2021

STATIONARY FUEL CELL APPLICATIONS

CURRENT AND FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES -

COSTS, PERFORMANCES, AND
POTENTIAL
V. CIGOLOTTI, M. GENOVESE
STATIONARY FUEL CELL APPLICATIONS: CURRENT AND FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES - COSTS,
PERFORMANCES, AND POTENTIAL

V. Cigolotti*, M. Genovese**
* ENEA - Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic
Development, Research Centre of Portici, Naples, (Italy)
**University of Calabria, Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering,
Arcavacata di Rende, 87036 Cosenza, (Italy)

Abstract – Stationary power and cogeneration systems will surely need research and
innovative actions towards a more energy efficient and more resilient energy network. Fuel
cell systems can become key technologies and system enablers, since their performance is
higher than conventional systems. Efficiency, stack durability, capital expenditure,
maintenance activities and potential failures need to be investigated. The present report
aims to analyze the worldwide performance of these technologies, with a particular focus
on PEM and SOFC, for different sizes and range of applications, from 0.5 kW up to several
Megawatt. The state-of-the art is presented, in terms of costs and performance, and
forecasts up to 2030 are reported, calling for a specific investment cost drop between 1000-
3000 €/kW of installed capacity.

1. INTRODUCTION
Among the several options the scientific community is recognized as key-elements to
address climate change and fossil fuel-dependence. Fuel cell technologies have been
identified as the best options to decarbonize the stationary power production sectors,
including primary power, backup power and combined-heat-and-power configurations (CHP)
[1].
Fuel cell technologies are capable of providing very high efficiency, minimum pollution, and
high reliability.
It is indeed important to track and investigate the performance of such systems, providing
some interesting data on the state-of-art of the performance, as well as on some forecasts for
the upcoming years. In deeper detail, the present report will list a potential breakdown of the
current costs for PEM/SOFC (Polymer Electrolyte Membrane/ Solid Oxide Fuel Cell) production
for building applications over a range of production scales and representative specifications,
as well as broken down by component/material. Inherent to the technology performance, a
coincide estimation on FC system durability, efficiency, production, maintenance and capital
costs will be presented.
Finally, some potentials for cost reductions and durability improvements, as well as
strategies of reducing costs and improving performance for a number of the components of
FC stacks, will be presented.
The documentation for conducting the present study is based on the high-specialized
scientific literature, academic articles in journals, technical papers and reports related to fuel
cell application topics, and scientific databases.

1
2. BREAKDOWN OF THE CURRENT COSTS
The main sectors where stationary fuel cells have been employed are micro-CHP and large
stationary applications. With particular attention to the building sector, fuel cells resulted to
be very suitable for micro-cogeneration and CHP because these energy systems inherently
produce both electricity and heat from only one source of fuel. That could be innovative and
more efficient, even if more expensive fuels, such as hydrogen, are used. These systems can
also operate by adopting traditional fuels, such as biogas, methane and natural gases, after
being properly reformed.
The design parameters for the stationary fuel cell system differ according to fuel cell
technology (PEM, AFC, PAFC, MCFC, SOFC), as well as to the fuel typology and supply.
For building applications and micro-cogeneration, PEM systems are the most common fuel
cell type used and installed, being more mature than other technologies, and guaranteeing
high efficiency, covering the peak energy demand during the day, and covering also the energy
needs at night. On the one hand, PEM fuel cell operations can benefit from its low
temperature requirement, a solid membrane electrolyte installation, which strongly reduces
maintenance cost, degradation phenomena and corrosion, and a quick start-up. On the other
hand, low temperatures lead to the adoption of expensive catalyst, since the system is thus
very sensitive to the presence of carbon impurities, most common if these systems run with
reformed fuels.
As a raising technology, SOFC systems are gaining more credit. A SOFC can operate at higher
temperatures, reducing the catalyst strict requirements, allowing a greater tolerance to
carbon monoxide, and thus simplifying the system in terms of needed purification system at
the reformer level. This fuel flexibility represents a key enabler towards the hydrogen
economy transition, allowing also greater efficiencies. SOFC have also been investigated to
operate in a reversible-mode (SOE), capable of producing hydrogen when it is needed.
Otherwise, high temperatures require longer start-up time, and a limited number of shut-
down procedures, since thermal stress on the stack components can lead to corrosion and
breakdowns of the components of the stack itself.
It is noticeable how these systems present a potential solution for cogeneration applications
for buildings and districts. Currently, the units, which have been installed in buildings,
provided the energy needs of a small district system, composed of collective houses or
apartments. In order to decrease the costs and to produce systems with lower power
capacities, governments and states promoted financial programs to sustain the transition of
these technologies, from research and development, towards early-market adoption. Among
the several worldwide actions, Japan and Europe are taking lead in fuel cell-based CHP
fundings and applications. Japan is the main leader in CHP installations, with the ENEFARM
program in which more than 314,000 units have been installed. They have been able to
decrease the price per sale to 7,000 US$/unit for PEM, and 8,800 US$/unit for SOFC [2,3].
Europe has installed more than 4,100 of CHP units [4], thanks to three main actions [5]: Callux,
PACE and ene.field. Sole in the ene.field program, 603 PEM micro-CHP units have been
installed, and 403 SOFC.
Within these European Projects, Nielson et al. [6] investigated the reliability, performance
and availability of 67 units, by means of a failure analysis, reporting interesting results, as
shown in Figure 1.

