Integrated Project Molten-carbonate fuel Cells for Waterborne. APplication

Transcription

1 Integrated Project Molten-carbonate fuel Cells for Waterborne APplication Environmental Impact and Integrated Assessment of Fuel Cell Technologies D. Giannopoulos, M. Founti

2 Presentation outline Scope of Presentation Assessment of Energy Conversion Technologies Approaches LCA Introduction Key methodological points MCA Introduction Key methodological points Case Studies SOFC vs ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) Power Scale: kw MCFC vs DE (Diesel engine) Power Scale: 2 MW Conclusions Summary References Further reading

3 Scope of Presentation To present an assessment methodology, capable of estimating the environmental impact of an energy conversion technology throughout its Life Cycle. To introduce a MultiCriteria Approach that integrates and comparatively assesses various aspects in energy planning (environmental, technical, economic). To implement both the above in order to provide useful insight on Fuel Cells and the competition they face towards their establishment.

4 Assessment approaches Societies become more and more sensitive in terms of environment On the other hand, no energy conversion technology can be successfully implemented unless proven viable in terms of economy! Therefore, any assessment methodology needs to confront with two major questions: How to consider the environmental impact of a proposed technology? How to integrate the environmental, the technical, the economic, even the social aspect in an holistic methodology?

5 Integrated Assessment approach These two questions are answered by an integrated approach, which expands the standard assessment methodologies: The environmental impact of an implementation scheme of an energy conversion technology is modelled using Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) The integration of the various aspects is achieved through Multicriteria Analysis (MCA) Technical aspect Environmental aspect Economic viability Performance, reliability, experience Life Cycle Analysis Costs Multi-criteria Analysis Model

6 Life Cycle Analysis LCA is a cradle-to-grave approach for assessing the environmental impact of industrial systems Part of ISO (ISO :2006) 43:2006) Evaluates all stages of the life time of a product, process or activitya Inputs Raw Materials Energy Raw Materials Acquisition Manufacturing Use / Reuse / Maintenance Recycle / Waste Management Outputs Atmospheric Emissions Waterborne Wastes Solid Wastes Co products Other Releases

7 Life Cycle Inventory A process of quantifying energy and raw material requirements, atmospheric emissions, waterborne emissions, solid wastes, and other releases for the entire life cycle of a product, process, or activity. Key steps: 1. Develop a flow diagram of the processes being evaluated. 2. Develop a data collection plan. 3. Collect data. 4. Evaluate and report results.

8 Life Cycle Impact Assessment The evaluation of potential human health and environmental impacts of the environmental resources and releases identified during the LCI. A life cycle impact assessment attempts to establish a linkage between b the product or process and its potential environmental impacts.

9 MultiCriteria Analysis (MCA) MCA is a formal approach for solving problems with several conflicting criteria. MCA provides assistance in the procedure of determining the optimum available solution among alternatives. For a significant amount of data with conflicting values, it is not easy to decide which technology performs better, when considering all criteria without the help of a mathematical model. In mathematical terms, it is a methodology able to distinguish which w of the n columns (alternative technologies) characterized by m rows (criteria) of a given m*n matrix is dominant. The methodology followed in our case studies is an extension of PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation) ) method, which is well recognized and it is one of the most widely used.

10 MultiCriteria Analysis Methodology The method is based on the calculation of two types of information on for each alternative: the superiority (the sum of all positive pair-wise comparisons among all criteria) and inferiority information (the sum of the negative comparisons ). To combine the information contained in the superiority and inferiority flows an aggregation procedure is followed (e.g. weighted average). The alternative that scores the highest superiority flow and the lowest inferiority flow is the prevailing one. Weight factors are assigned to the criteria, in order to simulate e different decision approaches. The ranking is determined by the two relevant indexes (superiority - inferiority flow) Their difference provides the total flow (ftot( ftot).

11 Case Studies Systems examined Two case studies: A) Case Study 1: SOFC vs ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) Power scale: 200 kwel Fuel: Natural Gas B) Case Study 2: MCFC vs DE (Diesel engine) Power scale: 200 MWel Fuel: Diesel (MCFC: 10ppm S, DE: 1% S) Comments Environmental data regarding the examined systems have been acquired from the results of the EU funded projects ECLIPSE and FC-SHIP. Due to the difference in sulphur content of the two fuels, the SOS 2 emissions have not been included in the analysis of case B. In order to simplify the results, no impact analysis has been conducted on the life cycle emissions.

