-n
wv
-y22g
!
H
2
O
- (n
to
-g)2(n
at
-n
/
at
)2
1
4
(n
bt
-n
/
bt
)
!
O
2
-3:728n
to
N
2
-0:044n
to
Ar (15)
where
n
/
at
=a
/
a
j
-b
/
a
k
-c
/
a
l
-d
/
a
m
n
/
bt
=a
/
b
j
-b
/
b
k
-c
/
b
l
-d
/
b
m
e=2n
at
-
1
2
n
bt
2p22g
n
to
=n
toH
-n
toG
n
wv
=n
wvH
-n
wvG
The rst law in [GASB] may be written as
Q
GASB
2Q
EX
RFM
=

h
RP;GASB
(16)
where Q
GASB
is the heat exchanger with environment and

h
RP;GASB
is the enthalpy of combustion for the reaction given
in Eq. (15). This is given by

h
RP;GASB
=(n
/
at
-p)(

h
0
f
)
CO
2
-
1
2
(n
bt
-n
/
bt
)-2n
at
22g2p
!
(

h
0
f
)
H
2
O
2a
/
(

h
0
f
)
C
a
j
H
b
j
2b
/
(

h
0
f
)
C
a
k
H
b
k
2c
/
(

h
0
f
)
C
a
l
H
b
l
2d
/
(

h
0
f
)
C
am
H
bm
- (n
at
-n
/
at
)(D

h)
CO
2
n
-
1
2
(n
bt
-n
/
bt
)-n
wv
-y22g
!
(D

h)
H
2
O
- (n
to
-g)2(n
at
-n
/
at
)2
1
4
(n
bt
-n
/
bt
)
!
(D

h)
O
2
-3:728n
to
(D

h)
N
2
-0:044n
to
(D

h)
Ar

T
e;GASB
2 n
to
(D

h)
O
2
-3:728n
to
(D

h)
N
2
-0:044n
to
(D

h)
Ar
n
-[n
wv
-y22n
at
-p](D

h)
H
2
O
-e(D

h)
H
2
-(n
at
2p)(D

h)
CO
2
-p(D

h)
CO
-a
/
(D

h)
C
a
j
H
b
j
2b
/
(

h
0
f
)
C
a
k
H
b
k
2c
/
(

h
0
f
)
C
a
l
H
b
l
2d
/
(

h
0
f
)
C
a
m
H
b
m
o
T
i;GASB
(17)
4.2. Power system
The PAFC stack, which has been used in co-generation
system produces electricity and heat from the reaction of
hydrogen and oxygen. The primary reaction in [FCS] are
given as
Anode : 2H
2
!4H
-
- 4e
2
(18)
Cathode : O
2
- 4H
-
- 4e
2
!2H
2
O (19)
So that the overall reaction is as
2H
2
- O
2
!2H
2
O - HEAT (20)
Assuming that only 2 g kmol among the hydrogen gas from
[COSC] participates in the above anodic reaction, all the
gases such as N
2
and O
2
escaped through cathode and anode
in [FCS] may be written as
pCO - (n
at
2p)CO
2
- 2n
at
-
1
2
n
bt
2p 22g