2
 FIGURE 1: FUEL CELL FAILURES, RETRIEVED FROM [4–6]

The analysis showed how “45% experienced no failures in the first year of operation and an
availability of 100%”, followed by 19% with 1 failure, with an availability of 98.2%, and finally
24% with 2 failures (98.3% of availability), and 13% with more than 3 failures occurred, being
however available for 86.9% of the overall operation. The authors have marked how “90% of
the micro-CHP systems were available for at least 95% of the time”, claiming that most
numbers of the occurred failures registered short periods of downtime. Hence, great
performance has been achieved, under the circumstance that the project has involved the
installations of fuel cell-based CHP system from 10 different companies, which have provided
components and products with different level of readiness and maturity.
It is noticeable how most of the failures did not occur at stack level, whose downtime occurs
with only 1% for PEMFC, and 2% for SOFC, as shown in Figure 1. The balance of plant presented
the most sensitive part, accounting for the 64% of the total failures for PEMFC installations,
and 55% for SOFC. The reformer systems have also accounted for important rates.
The Battelle Memorial Institute, with the funding and support of the United States
Department of Energy (DOE) and Fuel Cell Technology Based Office, prepared a
comprehensive report [7] evaluating a breakdown analysis of costs at component level for
four different sizes of fuel cell-based CHP systems (PEMFC and SOFC), from 1 kW to 25 kW, in
order to define a hypothetical market for these technologies, in absence of a commercially
developed market analysis. The analysis received the support of important companies and
research centers, such as Ballard, Hydrogenics, Watt Fuel Cell, Panasonic and the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Both technologies have been analyzed by considering a natural
gas adoption operation instead of a direct hydrogen feeding.
In order to take into account, the transition towards a large-scale production, the analysis
has included the cost variations from an annual production volume of 100 units up to 50,000
units.
Figure 2 shows a re-arrangement of the above-mentioned analysis, for the PEM stack,
summarizing the breakdown only for 1,000 units produced per year and 50,000 units
produced per year. Large scale production will surely benefit the specific cost reduction: for 1
kW–size, the total stack cost can be reduced by more than 50%, dropping from 1,052.34

3
US$/kW to 460.09 US$/kW. The economy of scale effect is more visible for lower sizes, as for
5 kW the reduction resulted to be 27%. For every investigated scenario, the MEA presents the
highest rate and share on the overall cost. Bipolar plate rates have almost an equal share
coming from the anode and cathode sides (anode bipolar plates are slightly more expensive),
while the anode/cooling gaskets contributes more than the cathode gasket to the overall
gasket rate.

FIGURE 2: PEM FUEL CELL STACK POTENTIAL COST BREAKDOWN, RETRIEVED FROM [7]

In a similar way, the SOFC ceramic cell costs, shown in Figure 3, can be drastically reduced
with a larger production scale, from 8,482.51 US$/kW for the small investigated size 1 kW, to
1,183.04 US$/kW, when the production increases up to 50,000 units per year. For lower
production rates, glass ceramic sealing and laser weld account for the highest cost distribution
rates, followed by the end plates and the ceramic cell itself. For higher production volumes,
the highest contribution to the overall cost is given by the ceramic cells, while the other
components and process benefit more from the economy of scale.

4
 FIGURE 3: SOFC CERAMIC CELL POTENTIAL COST BREAKDOWN, RETRIEVED FROM [7]

As for the PACE/ene.field projects, the Battelle Memorial Institute has identified the balance
of plant related components as the main contributors to the final costs. If for a PEM system
the stack costs range between 9.2-14.7% of the total system cost for an annual production
volume of 1000 units, the balance of plant components account for the 64.5-71.8%. Among
all, the fuel processing area is the most expensive component area, with a share between 27-
32% of the BOP cost distribution, followed by the AC and DC power components. Fuel
processing is hence composed of a reformer, steam generator, and several reactors, such as
water gas shift and PrOx reactors.
With a similar rent, SOFC BOP cost shares the highest rate (44.6-56.5%) for lower sizes, but
for bigger installations, between 10 and 25 kW, the highest rate belongs to the CHP hardware
components. In fact, thanks to their higher temperatures and fuel flexibility, the fuel
processing related costs for the SOFC systems resulted to be significantly lower, benefiting
from the natural process within the SOFC, the internal reforming, reducing the need of an
external over-designed reformer. The presented results are in accordance with the more
recent European Project deliverables for micro-CHP system: “at large-scale production, micro-
CHP units can become economically competitive. The analysis found that fuel cell micro-CHP
could become competitive with competing heating technologies at 5,000–10,000 units per
manufacturer, in markets with attractive energy prices” [6].
It can be concluded that the balance of plant components, reformer and stack resulted to
be the key elements of potential failures and cost reduction.

5
3. SYSTEM DURABILITY AND PERFORMANCE
The fuel cell size for stationary applications is strongly related to the power needed from
the load. Since these sectors range from simple back-up systems to large facilities, the
stationary fuel cell market includes few kW and less (micro-generation) to larger sizes of some
MW.
The design parameters for the stationary fuel cell system differ for fuel cell technology
(PEM, AFC, PAFC, MCFC, SOFC), as well as the fuel typology and supply. PEM and SOFC system
are mostly used for micro-cogeneration applications and for small residential applications,
while SOFC, PAFC and MCFC provide multi-energy services for large commercial and industrial
applications.
Within a demonstration project in Europe [6], small PEM and SOFC systems have been
installed and tested, and their performances are listed in Table 1.

