Techno-economic prospects for CO2 capture from a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell–Combined Heat and Power plant. Preliminary results

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000

www.elsevier.com/locate/XXX

GHGT-9

Techno-economic prospects for CO2 capture from a Solid OxideFuel Cell – Combined Heat and Power plant. Preliminary results

Takeshi Kuramochi*, Hao Wu, Andrea Ramírez, André Faaij and Wim Turkenburg

Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584CS Utrecht, the Netherlands

Elsevier use only: Received date here; revised date here; accepted date here

Abstract

Potentially low-cost CO2 capture may facilitate pre-commercial solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology entering the energymarket. The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the techno-economic performance of CO2 capture from industrialSOFC-Combined Heat and Power plant (CHP). CO2 is captured by using oxyfuel afterburner and conventional air separationtechnologies. The results were compared to both SOFC-CHP plants without CO2 capture and conventional gas engines CHPwithout CO2 capture. The system modeling was performed using Cycle Tempo software. Our results show that while SOFC-CHPwithout CO2 capture requires a low SOFC stack production cost of about 310 $/kW to compete with conventional GE-CHP,SOFC-CHP with CO2 capture using large scale air separation unit can compete with GE-CHP at higher stack production costswhen the CO2 price is above 37 $/t CO2. CO2 avoidance cost of 50 $/t CO2 can be achieved at a stack production cost of 410$/kWe. The results indicate that CO2 capture, even with commercially available technologies, can economically facilitate SOFCentering the energy market in a carbon-constrained society.

© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Keywords: SOFC; CHP; CO2 capture; oxyfuel; air separation; techno-economic

1. Introduction

Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) systems are expected to achieve not only high electrical conversion efficiency butalso cost-effective CO2 capture. In a SOFC, oxygen is transported through the electrolyte from the cathode side tothe anode side, where the oxidation of the fuel takes place. The generated CO2 contained in the anode off-gas istherefore not diluted by nitrogen, which makes it potentially easy to capture it.

Many modeling studies indicate low energy penalties for capturing CO2 from multi-MWe scale SOFC systems[3; 6; 13] which may lead to low-cost CO2 capture. The SOFC systems, however, are not commercialized to date.SOFC is currently in the demonstration phase with estimated system costs well above 10000 $/kW and a maximum

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-30-253-4291; fax: +31-30-253-7601.E-mail address: [email protected]

c© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 3843–3850

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.186

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.186

2 Kuramochi et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000

operating plant scale of 250 kWe. For the future terms, wide range of cost predictions is found in the literature. TheSolid Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) program sets a SOFC system cost target of 400 $/kWe [7], whichrequires a cell production cost of 140 $/kW [12], and some reports suggest that a SOFC stack production cost of lessthan 200 $/kW is achievable [4; 20]. Other reports, in contrast, claim that such a low production cost is toooptimistic and considerable amount of further work is necessary for SOFC systems to economically compete in theenergy market [9].

If there is an economic incentive for reducing CO2 emissions, it is probable that a SOFC system with CO2 capturemay enter the energy market before the SOFC stack production cost becomes low enough for the SOFC systemitself to be competitive. This raises the following question: would CO2 capture economically facilitate SOFC tocompete in the energy market?

The objective of this study is to assess the techno-economic performance of SOFC systems (up to 20 MWe scale)with CO2 capture in the early stage of deployment for industrial applications (beyond year 2030). The assessmentwill include a comparison of an industrial SOFC system with CO2 capture (SOFC-CHP-CC), with a system withoutCO2 capture (SOFC-CHP) and with a conventional industrial CHP. The comparison will be made for different CO2

prices and SOFC stack production costs. In Section 2, a selection is made of the SOFC and CO2 capturetechnologies that may be commercialized in the mid-term future and the supposedly competing conventional CHPtechnologies. This is followed by the technical and economic modeling methods for the SOFC systems, with andwithout CO2 capture. Results are presented in Section 3 and the discussion and conclusion are shown in Section 4.