H
2
- [y 22n
at
- p]H
2
O (anode) - (n
toH3
2g)O
2
- 3:728n
toH3
N
2
- 0:044n
toH3
Ar - n
wvH3
H
2
O - (2g)
H
2
O (cathode) (21)
The value of g is to be determined by the input ow rate of
fuel and air to the system.
H.-Y. Kwak et al. / Fuel 83 (2004) 20872094 2090
The electricity produced from the above reaction is given
as
W
T
= 131:74gh
FCS
kJ=kmol (22)
where h
FCS
is the efciency of the FCS.
The heat release inside components due to condensation
or any other chemical reaction described in Eq. (20) was
treated as a kind of water (or steam) exergy in this analysis
because the heat released contributes increases the water
(or steam) exergy.
5. Cost-balance equations
In the fuel cell plant, the species of the uid streams
change after reforming or any other chemical processes. So,
it is convenient to divide all the working uids as gas and
water (or steam) stream simply. Also it is better to use
integrated exergy without decomposing the exergy stream
into thermal and mechanical exergy. In this case, the concept
of junction and branch related to thermal and mechanical
exergy is no longer needed so that the number of unknowns
for the unit exergy costs are considerably reduced. Therefore,
the cost-balance equation given in Eq. (2) should be applied
to an appropriate component or a group of component
depending on the function of its principal product in the
energy system. For example, all the components in the fuel
cell plant may be rearranged into four groups of components
and a systemboundary to provide sufcient but not redundant
cost-balance equations. The groups of components are (1) the
rst heat exchanger, and CO shift converter, reformer, gas
burner and air preheater for the fuel process system (2) fuel
cell stack and the third heat exchanger for power system (3)
steam/water separator, the fourth heat exchanger and system
boundary for the water treatment system. The cost-balance
equations for those groups of components yield the unit cost
of each exergy. These are unit costs of gas stream, C
E
;
electricity, C
W
; and steam exergy, C
BQ
: All the cost-balance
equations formulated for fuel cell plant are as follows.
(1) Fuel process system ([HTX1], [COSC], [GASB],
[RFM], and [HTX2])
(
_
E
LHV;2
-
_
E
LHV;3
-
_
E
LHV;4
)C
o
-(
_
E
x;011
-
_
E
x;041
-
_
E
x;141
-
_
E
x;151
-
_
E
x;241
2
_
E
x;552
2
_
E
x;222
)C
E
-
_
E
x;311
C
BQ
-(
_
Z
HTX1
-
_
Z
COSC
-
_
Z
GASB
-
_
Z
RFM
-
_
Z
HTX2
)=0 (23)
(2) Power system ([FCS] and [HTX3])
_
E
LHV;6
C
o
-(
_
E
x;171
-
_
E
x;261
2
_
E
x;572
2
_
E
x;262
)C
E
-(
_
E
x;461
2
_
E
x;462
)C
BQ
-(
_
Z
FCS
-
_
Z
HTX3
)=
_
E
W
C
W
(24)
(3) Water treatment system ([SWS], [HTX4], [WTS], and
system boundary)
(
_
E
x;591
2
_
E
x;592
)C
E
-(
_
E
x;481
-
_
E
x;485
-
_
E
x;491
2
_
E
x;382
2
_
E
x;384
2
_
E
x;461
2
_
E
x;492
)C
BQ
-(
_
Z
SWS
-
_
Z
HTX4
-
_
Z
WTS
)=0 (25)
The cost structure of the thermal system turned out to be
dependent on the chosen level of aggregation that species
the subsystems [10,14]. In this study, the cost-balance
equations for the PAFC system were formulated based on
the lowest level of aggregation, which are represented by
Eqs. (23) (25) because the unit cost of products does not
Table 1
Property values and enthalpy, entropy and exergy at various state points in
the PAFC system for the case of 100% load condition
State _ m (kg/h) T (K) P (kPa) H (kJ/h) S (kJ/h) E
x
(kJ/h)
011 34.24 288.15 101.30 2697.29 22.38 0.00
012 34.24 723.15 101.30 39,785.03 79.76 16,814.16
021 34.24 573.15 101.30 23,338.37 54.35 7690.43
022 34.24 723.15 101.30 39,785.03 79.76 16,814.16
041 0.64 288.15 101.30 212.97 2.04 0.00
141 13.04 298.15 101.30 0.00 2.13 2.24
143 234.92 703.15 101.30 99,146.45 274.32 38,957.52
151 234.92 298.15 101.30 0.00 38.30 40.37
152 234.92 703.15 101.30 99,146.45 247.32 38,957.52
161 677.63 423.15 101.30 86,268.37 352.06 16,780.22
171 677.63 298.15 101.30 0.00 110.36 116.31
172 677.63 424.96 101.30 87,413.64 354.57 17,160.93
211 135.35 823.15 101.30 117,816.25 348.71 44,321.56
212 135.35 343.08 101.30 15,296.24 141.25 1581.95
221 135.35 343.08 101.30 15,296.24 141.25 1581.95
222 135.35 463.15 101.30 60,934.39 242.92 14,184.01