Technology PEM SOFC

Electric capacity 0.3 – 5 kW 0.7 – 2.5 kW

Thermal capacity 1.4 – 22 kW 0.6 – 25 kW

System efficiency (LHV) 85 – 90 % 80 – 95 %

Electric efficiency 35 – 38% 35 – 60 %

TABLE 1: PEM AND SOFC SYSTEM PERFORMANCE, RETRIEVED FROM [6]

It is interesting how the real-life data and the on-field operation have presented a marked
difference for SOFC system than the optimal conditions tested in laboratory: the average
thermal efficiency resulted to be 46% (with a standard deviation between 30-59%) rather than
53%, while the electrical efficiency 37% (with a standard deviation between 28-47%) instead
of 42%. Otherwise, the on-field operation of the PEM installed systems perfectly matched the
laboratory data: 57% as average value for the thermal efficiency (with a standard deviation
between 48-66%) and an electrical efficiency of 37% (with a standard deviation between 28-
39%) [4].
A 2015 study from the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking outlined a potential
analysis for several stationary fuel cell sizes and applications in Europe, in view of their
commercialization. Main results are listed in table 2:

6
 CHP for CHP Biogas
Prime power Natural for industrial
Micro-CHP Mini-CHP Commercial
1.0 MW Gas applications
(PEMFC,SOFC) (SOFC) CHP (SOFC)
(SOFC,PEMFC) (MCFC, (MCFC,
SOFC,AFC) SOFC)
OPEX
0.5 0.85 6 60 800 30
[k€]
CAPEX
34 18.4 16.5 4.36 4.028 5.187
[k€/kW]
Installation,
Control, 6.15 12.7 70.3 1200 1000 700
Auxiliary [k€]
Added
13.5 48.5 290 2500 2200 500
system [k€]
Stack
11.5 43.9 535.1 1500 2400 900
[k€]
Maintenance
0.5 0.8 6 60 800 30
[k€]
Stack
Replacement 6.7 24 135.5 850 2150 790
[k€]
TABLE 2: FUEL CELL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE, RETRIEVED FROM [8]

According to the different applications, the fuel cell systems have been categorized in
different sizes. A micro-CHP system, as already discussed, is mostly installed by adopting PEM
or SOFC, fed by natural gas, biogas or pure hydrogen. The installed capacity is usually 1 kWel
by cotemporally producing 1.45 kWth of thermal power. These applications can reach 88%
(36% of electrical efficiency and 52% of thermal efficiency), growing over time to 95% (42%
electrical and 53% thermal), by being set both with a generic operating strategy and heat-
driven operation. Capital cost reaches 34,000 € per installed kW capacity, and the stack
replacement will account in operational cost up to 20% of the capex cost, considering a 10
years of life span with 2 replacements, improving to 15 years without replacement over time.
In a similar way mini-CHP (5 kWel and 4 kWth) and commercial CHP (50 kWel and 40 kWth)
systems operate, by usually adopting SOFC system, with a capex cost respectively of 18.4 and
16.5 k€/kW. Prime power applications, up to 1 MWel, operate in power-driven or load-
following mode, achieving an electrical efficiency up to 48% growing to 51% over time. Two
more categories can be derived: CHP for Natural Gas (up to 4 MWel and 1.1 MWth) and CHP
Biogas for industrial applications (up to 400 kWel and 315 kWth).
The just mentioned data referred to 2015-2016. During the same period, in its Technology
Roadmap Hydrogen and Fuel Cells [9], the International Energy Agency provided similar data
on fuel cell micro co-generation systems, considering a fuel cell micro cogeneration system
for commercial systems (up to 25 kW) with costs slightly less than 10000 US$/kW for the stack,
and an electrical efficiency around 42%, and about 18000-19000 per kW for home systems.
The reported lifetime ranged between 60,000-90,000 hours.
In June 2018, in the addendum to the Multi-Annual Work Plan, for 2014–2020 [10], the Fuel
Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking provided more data on CHP applications with fuel cell
technologies. According to their analysis on the state-of-the-art for residential micro-CHP for
single family homes and small buildings (0.3-5 kW), the 2017 CAPEX resulted to be 13,000

7
€/kW, being decreased since 2012, when the value was 16,000 €/kW. Maintenance costs
drastically decreased, from 40 to 20 €-Ct/kWh, as well as the installation volume per unit, from
330 l/kW to 240 l/kW. Hydrogen Europe, in their draft of the Strategic Research & Innovation
Agenda [11], re-elaborate those data and other forecasts up to 2030, for capital expenditure
and maintenance costs, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

FIGURE 4: FUEL CELL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FORECAST, RETRIEVED FROM [11]

Micro CHP systems, up to 5 kW, will decrease their investment cost, dropping to 3500 €/kW
in 2030 and increasing the lifetime, in terms of years of operation, from 12 to 15, as well as
the stack durability, from 40,000 hours to 80,000 hours. The availability of the plant is high in
current situations, up to 97%, and it will increase to 98% in the future. The systems reliability
will be strengthened even more, from 30,000 hours up to 100,000, decreasing also the
maintenance costs, which will drop to 2.5 €-Ct/kWh in 2030. Electrical and thermal efficiency
will be improved: several programs are aiming to improve performance in terms of efficiency.
According to the prevision, electrical efficiencies will raise up to 65%, with a lower bound of
39%, while the thermal efficiency will maintain the upper bound (55%), while increasing the
lower bound from 25 to 35%.