2. Methodology

System definitionFigure 1 shows a simplified process flow diagram of a SOFC-CHP-CC using an oxyfuel afterburner and an

external air separation unit. All CHP systems considered in this study are assumed to produce electricity andsaturated process steam of 10 bar at 180 °C. Among several ways to vary heat-to-power ratio (HPR) of SOFC-CHPplants, changing the fuel flow rate to the afterburner is considered to be the most technically feasible option becauseit does not require extensive research and development [5]. We therefore assumed there is a fuel valve to vary thefraction of the system fuel input that goes directly to the afterburner (f in Figure 1). In order to maximize processsteam production, it is necessary to have sufficiently high temperature at the inlet of the heat recovery steamgenerator (HRSG). It is therefore assumed that the HRSG is located upstream of the air preheater.

Figure 1 Simplified diagram of a SOFC-CHP with CO2 capture and an oxyfuel afterburner using conventional ASU.

Fresh fuelFresh

air

After-burner

Fuelpreheater

Airpreheater

Steamgenerator

Water

Electricity

Steam

O2

depletedair

Pre-reformer + SOFC

800 C

~600 C

~920 C

800 C

Powerconditioning(DC -> AC)

CO2 drying/compression

Feed waterpreheater

CO2 transport

CO2 processing

SOFC-CHP system

CO2

f1-f

ASU

Freshair

HEX

Fresh fuelFresh

air

After-burner

Fuelpreheater

Airpreheater

Steamgenerator

Water

Electricity

Steam

O2

depletedair

Pre-reformer + SOFC

800 C

~600 C

~920 C

800 C

Powerconditioning(DC -> AC)

CO2 drying/compression

Feed waterpreheater

CO2 transport

CO2 processing

SOFC-CHP system

CO2

f1-f

ASU

Freshair

HEX

3844 T. Kuramochi et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 3843–3850

Kuramochi et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000 3

Selection of the technologiesTable 1 shows the selected system components and configuration for the SOFC-CHP and SOFC-CHP-CC

investigated in this study. By recycling the anode off-gas, the selection of steam pre-reformer is a natural choicesince anode off-gas not only supplies heat but also steam. With regard to cell geometry, we assumed that the tubularcell systems will remain a strong competitor in the SOFC market for the timeframe considered.

Regarding the afterburner technologies, we choose oxyfuel afterburner technologies using alreadycommercialized air separation technologies. Advanced CO2 capture technologies, e.g. additional SOFC as anafterburner/power generator, oxygen conducting membrane afterburner, and water-gas shift membrane reactor, arenot dealt with in this paper.

Table 1 Selected system components and configurations for the SOFC-CHP system with and without CO2 capture.

Component Selected component/configurationReformer Internal pre-reformerSOFC stack Atmospheric

Anode off-gas recycling (steam supply to the pre-reformer)Internal air pre-heating

Geometry Flat-tube (Siemens design)Cell current density at 0.7V 500 mA/cm2

Net electrical output to industrial processes 20 MWe

SOFC + reformer

Cell lifetime 5 yearsAfterburner With CO2 capture Oxyfuel afterburner with conventional ASU

Conventional CHP technologies as competitorsFor the plant electrical capacity considered in this study (20MWe), typical conventional CHP technologies with

high electrical efficiencies are gas powered, i.e. gas turbine cycles and gas engines. We choose a gas engine CHPwithout CO2 capture (GE-CHP) as the reference conventional CHP technology. Both SOFC-CHP and SOFC-CHP-CC were assumed to produce the same amount of heat and power as a GE-CHP.