231 34.24 723.15 101.30 41,435.27 90.38 17,524.06
232 135.35 823.15 101.30 120,344.03 352.37 45,701.97
241 122.85 453.15 101.30 29,441.23 130.68 6607.83
261 135.35 463.15 101.30 61,150.20 242.85 14,241.29
262 122.85 453.15 101.30 29,441.23 130.68 6607.83
311 101.10 443.15 790.20 279,916.86 673.96 85,858.42
312 101.10 723.15 101.30 341,954.76 878.30 89,430.72
331 101.10 723.15 101.30 341,954.76 878.30 89,430.73
382 101.10 443.15 790.20 279,916.86 673.96 85,858.42
384 216.18 443.15 792.00 598,540.33 1441.12 183,589.26
4101 101.10 353.15 792.00 33,771.20 107.75 3278.12
4102 100.63 323.15 792.00 21,131.57 70.82 1280.31
461 387.32 443.15 790.20 278,565.29 790.86 51,333.92
462 387.32 443.15 800.00 1,072,551.88 2580.65 329,592.61
481 387.32 443.58 800.00 1,072,551.88 2580.65 329,592.61
482 387.32 443.15 790.20 278,565.29 790.86 51,333.92
483 101.00 323.15 792.00 21,141.31 71.08 831.41
485 216.00 363.15 792.00 81,412.49 257.57 7558.24
491 1212.00 316.15 101.30 218,258.32 742.05 6481.92
492 1212.00 338.15 101.30 329,709.21 1082.79 19,749.98
494 101.10 353.15 792.00 33,699.01 108.19 2693.08
542 371.44 820.00 101.30 236,336.77 581.03 106,119.16
551 371.44 820.00 101.30 236,336.77 581.03 106,119.16
552 371.44 611.10 101.30 137,194.62 441.69 47,128.84
562 689.39 463.15 101.30 134,195.42 542.05 31,186.85
571 689.39 463.15 101.30 129,538.15 519.84 30,102.33
572 689.39 352.15 101.30 42,125.09 304.14 4841.61
591 1060.83 442.82 101.30 175,184.06 804.79 37,481.20
592 959.73 323.20 101.30 30,021.87 422.89 2365.09
H.-Y. Kwak et al. / Fuel 83 (2004) 20872094 2091
depend on the level of aggregation crucially. The overall
cost-balance equation for the PAFC system, which may be
obtained from the rst principle in the thermoeconomics
[11], is given by
_
E
CHE
x
C
o
-
X
_
Z
ic
=
_
E
W
x
C
W
-
_
E
BQ
x
C
BQ
(26)
The calculated unit cost of products should satisfy the above
equation.
6. Computer program
A computer program for the exergetic and thermoeco-
nomic analyses of a 200-kW PAFC plant has been
developed. The program was designed to use the following
input data.
(a) Standard pressure (P
0
) and temperature (T
0
);
(b) Fuel compositions and its mass ow rate to the plant,
(c) Air composition, relative humidity and its mass ow
rate,
(d) Pressure (kPa) and temperature (K) for every uid
streams at the inlet and outlet of each component
(e) Fuel exergy cost and initial investment for each
component.
Using these input data, one can calculate the number of
moles produced and the corresponding enthalpy of combus-
tion in the various chemical reactions, enthalpy and entropy
for uid streams at various state points. The temperature of
one of the outlet streams in heat exchangers was calculated
by the heat balance equation. Also the outlet temperature of
the hydrogen-rich gas in the [COSC] was calculated by
the rst law. For the case of mixing of gas streams, the nal
gas temperature was also estimated by the energy
conservation.
The net ow rate of various exergy and entropy, the
exergy efciency of the components and the lost exergy
occurred in each component were then calculated by using
these property values obtained. Once exergy-balances for
the components were established, the unit cost of various
exergies and products were calculated by solving the cost-
balance equations for the group of components
simultaneously.
7. Results and discussions
Table 1 gives details of thermal, mechanical exergy ow
rates and entropy ow rates at various state points shown in
Fig. 1. These ow rate values were calculated based on the
measured property values such as pressures and tempera-
tures and mass ow rates at the points. The enthalpy and
entropy of each non-interacting gas species were calculated
by using appropriate polynomials [5] tted into the
thermophysical data in the JANAF Tables [15]. Also
the values of the physical properties such as enthalpy and
entropy for water and steam were evaluated by using the
equations suggested by the IFC (International Formulation
Committee) [6].
The net ow rates for the various exergies crossing the
boundaries of each physical component in the PAFC plant