8
 FIGURE 5: FUEL CELL MAINTENANCE FORECAST, RETRIEVED FROM [11]

For medium-size CHP systems, between 5 and 20 kW, a small progress can be found
between 2012 and 2017: the CAPEX cost dropped from 6,000-10,000 to 4,500-8,500 €/kW.
More improvements are expected. In 2030 the specific investment costs are expected to be
within the range 1,500-4,000 €/kW. The lifetime of these systems will surely increase, from
minimum of 6 years to 20 years, with a stack-durability more than doubled (from 30,000 hours
to 80,000 hours). As for the micro-CHP systems, mid-size fuel cell systems reliability will be
strengthened even more, up to 80,000, decreasing also the maintenance costs, which will drop
to 1.2 €-Ct/kWh in 2030. The tolerated hydrogen content in natural gas in volume percentage,
is expected to grow, too, up to 100%, reducing the cost of the components involved in the
balance of plant, such as the reformer. The land use and the Carbon dioxide footprint are
expected to decrease in 2030. The land use will drop from 0.15-0.08 square meter per kW of
installed capacity, to 0.06.
Concerning the large-scale fuel cell systems, converting hydrogen and renewable methane
into power in various applications (0.4-30 MW), data belonging to 2012 showed a capital
expenditure cost of 3,000-4,000 €/kW, while it decreased to 3,000-3,500 €/kW in 2017. The
current picture presents a value between 2,000-3,500 €/kW, and the economy of scale is
expected to make the cost drop to 1,200-1,750 €/kW. Research and development actions are
aiming to bring down the maintenance costs, too, from 5 to 2 € Ct/kWh, with a reliability up
to 75,000 hours and a stack durability of 60,000 hours. Since most of these systems are
adopting high temperature fuel cells, the current start-up phase and shutdown characteristics
are close to 4 hours for a ramp from 0 to 100%. An improvement is also expected on this side,
aiming to go to 100% in 1 minute.
Other fuel cell performance data are described in the appendix, with the estimation of the

9
system durability that are maximally representative of common use cycles.

4. POTENTIAL FOR COST REDUCTIONS AND PERFORMANCE

Energy efficiency related actions could play an important role in achieving climate
mitigation goals and sustainable development targets. In view of the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), energy and climate actions are treated as key
targets[12].Following this train of thought, the main focus, also in fuel cell sectors, will
continue to research the efficient conversion, probably by integrating several sectors, such as
industrial waste gas recovery and utilization, power-to-gas, and alternative fuels (biogas and
synthetic methane. As a strong support towards the hydrogen economy, the short-term
adoption of fuel cells will be realized by feeding natural gas as primary source, above all for
buildings and commercial applications, since the pay-back period is earlier achieved and more
savings can be obtained compared to a pure hydrogen feeding. Thus, more research is needed
to allow a greater hydrogen content in the fuel mixtures and in low-grade biomass, to
decrease the cost of the fuel processing and achieve higher overall efficiency.
As seen in the previous paragraphs, the economy of scale will surely allow an important
benefit for cost reduction and components reliability.
For small scale cogeneration systems (0.3-5 kW), several worldwide programs have been
founded in different states, establishing one and more waves of early market penetration. The
analyzed performance has shown how the field trials are ensuring a discrete economic return
and high efficiencies; therefore, the next research steps must be canalized on stack cost
reductions, strengthened supply chain and manufacturability improvements. For bigger sizes,
demonstration projects are still needed, to increase the end-user’s perception towards these
green and eco-friendly technologies, as well as to sustain private entities and companies to
enter this new market. The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking are continuously
promoting the transition towards bigger size, up to some MW, in order to move the
technology towards important steps for energy storage and grid-stabilization, and drastically
reducing the capital expenditures for a faster market penetration.
Integration with other sectors, such as off-grid installations and backup power configuration
in telecommunication and data centers, will be surely needed in the next product generation.
For PEM fuel cells, the focus is on two disruptive solutions, through 'game changer' MEA
and stack, with the goal to reduce the degradation phenomena and to facilitate the real-time
monitoring and potential interventions, on field and during the component manufacturing,
too, by including quality control procedure, automated sensors and defect searching. Balance
of plant components, reformer and stack resulted to be the key elements of potential failures
and thus research on them is a key enabler for cost reduction. Reduction in adopting critical
raw materials and improved tolerance on Sulphur presence must be the new challenges,
followed by the improvement for higher power density and stack tightness.
The other technology for deeply decarbonizing the stationary sector is represented by the
SOFC systems. Being more flexible in the fuel feeding than the PEM fuel cell, main issues occur
here within the system operation, start-up and shut-down operation, high-temperature
corrosion and materials degradation.
Old and new materials need to be investigated, to guarantee a better tightness at the stack
level, reducing fatigue and thermal failures, as well as a better temperature distribution and

10
homogeneity during the transition phases. Feeding with biogas or low-quality biomass could
also enable a faster market penetration and cost reduction at the operation level.
The possibility of reverse mode (SOFC/SOE) and co-electrolysis operations represent
incredible potential for a carbon-free energy sector, even if the TRL of these technologies is
still too low, and applied research actions are still recommended.
The DOE, in the United States, is also pushing forward the scaling up process, with the
program H2@Scale [13]. Important achievements have been achieved in fuel cell sector.
Investigations on platinum group metal free catalyst had great results and breakthroughs at
ElectroCat, while FC-PAD is researching with good results at low platinum catalysts. These
actions, with their results (for Co- and Mn-based catalysts), will surely conduct and drive the
cost reduction and durability and performance improvement for the next PEM generation. In
fact, “PGM-free catalysts achieved 27 mA/cm2 compared to the 2016 baseline of 16 (mA/cm2),
a more than 65% improvement”.
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has researched, investigated and developed
innovative membranes and electrode ionomers. These new products will allow an extended
temperature range for the fuel cell PEM operations (80-200°C) with an increased power
density up to 1.5 W/cm2. More research activities are listed in the appendix, and more can be
found in one of the latest volumes of the Fuel Cells Bulletin Journal [14].