Technical performance of SOFC-CHP with CO2 captureWe developed the industrial SOFC system models using Cycle Tempo software [19]. This software is built for

the thermodynamic analysis and optimization of energy conversion systems. This program has built-in SOFC stackswith a choice of three reformers: external reformer, indirect internal reformer and direct internal reformer. For thisstudy we choose a SOFC system with an indirect internal reformer to reproduce the SOFC system with internal pre-reformer. Parameter values for the industrial SOFC system model are defined based on an extensive literaturesurvey [1; 11; 14; 16; 17; 18; 21; 22; 24].

For the comparison of three CHP options: SOFC-CHP, SOFC-CHP-CC and GE-CHP, first the electrical andprocess steam outputs for the GE-CHPs are calculated for a given plant scale. Second, SOFC-CHP and SOFC-CHP-CC are assumed to produce equal electrical and process steam output as the GE-CHP. Based on this assumption,cell voltage, cell area and fuel input rate are determined.

Table 2 Design parameters for the SOFC-CHP system with and without CO2 capture

Parameter Value Parameter ValueSOFC Oxyfuel afterburner

Cryogenic (> 200t/day)

Air blowers and compressorsFuel utilisation rate(compared to fresh fuelinput to the fuel cell)

85%

Oxygenproductionplant PSA/VSA (10 –

200 t/day)300kWe/tO2 power consumption. 95% purity.

Oxidant utilisation rate 25%Actual oxidant-fuelratio/stoichiometric oxidant-fuelratio

101%

Minimum voltage 0.6 VConventional oxyfuel afterburner Maximum temperature: 850 °C. Heat loss: 1%

of system fuel input.

T. Kuramochi et al. / Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 3843–3850 3845


Anode inlet temperature 800 ˚C Other componentsCathode inlet temperatureto the SOFC stack

800 ˚CCO2 rich off-gas temperature atdryer inlet

110 °C

Fresh/recycled fuel ratio 1.6 N2-rich off-gas outlet temperature 90 ˚C

Operation temperature 1000 ˚C Heat exchangers

P: 0 for internal heat exchange within theSOFC module; 0.05 bar for other heatexchangers. Minimum T: 15 K.Gas-gas heat transfer coefficient: 30 W/m2K

Operation pressure 1.3 bar Water pumpsIsentropic efficiency: 75%, mechanicalefficiency: 80 – 85%

Internal reformer reactiontemperature

750 ˚C Air blowers and CO2 compressors

CO2 compression: 3 stage compressor withintercooling. 80 bar at 30 ˚C.Isentropic efficiency: 80%.Mechanical efficiency: 85 – 90%

Overall cell resistance(assumed constant forvaried fuel input)

Calculated for powerdensity SOFC of 0.35W/cm2 at 0.7V.

Natural gas properties

1.013 bar, 15 ˚C. Composition CH4: 81.3%,C2H6: 2.9%, C3H8: 0.38%, C4H10: 0.15%,C5H12: 0.05%, N2: 14.3%, O2: 0.01%, CO2:0.89%.

Air properties 1.013 bar, 15 °C. Composition N2: 77.29%,O2: 20.75%,H2O: 1.01%, Ar: 0.92%, CO2:0.03%.

In order to minimize the number of program runs used to estimate the cell voltage, cell area and the fuel inputrate, we describe the relationship among key variables (e.g. f and current density) and parameters by a number ofequations. Table 3 shows the equations used to estimate the technical performance of the SOFC-CHP systems withand without CO2 capture. Values of coefficients c1 – c5 are derived for both SOFC-CHP and SOFC-CHP-CC withdifferent oxygen production technologies (cryogenic separation and PSA). Please note that all efficiencies are basedon LHV.