for the case of 100% load condition are shown in Table 2.
The positive value of exergies indicate the exergy ow
rate of products while the negative values represent the
exergy ow rate of resource or fuel in the sense that
the product of a component corresponds to the added
exergy while the resource to the consumed one [16] so
that the Table itself represents the productive structure
of the system. The entropy productions in each component
play as products in the exergy-balance equations.
Considerable entropy generation due to combustion
process in the [GASB] can be reduced by the heat transfer
to the [RFM] where an endothermic process takes
place for the reforming process of steam. In fact, the heat
transfer from the [GASB] to the [RFM] at full load
condition is about 490,000 kJ/h, which is about 87% of
LHV of the fuel consumed in the [GASB]. This is
remarkable exergy saving which can be possible in the
PAFC plant in the sense that almost 50% chemical exergy
is destroyed during combustion process. The productive
structure for the PAFC, shown in Table 2 states
that electricity is produced by consuming fuel exergy.
Table 2
Exergy-balances at each group of components in the PAFC system for the case of 100% load condition
Component
_
E
LHV
(kJ/h)
_
E
x
(kJ/h)
_
E
BQ
x
(kJ/h)
_
E
lost
x
(kJ/h)
_
E
W
x
(kJ/h)
Fuel processing system 2266,544.4 54,335.4 285,858.4 298,067.4 0.0
Power system 2749,719.5 21434.9 2531,967.5 547,906.1 735,220.8
Water treatment system 0.0 232,740.1 530,795.6 2498,055.5 0.0
Table 3
Cost ow rate for each group of components in the PAFC system for the
case of 100% load condition
Group of components C
o
($/h)
C
E
($/h)
C
BQ
($/h)
C
W
($/h)
_
Z
K
($/h)
Fuel processing system 22.186 6.519 20.670 0.0 23.659
Power system 26.148 20.172 24.152 13.804 23.336
Water treatment system 0.0 23.928 4.143 0.0 20.215
H.-Y. Kwak et al. / Fuel 83 (2004) 20872094 2092
On the other hand, the gas exergy for the reforming
process turns out to be produced by consuming steam
exergy from the [SWS]. It is inevitable, of course, that
some exergy is destructed during this process.
The cost ow rates corresponding to the various exergy
ow rates at each group of components aggregated in the
plant in the case of 100% load condition are given in
Table 3. The unit cost value of primary fuel, 5 10
23
$/
MJ ( = 0.018 $/kWh) was used in this calculation.
However, only 60% of the chemical exergy of the
primary fuel is utilized in the fuel cell system so that
the unit cost of fuel increases to 8.2 10
23
$/MJ in the
estimation of the unit cost of products. Same sign
convention for the cost ow rates related to the products
and resources was used as the case of the exergy-balances
shown in Table 2. The overall cost-balance for the system
indicates that the cost ow rates of products such as
electricity and steam are determined primary from the
input cost ow rates of fuel and initial investment. Note
that the steam plays a role as fuel rather than product
because the heat release in FCS is regarded as steam
exergy ow.
The unit cost of electricity and hot water (or steam) at
various loads estimated by the thermoeconomic analysis
of MOPSA are shown in Table 4. Calculation results
show that the unit costs of electricity increases
signicantly at lower loads. However, the overall
exergetic efciency rather increases at lower loads. The
reason is that almost same amount of heat with less fuel
is recovered by water at part loads. The unit cost of
electricity at full load, 0.068 $/kWh ( = 18.78 $/GJ) is
higher than that obtained from the 1000 kW gas turbine
co-generation plant, 0.054 $/kWh ( = 15.06 $/GJ) [4].
Such higher unit cost of electricity reduces to 0.0526 $/
kWh ( = 14.6 $/GJ), which is comparable to the unit cost
of electricity for the 1000-kW gas turbine co-generation
plant if the initial investment per power for the PAFC
system reduces to 1500 $/kW. The input cost ow rate
for the PAFC system, which is represented by the LHS
of Eq. (26) is about 15.62 $/h for 100% load, 14.02 $/h
for the 75% load and 11.86 $/h for 50% load condition.