5. CONCLUSION
The present report has analyzed the technical performance of stationary fuel cells, both for
micro-CHP and for large applications, as well as the financial state-of-art and the 2030
forecast.
The analysis on the micro-CHP systems, adopting PEM and SOFC, has shown as the balance of
plant presented the most sensitive operation, accounting for the 64% of the total failures for
the PEMFC installations, and 55% for SOFC. For a PEM system the stack cost ranges between
9.2-14.7% of the total system cost for an annual production volume of 1,000 units, while the
balance of plant components account for the 64.5-71.8%. Among all, the fuel processing area
is the most expensive component area, with a share between 27-32% of the BOP cost
distribution.
SOFC BOP costs share the highest rate (44.6-56.5%) for lower sizes, but for bigger installations,
between 10 and 25 kW, the highest rate belongs to the CHP hardware components. In fact,
thanks to their higher temperatures and fuel flexibility, the fuel processing related costs for
the SOFC systems resulted to be significantly lower.
Micro CHP systems, up to 5 kW, will decrease in investment costs, dropping to 3500 €/kW in
2030 and increasing the lifetime, in terms of years of operation, from 12 to 15, as well as the
stack durability, from 40,000 hours to 80,000 hours.
Bigger sizes have also been investigated. Mini-CHP (5 kWel and 4 kWth) and commercial CHP
(50 kWel and 40 kWth) systems operate by usually adopting SOFC system, with a capex cost
respectively of 18.4 and 16.5 k€/kW. For systems up to 20 kW, the CAPEX cost dropped from
6,000-10,000 in 2012 to 4,500-8,500 €/kW in 2017. More improvements are expected until
2030, when the specific investment costs are expected to achieve values within the range
1,500-4,000 €/kW.
Prime power applications, up to 1 MWel, operate in power-driven or load-following mode,

11
achieving an electrical efficiency up to 48% growing to 51% over time. The current picture
presents a value between 2000-3500 €/kW, and the economy of scale is expected to make the
costs drop to 1,200-1,750 €/kW.

It is indeed important to track and investigate the performance of such systems, providing
some interesting data on the state of art of the performance, as well as on some forecast in
the up-coming years. In deeper detail, the present report lists a potential breakdown of the
current costs of PEM/SOFC production for building applications over a range of production
scales and representative specifications, as well as broken down by component/material.
Inherent to the technology performance, a coincide estimation on FC system durability,
efficiency, production, maintenance and capital cost are presented.
Finally, some potential for cost reductions and durability improvements, as well as
strategies for improving performance of a number of the components of FC stacks, are
presented.
Potential actions for cost reductions and research guidelines have also been presented,
showing how cost reductions can be achieved with the economy of scale, but research and
prototyping are still needed for bigger sizes (MW) to guarantee robustness and
manufacturability for the next generations of fuel cell, in order to build a valuable supply chain
and to increase the technology maturity and readiness level.

12
6. APPENDIX
6.1. FUEL CELL ENERGY PERFORMANCE

Electric CHP
Electric Size Thermal Investment Energy Energy
Applications Ref.
[kW] Size [kW] Cost [€] Efficiency Efficiency
[%] [%]
SOFC - - 3500 €/kW Commercial - - [15]
MCFC - - 3500 €/kW Commercial - - [15]
50–1000 kW
(250 kW
PAFC - - Commercial 40-42 85-90 [16]
module
typical)
PEMFC <1–100 kW - - Commercial 30-40,0 85-90 [16]
1–1000 kW
(250 kW
MCFC - - Commercial 43-47 85 [16]
module
typical)
SOFC 5-3000,0 - - Home/Commercial 50-60 90 [16]
PEMFC 0,5-5 - - Home 35-45 75-90 [17]
PEMFC 0,5-5 - - Home 35-45 75-90 [17]
SOFC 0,5-5 - - Home 35-45 75-90 [17]
AFC 0,5-5 - - Laboratory 38-44 69-77 [17]
SOFC 0.75–250 0.75–250 - Home/Commercial 45–60% 75-95% [1,18]
PEMFC 0.75–2 0.75–2 - Home 35-39 85-90 [1,18]
MCFC >300 >450 - Commercial 47 90 [1,18]
PAFC 100-400 110-450 - Commercial 42 90 [1,18]
PEMFC 500,00 - - Commercial 40 - [19]
PEMFC 1,00 - - Residential 34 - [19]
PEMFC 440,00 - - Commercial 43 - [19]
PEMFC 0,35 - 9000 Residential 33 - [19]
20000-
PEMFC 0,75 - Residential 37-40 - [19]
30000
PEMFC 1,5-5 Residential 34 - [19]
20000-
PEMFC 0,70 - Residential 35 - [19]
30000
PEMFC 0,75 - 36000 Residential 39 - [19]
24500-
PEMFC 0,70 - Residential - - [19]
28500
PEMFC 0,70 - 11800 Residential 38 95 [20]
PEMFC 0,70 - - Residential 38-39 94-95 [20]
SOFC 0,70 - - Residential 46,5 90 [20]
200-
AFC up to 250 - Commercial 50 (HHV) - [9]
700/kW
3000- 32-49
PEMFC 0,5-400 - Commercial/Residential - [9]
4000/kW (HHV)
4000- 30-40
PAFC up to 11000 - Commercial - [9]
5000/kW (HHV)
4000-
MCFC kW to MW - Commercial >60 (HHV) - [9]
6000/kW
3000- 50-70
SOFC up to 200 - Commercial/Residential - [9]
4000/kW (HHV)

13
6.2. FUEL CELL MAINTENANCE AND LIFETIME EXPECTED

Lifetime Degradation Rate Stack Replacement

Other Data/Comment Ref.
expected [hr.] [% per year] [year]
0.6 % reduction in Additional Capital Cost for
power output per 5 yr. / 25% of the Pressurized Fuel Cell 25 %
SOFC - [15]
1000 h investment cost increase on atmospheric
operation Fuel Cell Cost
0.6 % reduction in Additional Capital Cost for
power output per 5 yr. / 25% of the Pressurized Fuel Cell 25 %
MCFC - [15]
1000 h investment cost increase on atmospheric
operation Fuel Cell Cost
PAFC 40000 - - - [16]
PEMFC 40000-50000 - - - [16]
MCFC 15000 - - - [16]
SOFC 40000 - - - [16]
SOFC 20,000–90,000 1–2.5% - - [1,18]
PEMFC 60000-80000 1% - - [1,18]
MCFC 20000 1,5 - - [1,18]
80000-
PAFC 0,5% - - [1,18]
130000,0
PEMFC 70000 - - Panasonic [20]
AFC 5000-8000 - - - [9]
PEMFC 60000 - - - [9]
PAFC 30000-60000 - - - [9]
MCFC 20000-30000 - - - [9]
SOFC 90000 - - - [9]