Table 3 Equations for the simulation of SOFC-CHP system

Cell voltage (V) of SOFC at current density I(mA/cm2)

( ) *( )ref refV I V R I I= − − (1)

Electrical conversion efficiency (AC, dimensionless)of SOFC at current density I , , ,

( )( ) *e cell e cell ref

ref

V II

Vη η= (2)

Gross electrical efficiency (AC) of the SOFC-CHPsystem (dimensionless)

, , ( )*(1 )e gross e cell I fη η= − (3)

Process steam efficiency when fuel diverted directlyinto the afterburner (dimensionless)

,0.6 , 0 1th th V f c fη η == + (4)

Process steam efficiency at current density I and f = 0, , 0 2 3( )th I f c V I cη = = + (5)

Net electrical efficiency (dimensionless)2

, ,ocomp aux

e net e gross

PP P

F F Fη η= − − −

(6)

Efficiency loss due to auxiliary power consumption(dimensionless) 4 5

auxPc c f

F= −

(7)

Vref: reference cell voltage (0.7 V)R: overall cell resistance for Vref and Iref ( m2)I: operating current density (mA/cm2)Iref: reference current density (500 mA/cm2)

e,cell,ref (-): electrical conversion efficiency at the reference cell voltage (0.7V for this study)f (-): fraction of system fuel input directly to the afterburnerPcomp: power consumption for CO2 compression (MWe)Paux: auxiliary power consumption for the SOFC-CHP system (MWe)PO2: power consumption for O2 production (MWe)F: fuel input (MW)



Air separation unitThe air separation unit (ASU), supplying oxygen to the afterburner, is assumed to be stand-alone. As the SOFCsystem is assumed to be an industrial CHP, we considered two cases for the oxygen supply. For the “small” ASUcase, ASU supplies oxygen only to the SOFC-CHP. For the “large” ASU case, ASU supplies oxygen to SOFC-CHPas well as to other industrial processes in the industrial plant. We assume the “large” ASU to produce 1000 tO2 perday.

Figure 2 “Small” ASU (left) and “large” ASU. Dotted lines show the system boundaries of the industrial plant.

SOFC stack production cost reduction potentialCost reduction can be achieved not only by increasing the cell power density but also by several other ways, e.g.production volume increase, increasing the cell stack scale, and advanced cell manufacturing technologies. Thijssen[20] reported that the manufacturing cost of a 5 kW stack can be reduced to less than 250 $/kW for planar cells and400 $/kW for flat-tube cells by increasing the per plant annual production volume up to 250 MW. The report alsosuggested that the stack manufacturing costs can be further reduced to 150 - 200 $/kW for planar cells and 200 –250 $/kW for flat-tube cells by increasing the cell stack scale from 5kW to 2MW. With regards to R&D targets,SECA aims for 400 $/kW system cost, which results in stack production cost of 140 $/kW. Krewitt et al. [12] findthese cost targets and predictions very optimistic, suggesting a long-term cost prediction of 300 €/kW for genericlarge SOFC cogeneration systems. Our study explores the SOFC stack production cost between 100 $/kW and 700$/kW.

Economic performance indicatorThere are several indicators to estimate the cost performance of CO2 capture. In case of power plants, economic

indicators commonly used are cost of electricity (COE) and CO2 avoidance cost. For the case of a CHP, however,COE largely depends on how costs are allocated to the produced electricity and heat. To avoid allocation problems,we selected the CO2 avoidance cost as the economic indicator for post-combustion CO2 capture. The CO2 avoidancecost is calculated as follows:

2

&* ( - ) ( )SOFC CHP CC ref fuel O MCO

av

I I C CC

Em

α − − + Δ + Δ= (8)

where CCO2 is the CO2 avoidance cost ($/tCO2), α is the annuity factor, ISOFC-CHP-CC is the initial investment forthe SOFC system with CO2 capture ($), ICHP is the initial investment for the reference system (SOFC without CO2

capture or GE-CHP) ($), Cfuel is the cost or gains due to the change in fuel consumption ($), CO&M is theadditional operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for SOFC-CHP-CC compared to the reference system ($) andEmav is the annual CO2 emissions avoided compared to the reference system (tCO2). The specific capitalrequirement for the gas engine CHP is assumed to be 1420 $/kWe. The cost data used in this study was collectedfrom various sources [2; 8; 10; 13; 15; 20; 23]. All cost figures given in this paper are expressed in 2007 US $.