On the other hand, the values of the RHS of Eq. (26)
with the calculated unit cost of products at each load
condition are 15.29, 14.10 and 12.82 $/h, respectively, so
that our calculation results have maximum error of 8%.
Also the electrical and the overall exergetic efciency
based on the LHV of the primary fuel fed into the system,
which are about 43.7 and 55.0%, respectively, at the full
load are better than those from any other co-generation
plants so that the PAFC plant may be an excellent candidate
for a co-generation system if one overcomes long term
reliability of the system and the investment cost per power
becomes cheaper.
8. Conclusion
Thermoeconomic analysis with integrated exergy
stream of working uids has been done to a 200-kW
PAFC plant. The calculated cost of electricity, based on
the primary fuel cost of 0.018 $/kWh, which is about
0.068 $/kWh is 125% higher than that obtained from the
1000-kW gas turbine co-generation plant. However, this
fuel cell system can be viable economically when the
initial investment cost per power is reduced to
1500 $/kW.
References
[1] Betts DA, Roan VP. Discussion and analysis of fuel gas utilization in a
phosphoric acid fuel cell engine during idle operation. In: AESVol.
40, Proceedings of the ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division;
2000. p. 28390.
[2] Sodrelund E, Martin AR, Alvfors P, Forman J, Sarkozi L. Heat
recovery enhancement and operational issues of a 200-kW fuel cell
cogeneration plant. In: AESVol. 39, Proceedings of the ASME
Advanced Energy Systems Division; 1999. p. 297303.
[3] Oh S, Pang H, Kim S, Kwak H. Exergy analysis for a gas
turbine cogeneration system. J Eng Gas Turbine Power 1996;118:
78291.
[4] Kim S, Oh S, Kwon Y, Kwak H. Exergoeconomic analysis of thermal
system. Energy 1998;23:393406.
[5] Gordon S, Mcbride B. Computer program for calculation of complex
chemical equilibrium compositions, rocket performance, incident and
reected shocks, and ChapmanJougouet detonations. NASA report
SP-2773; 1971.
[6] JSME steam tables. Japanese Society Of Mechanical Engineers; 1968.
[7] Bejan A. Advanced engineering thermodynamics. New York: Wiley;
1997.
Table 4
Calculated production rate and the corresponding unit cost of electricity and water for the PAFC system at various load conditions with 15 years service of the
system
Load (%) _ m
fuel
(kg/h)
_
E
LHV;p
=
_
E
LHV;f
(kJ/h)
_
E
W
x
(kJ/h) Electrical
efciency
Overall exergetic
efciency
C
W
($/GJ) C
BQ
($/GJ)
50 18.96 576,681.2/930,911.8 367,610.4 39.5 59.5 30.38 8.82
75 27.72 836,131.5/1,361,165.1 551,415.6 40.5 54.3 22.80 8.30
100 34.88 1,016,263.9/1,681,899.4 735,220.8 55.0 55.0 18.78 7.80
_
E
LHV;p
and
_
E
LHV;f
are the utilized chemical exergy ow of fuel and the lower heating value of the primary fuel ow. The unit cost of fuel C
o
employed in the
calculation is 8.2 $/GJ.
H.-Y. Kwak et al. / Fuel 83 (2004) 20872094 2093
[8] Kim D, Lee H, Kwak H, Hong J. Thermoeconomic analysis of power
plants with integrated exergy system. In: AESVol. 40, Proceedings
of the ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division; 2000. p. 393404.
[9] Lozano MA, Valero A. Theory of the exergetic cost. Energy 1993;18:
93960.
[10] Torres C, Serra L, Valero A, Lozano MA. Theories of system
optimization. In: AESVol. 36, Proceedings of the ASME Advanced
Energy System Division; 1996. p. 42936.
[11] Moran J. Availability analysis: a guide to efcient energy use.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hill Inc.; 1982.
[12] Kordesch K, Simader G. Fuel cells and their applications. Weinheim:
VCH; 1996.
[13] Ferguson CR. Internal combustion engines. New York: Wiley; 1986.
[14] Kwak H, Byun K, Kwan Y, Yang H. Cost structure of CGAM
cogeneration system. Int. J. Energy Research. 2004; 28 (in press).
[15] JANAF thermochemical tables. National Bureau of Standard
Publications, NSRDS-N3537, Washington, DC; 1971.
[16] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. On the guest for objective equation in
exergy costing. In: AESVol. 37, Proceedings of the ASME
Advanced Energy Systems Division; 1997. p. 197210.
H.-Y. Kwak et al. / Fuel 83 (2004) 20872094 2094