14
6.3. POTENTIAL FOR COST REDUCTIONS & RESEARCH ACTIONS FOR SOFC

Methods and
Research Objectives Key findings and Bottleneck Ref.
Technique
Investigation of integration The system can provide savings up to 11.3%.
Dynamic modeling
methods with Such a system is more suitable in houses where [21]
of MINLP in GAMS
fluctuating energy patterns electricity and heating loads are comparable
Energy
Comparative assessment with consumption is
1–2 kWel systems are economically feasible for
conventional heating estimated using [22].
the considered case
systems HOT2000 building
simulation program
Thermal
integration to
SOFC able to operate without major load
Integration of SOFC with an exploit SOFC
variations. Thermal and electric system
SNC battery to reduce residual [23]
efficiency up to 80% and 7%, respectively;
primary energy consumption heat for the
primary energy savings up to 4000 kW h/y/kW.
battery stand-by
feeding
In SOFC mode the station is
Data acquired
fed by mixtures rich in H2 Experimental tests the overall energy mapping
experimentally and
with CO2, CO, N2, while in of the SOFC-SOE system. The developed
produced using
SOE mode it is operated as algorithms and the experimental data analysis [24,25]
specific ad hoc-
electrolysis for H2 production can become good decision-making tools for the
developed
and co-electrolysis for manufacturers of these energy systems
algorithms
combined H2-CO production
0-dimensional
Additional fuel is required for the off-gas
model to
Design of a control unit for burner, resulting to system efficiency reduction.
reproduce logic of [26]
future prototype systems Fuel utilization factor must be regulated to
an onboard control
avoid low operating temperatures.
system
Experimental
program under a
Calibrated empirical coefficients only valid
Model calibration using series of
within the ranges of independent variables [27]
empirical data controlled
examined in the experiments.
boundary
conditions
High temperature gradients in the cell due to
Optimization of operating
the high current densities, or insufficient
conditions of power
3D thermochemical cooling air, must be avoided to increase the
modules and determination [28]
model modeling lifetime of the cell. Increasing coolant flow rate
of potential design
increases pressure drop, which in turn
bottlenecks
increases electricity consumption of actuators
A cell model is
scaled-up to
Maximum efficiency is achieved when cathode
Evaluation of performance of predict
and anode gas recirculation is used along with
five different system voltage–current [29]
internal reforming of methane. Heat loss can
designs performance
have an adverse impact on system efficiency
characteristics
(EES)
Emission and economic
Support mechanisms such as electrical export,
performance assessment of Technoeconomic
feed-in tariff and export tariff, are required in [30]
a commercially- available analysis
order to achieve competitive results
system

15
 Transient whole-
Assessment of building Compared to conventional technology,
building and
cogeneration and significant energy and carbon savings are [31]
energy system
polygeneration systems achieved.
simulation tools
The parameters with the highest influence on
Prediction of system Quasi 2D model
system performance are cell voltage, fuel flow [32]
performance (Aspen Plus)
rate and stack inlet air temperature.

6.4. POTENTIAL FOR COST REDUCTIONS & RESEARCH ACTIONS FOR PEMFC

Other
Research Objectives Methods and Technique Key findings and Bottleneck Ref.
Data/Comment
Fuel cell voltage can
Decrease system Exergo economic analysis
significantly affect system Nafion-PEMFC-
exergy losses and of system with thermal
exergy cost, which based micro- [33]
improve storage, absorption chiller
decreases by increasing heat CHP system
performance (EES)
source temperature
Assessment of a Adoption of the most
system with diluted natural gas must be Nafion-PEMFC-
membrane Technoeconomic analysis selected for the reactor to based micro- [34]
reactor with different perform at high efficiency CHP system
natural gas qualities with any NG composition
System performance is
Performance analysis HEN optimization w/ pinch Nafion-PEMFC-
mostly affected by HEN and
of a PEMFC-floor analysis; sizing of floor based micro- [35]
fuel cell electrical
heating system heating system CHP system
performance.
Steady state modeling; Novel operating strategies Nafion-PEMFC-
Evaluation of system
system optimization with and new system designs can based micro- [36]
to improve efficiency
Thermoptim be suggested in the future CHP system
Model discretized to
represent 12 sub-systems The study did not consider Nafion-PEMFC-
Model calibration
for improvements for catalysts based micro- [37]
using empirical data
simulating thermal and and membranes. CHP system
electrical performance
Investigation of
Energy and exergy Stack cooling loop is
effect of key Nafion-PEMFC-
analysis; system impractical for a model that
operating based micro- [38]
simulation (Aspen must be calibrated using
parameters on CHP system
Plus) empirical data
system performance
Inaccuracies in fuel
processing subsystem
occurred due to the lack
of appropriate semi-
Evaluation of system Simulation in LabVIEW to
empirical functions. PBI-PEMFC-
performance for a provide ability of Data
LabVIEW simulation creates based micro- [39]
typical Danish single- Acquisition of actual
a great difficulty in adjusting CHP system
family household components
and modifying highly
complicated models, due to
its graphical modeling
nature