Additional parameters and their values used in our calculations are presented in Table 4. O&M cost for SOFC-CHP systems are assumed significantly higher than those for GE-CHP because the SOFC stack lifetime is likely tobe around 5 years and needs to be replaced.

SmallASU

SOFC

Otherindustrialprocesses

O2

“Small” ASU

EASU

EIP

LargeASU

SOFC


O2

“Large” ASU

O2

EIP

EASU

SmallASU

SOFC


O2

“Small” ASU

EASU

EIP

SmallASU

SOFC


O2

“Small” ASU

EASU

EIP

LargeASU

SOFC


O2

“Large” ASU

O2

EIP

EASU

LargeASU

SOFC


O2

“Large” ASU

O2

EIP

EASU



Table 4 Other parameters and their values used in this study

Parameter Value Parameter ValueAnnual operation time (hours/year) 8000 Plant economic lifetime: all CHPs (years) 20Installation factor: SOFC-CHP (% - equipment cost) 120 Real interest rate (%) 15Fixed capital investment (% - total plant cost) 137.5 O&M cost: GE-CHP (% - capital cost) 5Total capital requirement (% - fixed capital investment) 105 O&M cost: ASU (% - capital cost) 5

Natural gas price (incl. tax, $/GJ) 7.5O&M cost: SOFC-CHP system (excl. stackreplacement, % - capital cost)

5

3. Results

Technical performanceThe technical performance of SOFC-CHP systems with and without CO2 capture is presented in Table 5

alongside with that of GE-CHPs. Our results show a total electrical efficiency reduction between 3.9% and 4.5%points depending on the oxygen plant scale. Electrical efficiency loss due to CO2 compression accounted for 2.7 % -points in all cases. The total fuel input for SOFC-CHP-CC is yet lower than the GE-CHP. It is worth noting that theoxygen requirement for SOFC-CHP-CC is smaller than that for SOFC-CHP. This is due to the change in HPR asSOFC-CHP-CC produces more electricity to meet electricity requirements for oxygen production and CO2

compression.

Table 5 Technical performance results for SOFC-CHP with CO2 capture alongside with results for GE-CHP without CO2 capture and SOFC-CHPwithout CO2 capture.

GE-CHP SOFC

CO2 captureNo CO2 capture

Stand-alone ASU

ASU scale (tO2/day) 0 Small47

Large1000

Cell voltage (V) --- 0.659 0.682 0.680

Relative fuel consumption 103% 100% 104% 104%

Relative cell area --- 100% 119% 117%

Heat efficiency 35.6% 36.7% 35.1% 35.3%

CO2 compression --- 0.0% 2.7%Electrical efficiency loss (%-points) O2 production --- 0.0% 1.3% 0.9%

Net electrical efficiency 44.4% 45.9% 43.9% 44.2%

Economic performance

Figure 3 shows the results of comparing the three options (SOFC, SOFC-CHP-CC and GE-CHP), as a function ofCO2 price and SOFC stack production cost. The results show that CO2 capture using “large” ASU enables SOFC tocompete with the GE-CHP at higher SOFC stack production cost. The SOFC system itself can only competeeconomically with a gas engine CHP at SOFC stack production cost of 310 $/kWe or lower. When equipped withCO2 capture, the SOFC system can compete at higher stack production cost when the CO2 price is above 37$/tCO2.CO2 avoidance cost of 50 $/t CO2 can be achieved at the stack production cost of 410 $/kWe. The results indicatethat CO2 capture using small scale ASU is unlikely to facilitate SOFC entering the energy market for the CO2 pricerange considered in this study. Because the ASU is expensive due to the small scale, CO2 avoidance cost iscalculated above 60 $/t CO2.



