Biogas-Powered Fuel Cell System Wins Big, Crowd Goes Wild
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 06. 1.07
Acumentrics, which specializes in the manufacturing of solid oxide fuel cell systems (SOFC) for power applications, won the 2007 New England Innovation Award from SBANE, the Small Business Alliance of New England, for its innovations in ceramic fuel cell technology.
Instead of molding it into the shape of a thin sheet, as do most other fuel cell manufacturers, the scientists at Acumentrics did it in the shape of a tube, which renders the fuel cells shatter resistant. This property allows the SOFCs to handle temperature swings from 20 to 800ºC quite effectively, unlike most other companies' models which break when they are cycled on and off due to thermal shock.
The solid oxide fuel cells built by Acumentrics have the distinct advantage of being able to run on biogas (which delivers the most energy per hectare of crops), natural gas, propane, ethanol, diesel or biodiesel and don't require hydrogen, whose use is still controversial because of the large investments required in production, distribution and storage technologies (though they can run off it if need be). This is due to the tubes' ability to disassociate fuels via in-situ reformation.
Furthermore, their fuel cells consume only about half as much fuel as comparable small-engine generators, a property that, when combined with their use of carbon neutral biogases, makes them some of the most efficient and cleanest systems currently available.
"We are thrilled to see our units run on carbon-neutral biogas," said Gary Simon, CEO of Acumentrics. "And our ability to run directly off biogas makes our fuel cells extremely practical. While we can run on hydrogen, too, it is great to offer compatibility with logistical, affordable fuels. The renewable aspect is a huge bonus."
After conducting a battery of tests examining cost, reliability, durability and efficiency, the US Department of Energy determined that Acumentrics' fuel cells could be built inexpensively on a large scale, a process that involves first forming ceramic powders into tubular cells and then combining them with fully-enclosed power systems with computer controls.
::Biogas powered fuel cell wins award, attracts attention from Sweden
See also: ::Biogas-Powered Train in Sweden, ::BioGas Generation Progress in Developing Nations, ::Biogas: Poo-Powered Prison in Rwanda, ::Biogas from Cow Dung in Luxembourg, ::Sweet! The Chocolate-Powered Hydrogen Fuel Cell, ::Fuel Cell Update
So I went to the website and looked at this fuelcell. I realy like the innovative tubular design, but the price was $175,000 for 5 kW. That is very expensive. Let's do some calculation:
Natural gas cost (per therm) approx = .83 $/therm
Stated efficiency (max) = 90% (CHP)
convert therms to kw-hr = 29.3 kw-hr
Electricity cost approx. = .06 $/kw-hr
Run 1 day for 5 kW generator:
= 5kw * 24hrs = 120 kW-hr used/day (assuming use of full load)
loss due to efficiency = 100% -90% = 10%
we need to supply = 120 * (100% + 10%) = 132 kW-hr
132 kW-hr / 29.3 kw-hr / therm = 4.5 therms * .83 $/therm = $3.75 per day.
using just electricity = 120 kW-hr * .06 $/kw-hr = $7.20 per day.
savings of: $7.20 - $3.75 = $3.45
Years to pay off fuel cell (min) = $175,000/($3.45*365 d/y) = 138 years
Now it might just be me, but where is the incentive to buy? This was a very simplistic approach, assuming that I was purchasing natural gas and all of that. I will be though, that who ever purchases this piece of equipment will buy an upgraded version as technology advances far before 20 years. I like the design, the concept, this whole movement toward sustainability, but I would much rather purchase a 5kW wind turbine or a 5 kW solar cells before I even thought about one of these: Wind and Solar is free, so as long as the cost is at or below that of the fuel cell, I will easily pay this off in much less time.
Please respond if I have made any mistakes.
Hey pdq1966,
First off, great job on crunching the numbers (I was very impressed by the detailed figures and calculations)! I think you're spot-on when you say that it's still a very expensive technology. I expect, as you suggest towards the end of your comment, that mostly business will be purchasing it and that, as the technology progresses over the next few decades, the price should begin dropping.
I thought it was worth it to just highlight the technology but fully agree that it is prohibitively expensive for the great majority of individuals (and will probably remain so).
Jeremy
Though you are totally right and this is the kind of thing the has kept solar from being put on every new house made over the last 10 years or more, there are other considerations than just cost and 'paying' for its self. remote areas that don't have easy access to conventional sources of energy for example. Also, the DoE said it could be mass manufactured 'cheaply.' So, like solar, it would need economy of scale benefits which would bring down the price with out technology change.
Hum there is one thing missing from your math.
How much Carbon is produced through both processes?
As with anything expensive to produce at first you have to get demand up in order to get production prices down through mass production.
Somethings are not about Price they are about doing what is right for the world to sustain us all. A healthier sustainable life is priceless.
D~W
is not so expansive?
Two things that calculations don't show:
1. it's SILENT (try running a 5000kw generator for 24 hours and not go insane from the noise, now multiply a dozen generators in a neighborhood)
2. no moving parts to ever replace = lower maintenance cost?
Maybe in years to come with mass production and heavy adoption the price can come down to low five digits, would be nice to see.
A key benefit of fuel cells compared to wind and solar is 24/7 operation. I don't think any one alternative energy technology is going to "win". There's a place for a variety of systems with different trade offs.
Energy density and energy cost density I'm not sure natural gas is the best choice of fuel. Perhaps a calculation based on diesel would be more favourable?
Still, at $175,000 for 5kW, it's pretty clear that you would never justify buying it to save money. For instance, cost of electricity from the above calculation (and is it really only .06c per kWh in the US? Retail is considerably more in the UK. But it's still the right order of magnitude) is $7.20. Trivially, you can save a maximum of $7.20 a day by running it on some notional free fuel, so the absolute minimum payoff time with free fuel and no maintenance required is 66 years. This assumes that you want a steady 5kW supply, etc. And, of course, it's not carbon neutral on fossil fuel.
If they can reduce the cost by a factor of 10, then it's a more reasonable proposition. A factor of 100 and there's no argument.
Please send me Biogas Purification systems to remove Carbon from it
pleace we need informatin abaut fuel cells 5kw and the price thanks