16
 Further validation with
experimental data is
Apply parametric
needed. System model is
studies to reach to Evaluation of different PBI-PEMFC-
very complex, with a high
achieve synthesis/design and based micro- [39]
number of decision and
high cogeneration operating strategies (EES) CHP system
other variables, which make
efficiencies
the parametric study very
limited and constrained
Objective function for the
optimum design
configuration results to a
PBI-PEMFC-
System design and GA optimization strategies 20.7% increase. A more in-
based micro- [40]
optimization (EES) depth study of the water
CHP system
knockout/condenser stage
might be necessary to
minimize local losses.
High efficiencies are
Maximization of net
accomplished; net electrical
electrical efficiency, GA (EES) and process PBI-PEMFC-
efficiency and total system
and integration using MINLP based micro- [41]
efficiency are 35.2% and
HEN cost (GAMS) CHP system
91.1%, respectively; HEN
minimization
total annual cost is US$8147
Application of actual
annual load profile; Lower heat-to-power ratios
Formulation of an analysis avoid high thermal PBI-PEMFC-
improved operating of efficiencies, heat surpluses throughout the based micro- [42]
strategy dumping; electricity whole annual operating load CHP system
import/ profile
export (EES)
Average net electrical
efficiency and average total
system efficiency
Improvement of
Heat-led operation; are 0.380 and 0.815,
thermo-economic PBI-PEMFC-
system optimization for respectively. Cost analysis
performance with based micro- [43]
every shows that certain synergies
the coupling of a CHP system
different load (EES). are necessary to allow the
heat pump
proposed system to make
an entry to the energy
market.
Absolute lowest
consumption of each
component could not be
determined, but it was
Investigation of
possible to reach the lowest
system response at PBI-PEMFC-
Dynamic modeling overall methane
transient based micro- [44]
(MATLAB-Simulink) consumption.
electrical and heating CHP system
Waste heat should be
loads
minimized with proper
sizing of the fuel cell
and optimization of the
control strategy
System requires a high
Modeling of system Modeling of system with degree of heat integration PBI-PEMFC-
and validation with flow-sheet simulator and optimization based micro- [45]
experimental data ASPEN HYSYS of its configuration and CHP system
operating conditions

17
 Determination of
Degradation affects
optimal operating
primarily the electrical PBI-PEMFC-
parameters Multi-objective
efficiency and power based micro- [46]
considering the optimization (MATLAB)
generation throughout the CHP system
impact of
system lifetime.
degradation

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DISCLAIMER

Scientific discussions with experts from the Advanced Fuel Cells Technology Collaboration
Program, part of IEA´s Technology Platform, are gratefully acknowledged.
The AFC TCP functions within a framework created by the IEA. The activities of the AFC TCP
were coordinated by the IEA´s Working Party on Energy End-use Technologies (EUWP). The
views, findings and publications of the AFC TCP do not necessarily represent the views or
policies of the IEA Secretariat or of its individual member countries.

18
8. REFERENCES
[1] Felseghi RA, Carcadea E, Raboaca MS, Trufin CN, Filote C. Hydrogen fuel cell technology
for the sustainable future of stationary applications. Energies 2019;12.
doi:10.3390/en12234593.
[2] Japan Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Demonstration Project Home Page n.d.
http://www.jhfc.jp/e/index.html (toegang verkry 02 Januarie 2019).
[3] David Hart, Franz Lehner, Stuart Jones, Jonathan Lewis MK. The Fuel Cell Industry
Review 2018. E4tech 2018.
[4] Nielsen ER, Prag CB. Learning points from demonstration of 1000 fuel cell based micro-
CHP units 2017:38.
[5] FUEL CELLS and HYDROGEN 2 JOINT UNDERTAKING. PACE Pathway to a Competitive
European Fuel Cell micro CHP Market Programme Review Days 2018. 2018.
[6] Nielsen ER, Prag CB, Bachmann TM, Carnicelli F, Boyd E, Walker I, et al. Status on
Demonstration of Fuel Cell Based Micro-CHP Units in Europe. Fuel Cells 2019.
doi:10.1002/fuce.201800189.
[7] Battelle Memorial Institute . Manufacturing Cost Analysis: 1, 5, 10 and 25 kW Fuel Cell
Systems for Primary Power and Combined Heat and Power Applications. 2017.
[8] FCH JU . Advancing Europe’s energy systems: Stationary fuel cells in distributed
generation. 2015. doi:10.2843/088142.
[9] IEA - International Energy Agency. Technology Roadmap Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. 2019.
[10] FUEL CELLS and HYDROGEN 2 JOINT UNDERTAKING. Multi - Annual Work Plan. 2018.
[11] Hydrogen Europe. Hydrogen Europe - Strategic Research & Innovation Agenda. 2019.
[12] Santika WG, Anisuzzaman M, Bahri PA, Shafiullah GM, Rupf G V., Urmee T. From goals
to joules: A quantitative approach of interlinkages between energy and the Sustainable
Development Goals. Energy Res Soc Sci 2019. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.016.
[13] Sunita Satyapal, Director H and FCP. FY 2018 PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE DOE
HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELLS PROGRAM. 2019.
[14] Fuel Cells Bulletin. Research Trends. Fuel Cells Bull n.d.;2019:16–7.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-2859(19)30443-2.
[15] Slater JD, Chronopoulos T, Panesar RS, Fitzgerald FD, Garcia M. Review and techno-
economic assessment of fuel cell technologies with CO2 capture. Int J Greenh Gas
Control 2019. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102818.
[16] Ramadhani F, Hussain MA, Mokhlis H. A comprehensive review and technical guideline
for optimal design and operations of fuel cell-based cogeneration systems. Processes
2019. doi:10.3390/pr7120950.
[17] Arsalis A. A comprehensive review of fuel cell-based micro-combined-heat-and-power
systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.013.
[18] Staffell I, Scamman D, Velazquez Abad A, Balcombe P, Dodds PE, Ekins P, et al. The role
of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy Environ Sci 2019.
doi:10.1039/c8ee01157e.
[19] Facci AL, Ubertini S. Analysis of a fuel cell combined heat and power plant under realistic
smart management scenarios. Appl Energy 2018. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.054.
[20] Amaha S, Ogasawara K, Kawabata Y, Yakabe H, Co TG. Fuel cell break through n.d.:1–
11.
[21] Adam A, Fraga ES, Brett DJL. Modelling and optimisation in terms of CO2 emissions of
a solid oxide fuel cell based micro-CHP system in a four bedroom house in London.