The SOFC stack production cost requirement for SOFC-CHP to compete with GE-CHP (around 310 $/kWe) is closeto the lowest cost estimate for tubular cells (200 – 250 $/kW). The reason for this is the high cost for other plantcomponents. Such costs arelargely due to the low-pressure gas-gas heat exchangers (air preheater and fuelpreheater), which accounts for 600 $/kWe or more.

Figure 3 Comparison of three CHP technologies (SOFC-CHP, SOFC-CHP-CC and GE-CHP) at 20 MWe scale under varied CO2 price and SOFCstack production cost. Lef figuret: oxygen supply from small scale ASU, right figure: oxygen supply with large ASU.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

The results of this study have shown that CO2 can be captured from SOFC-CHP economically with alreadyexisting oxyfuel combustion technologies when the oxygen is supplied by large scale ASU. The results imply thatwhile a SOFC system may be able to economically compete with conventional GE-CHP (even under ambitiousstack production cost of 400 $/kWe), CO2 capture enables it when the CO2 price is around 50 $/t CO2. Resultsclearly indicate that the CO2 capture using commercially available technologies can facilitate SOFC technology toeconomically compete in the energy market in a carbon-constrained society. Nevertheless, decreasing the SOFCstack production cost down to 400 $/kWe remains a major challenge for the manufacturers.

CO2 transport between the CHP and the trunk CO2 pipeline was not considered in this study. Small scale CO2

transport, together with CO2 compression, is likely to be expensive and it may become a major obstacle forcapturing CO2 from small emission sources such as SOFC systems. For small emission sources, alternative means oftransport, e.g. truck transport, between the emission source and the trunk pipeline may be worth investigating. thisstudy is based on several technical and economic assumptions on the SOFC technology, which is notcommercialized today. Our results therefore may be highly sensitive to the assumptions and should be treated withcaution.

Although only a limited number of results were presented in this article, further research is currently beingperformed, which include the techno-economic analysis on advanced CO2 capture technologies, e.g. oxygenconducting membrane (OCM) afterburner and water-gas shift membrane reactor, and consideration of otherconventional CHP technologies as competitors. Together with their results, an upcoming publication will provide acomplete view on the future prospects for CO2 capture from SOFC-CHPs.

5. Acknowledgements

This research is part of the CAPTECH programme. CAPTECH is supported financially by the Dutch Ministry ofEconomic Affairs under the EOS programme. More information can be found on www.co2-captech.nl. The authorswould like to thank Daan Jansen (ECN, the Netherlands) for useful discussions and comments.

0

10

20

30

40

50

100 200 300 400 500 600 700

SOFC stack production cost ($/kWe)

CO

2p

rice

($/t

CO

2)

vs. GE-CHP

vs. SOFC

GE-CHPSOFC-CHP

SOFC-CHP: 1290~1320 $/kW TCR

0

10

20

30

40

50

100 200 300 400 500 600 700SOFC stack production cost ($/kWe)

CO

2p

rice

($/t

CO

2)

vs. GE-CHP

vs. SOFC

SOFC-CHP-CC

GE-CHPSOFC-CHP

SOFC-CHP-CC: 1810 $/kW TCRSOFC-CHP: 1310 $/kW TCR

37 $/t CO2

310 $/kW410 $/kWSOFC-CHP-CC: 2010 $/kW TCR



References

[1] Braun, R. J., S. A. Klein and D. T. Reindl (2006). "Evaluation of system configurations for solid oxide fuel cell-based micro-combined heat and power generators in residential applications." Journal of Power Sources 158(2SPEC. ISS.): 1290-1305.[2] Calise, F., M. Dentice d' Accadia, L. Vanoli and M. R. von Spakovsky (2007). "Full load synthesis/designoptimization of a hybrid SOFC-GT power plant." Energy 32(4): 446-458.[3] Campanari, S. and P. Chiesa (2000). Potential of solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) based cycles in low-CO2