12 Case Study 1: SOFC vs ICE General description of the life cycle phases ICE SOFC

13 Case Study 1: SOFC system flow chart For each of the life cycle phases, an inventory of consumptions of materials, electricity, fuel and emissions is built. Flow Chart of the SOFC Life Cycle

14 Case Study 1: Inventory Required energy and materials for SOFC stack manufacturing

15 Case Study 1: Inventory Results (1) Distribution of key emissions of the SOFC system Life Cycle Natural Gas Supply Stack Production BoP Production Operation

16 Case Study 1: Inventory Results (2) Distribution of key emissions of the ICE system Life Cycle

17 Case Study 2: MCFC vs DE MCFC and DE Flow charts

18 Case Study 2: Inventory Energy requirements for the manufacturing of the two systems Emissions for MCFC stack manufacturing

19 Environmental Technical / Operational Economic M C W A P Data for MCA: Assessment Criteria Criteria SOFC ICE MCFC DE CO 2 -eq (g/kwh) SO 2 (g/kwh) NO x (g/kwh) PM (g/kwh) NMVOC (g/kwh) CO (g/kwh) Electrical efficiency 47% 33% 42% 43% Power density (kw/m 2 ) Startup time (s) > > Time between overhauls (10 3 h) Lifetime (10 3 h) Noise (qualitative) Installation cost ( /kw)( 4,500 2,000 5,500 1,000 O&M cost ( ( /kwh) Commercial availability No Yes No Yes

20 Decision Making Scenarios Scenarios examined in order to model three different decision making approaches (different value systems): Scenarios A B C Weight factors Technical Operational 80% 10% 10% Economic 10% 80% 10% Environmental 10% 10% 80%

21 MCA Results: SOFC vs ICE (1) Under the present situation of costs, technical performance and environmental impact (LCA), the decision maker should have a strong environmental awareness or motivation, in order to make a confident choice in favour of SOFC technology. SOFC vs ICE 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 f 0-0,1-0,2-0,3-0,4-0,5 SOFC Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C ICE

22 Sensitivity analysis M C W A P MCA Results: SOFC vs ICE (2) What are the changes necessary (in the aforementioned criteria) to make the SOFC equally competitive to ICE in terms of: a) Technical performance? (Scenario A) b) Economic viability? (Scenario B) a) Technical performance: Major technical improvements are still necessary (e.g. stack lifetime > h). For the near future, it cannot be expected that a novel technology will mature in a short time. e.g. ICEs have been developing much longer. b) Economic viability: Lowering the installation costs from Euros/kW Euros/kW and the O&M costs from 2 cents/kwh 1.1 c/kwh, would make the SOFC more attractive than the ICE in Scenario B.

23 MCA Results: MCFC vs DE (1) Similar results with case study 1-1 Environmental prevalence of MCFC MCFC vs DE Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C f MCFC DE

24 Sensitivity analysis M C W A P MCA Results: MCFC vs DE (2) What are the changes necessary (in the aforementioned criteria) to make the MCFC equally competitive to DE in terms of: a) Technical performance? (Scenario A) b) Economic viability? (Scenario B) a) Technical performance: Drastic technical improvements are required for the MCFC, in order to compete with the well established Diesel cycle technology. b) Economic viability: The attempt of the MCFC to claim a place in the energy market from Diesel Engines (especially at the power scale of 2MW) seems far fetched from the e near future.

25 Conclusions on the Case Studies Examined Considering the current State of Art, the decision maker should have an ecological spirit (environmental awareness) - or be obliged to comply with environmental regulations - to make a confident choice in favour of the examined Fuel Cells, when compared to the well established and mature combustion technologies. SOFCs in the power scale of kw seem to have more potentials for commercialisation than MCFCs in the 2 MW scale. Further technical operational improvements are needed for both examined technologies to make them attractive for the decision maker m in the medium-term. The above arguments are subject to the maturity, existing experience ence and complexity of the examined conventional technologies. To fully substantiate the arguments a more comprehensive study is needed taking into account more competitive technologies. The assessment criteria should be representative, avoiding overlapping and should contain as much as possible quantitative information.

26 Conclusions - Summary Life Cycle Analysis may be time and resource consuming, but it is capable of providing valuable information on the environmental impact and its origin. The combined LCA & MCA approach has proved a powerful tool in complex decision making, uncovering all the aspects of the assessment problem and minimizing subjective aspects.

27 Reference Final reports of EU funded projects ECLIPSE, FC-SHIP New Technologies for CHP Applications,, Report commissioned by the CHP Policy Group, Available at: Catalogue of CHP Technologies,, US EPA, CHP Partnership ISO14041:2006 ISO14043:2006 Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice,, US EPA, Report No. EPA/600/R-06/060, 06/060, 2006