19
 Energy Procedia, 2013. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2013.11.020.
[22] Alanne K, Saari A, Ugursal VI, Good J. The financial viability of an SOFC cogeneration
system in single-family dwellings. J Power Sources 2006.
doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.08.054.
[23] Antonucci V, Branchini L, Brunaccini G, De Pascale A, Ferraro M, Melino F, et al. Thermal
integration of a SOFC power generator and a Na–NiCl2 battery for CHP domestic
application. Appl Energy 2017. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.051.
[24] Fragiacomo P, Lorenzo G De, Corigliano O. Design of an SOFC/SOE station: Experimental
test campaigns. Energy Procedia 2018;148:543–50. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.08.005.
[25] Fragiacomo P, G DL, Corigliano O. Intermediate temperature solid oxide fuel
cell/electrolyzer towards future large-scale production. Procedia Manuf 2020;42:259–
66. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.082.
[26] Arpino F, Dell’Isola M, Maugeri D, Massarotti N, Mauro A. A new model for the analysis
of operating conditions of micro-cogenerative SOFC units. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.10.003.
[27] Beausoleil-Morrison I, Lombardi K. The calibration of a model for simulating the thermal
and electrical performance of a 2.8 kWAC solid-oxide fuel cell micro-cogeneration
device. J Power Sources 2009. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2008.08.098.
[28] Boigues-Muñoz C, Santori G, McPhail S, Polonara F. Thermochemical model and
experimental validation of a tubular SOFC comprised in a 1 kWel stack designed for
μcHP applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.09.021.
[29] Braun RJ, Klein SA, Reindl DT. Evaluation of system configurations for solid oxide fuel
cell-based micro-combined heat and power generators in residential applications. J
Power Sources 2006. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.10.064.
[30] Elmer T, Worall M, Wu S, Riffat SB. Emission and economic performance assessment of
a solid oxide fuel cell micro-combined heat and power system in a domestic building.
Appl Therm Eng 2015. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.03.078.
[31] Kazempoor P, Dorer V, Weber A. Modelling and evaluation of building integrated SOFC
systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.11.003.
[32] Xu H, Dang Z, Bai BF. Analysis of a 1 kW residential combined heating and power system
based on solid oxide fuel cell. Appl. Therm. Eng., 2013.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.07.004.
[33] Baniasadi E, Toghyani S, Afshari E. Exergetic and exergoeconomic evaluation of a
trigeneration system based on natural gas-PEM fuel cell. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.11.063.
[34] Di Marcoberardino G, Manzolini G. Investigation of a 5 kW micro-CHP PEM fuel cell
based system integrated with membrane reactor under diverse EU natural gas quality.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.02.016.
[35] Gandiglio M, Lanzini A, Santarelli M, Leone P. Design and optimization of a proton
exchange membrane fuel cell CHP system for residential use. Energy Build 2014.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.022.
[36] Hubert CE, Achard P, Metkemeijer R. Study of a small heat and power PEM fuel cell
system generator. J Power Sources 2006. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.08.022.
[37] Johnson G, Beausoleil-Morrison I, Strathearn B, Thorsteinson E, Mackintosh T. The
calibration and validation of a model for simulating the thermal and electrical
performance of a 1 kW AC proton-exchange membrane fuel-cell micro-cogeneration

20
 device. J Power Sources 2013. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.08.035.
[38] Xie D, Wang Z, Jin L, Zhang Y. Energy and exergy analysis of a fuel cell based micro
combined heat and power cogeneration system. Energy Build 2012.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.03.047.
[39] Arsalis A, Nielsen MP, Kær SK. Modeling and parametric study of a 1 kWe HT-PEMFC-
based residential micro-CHP system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.01.121.
[40] Arsalis A, Nielsen MP, Kær SK. Modeling and optimization of a 1 kWe HT-PEMFC-based
micro-CHP residential system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.10.081.
[41] Arsalis A, Nielsen MP, Kær SK. Optimization of a high temperature PEMFC micro-CHP
system by formulation and application of a process integration methodology. Fuel Cells
2013. doi:10.1002/fuce.201200102.
[42] Arsalis A, Nielsen MP, Kær SK. Application of an improved operational strategy on a PBI
fuel cell-based residential system for Danish single-family households. Appl. Therm.
Eng., 2013. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.07.025.
[43] Arsalis A, Kær SK, Nielsen MP. Modeling and optimization of a heat-pump-assisted high
temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cell micro-combined-heat-and-power
system for residential applications. Appl Energy 2015.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.031.
[44] Barelli L, Bidini G, Gallorini F, Ottaviano A. Dynamic analysis of PEMFC-based CHP
systems for domestic application. Appl Energy 2012.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.09.008.
[45] Jo A, Oh K, Lee J, Han D, Kim D, Kim J, et al. Modeling and analysis of a 5 kWe HT-PEMFC
system for residential heat and power generation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.10.152.
[46] Haghighat Mamaghani A, Najafi B, Casalegno A, Rinaldi F. Predictive modelling and
adaptive long-term performance optimization of an HT-PEM fuel cell based micro
combined heat and power (CHP) plant. Appl Energy 2017.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.050.

21