emission power generation. GreenHouse Gas Technologies 5 (GHGT-5), Cairns, Australia.[4] Carlson, E. J., Y. Yang and C. Fulton (2004). Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Manufacturing Cost Model: SimulatingRelationships between Performance, Manufacturing, and Cost of Production, TIAX LLC.[5] Colella, W. (2002). "Design options for achieving a rapidly variable heat-to-power ratio in a combined heat andpower (CHP) fuel cell system (FCS)." Journal of Power Sources 106(1-2): 388-396.[6] Dijkstra, J. W. and D. Jansen (2004). "Novel concepts for CO2 capture with SOFC." Energy 29: 1249-1257.[7] DOE (2008). Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance.[8] EPA (2002). Catalogue of CHP Technologies, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[9] Gerboni, R., M. Pehnt, P. Viebahn and E. Lavagno (2008). Final report on technical data, costs and life cycleinventories of fuel cells. New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability (NEEDS).[10] Hamelinck, C. N. and A. P. C. Faaij (2001). Future prospects for production of methanol and hydrogen frombiomass. Utrecht, Dept. of Science, Technology and Society, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development andInnovation, Utrecht University: 94 pp.[11] Jansen, D. and J. W. Dijkstra (2003). CO2 capture in SOFC-GT systems. Second Annual Conference onCarbon Sequestration, Alexandria, VA, USA.[12] Krewitt, W. and S. Schmid (2005). D1.1 Fuel Cell Technologies and Hydrogen Production/DistributionOptions. CASCADE Mints WP 1.5 Common Information Database, DLR.[13] Lokurlu, A., E. Riensche, L. Blum, K. Bakke, K. Li and W. Heidug (2004). CO2 sequestration from solid oxidefuel cells: technical options and costs. The 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies,Vancouver, Canada.[14] Maurstad, O. (2004). SOFC and gas turbine power systems - Evaluation of configurations for CO2 capture. 7thInternational Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vancouver, Canada.[15] Myers, D. B., G. D. Ariff, B. D. James, J. S. Lettow, C. E. Thomas and R. C. Kuhn (2002). Cost andPerformance Comparison of Stationary Hydrogen Fueling Appliances. Arlington, Directed Technologies.[16] Riensche, E. (2000). "Clean combined-cycle SOFC power plant - Cell modelling and process analysis."Journal of power sources 86(1-2): 404-410.[17] Riensche, E., J. Meusinger, U. Stimming and G. Unverzagt (1998). "Optimization of a 200 kW SOFCcogeneration power plant. Part II: Variation of the flowsheet." Journal of Power Sources 71(1-2): 306-314.[18] Riensche, E., U. Stimming and G. Unverzagt (1998). "Optimization of a 200 kW SOFC cogeneration powerplant Part I: Variation of process parameters." Journal of Power Sources 73(2): 251-256.[19] Technical University of Delft (2008). Cycle Tempo. P. a. E. D. Energy Technology Section.[20] Thijssen, J. H. J. S. (2007). The Impact of Scale-Up and Production Volume on SOFC Manufacturing Cost,NETL.[21] TIAX LLC (2002). Scale-up study of 5-kW SECA modules to a 250-kW system. Cambridge, Massachusetts,TIAX LLC.[22] TIAX LLC (2003). Scale-Up of Planar SOFC Stack Technology for MW-Level Combined Cycle System.Cambridge, Massachusetts, TIAX LLC.[23] Tijmensen, M. J. A., A. P. C. Faaij, C. N. Hamelinck and M. R. M. van Hardeveld (2002). "Exploration of thepossibilities for production of Fischer-Tropsch liquids and power via biomass gasification." Biomass and Bioenergy23(2): 129-152.[24] Zhang, W. (2006). Simulation of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell-Based Power Generation Processes with CO2 Capture.Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, University of Waterloo. Master of Applied Science in Chemical Engineering.


Documents

Techno-economic prospects for CO2 capture from a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell–Combined Heat and Power plant. Preliminary results