Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Prof. Michael Fowler
Dr. Azadeh MaroufMashat [email protected]
Ushnik Mukherjee Jonathan Ranisau
Mohammed Barbouti Aaron Trainor
Nidhi Juthani
Hadi El-Shayeb
Problem Statement
Specific Objectives
1. Supply 10% Demand over
regular operation2. Supply 90%
Demand over 2-day blackout
Why? With What?
Process Flow Diagram
Modeling Approach
Step 1: Pre-Processing PhaseSiting
Canada’s Microgrids• Bella Coola• Hartley Bay• Balzac, Alberta
Cornwall, Ontario• Food distribution
centre• Climate• Rural
Step 1: Pre-Processing Phase Microgrid Demand Data
Electrical Demand
Hydrogen Demand
Electrical demand:• Food distribution centre• Logistics centres• Residential Area
Hydrogen demand:• Forklifts• Residential FCVs
Maximum demand:• Electrical ( 5.31 MW )• Hydrogen ( 19.77
kg/day )
Step 1: Pre-Processing Phase Climate Condition Data
Solar Irradiation
Wind Speed
Temperature
Power Coefficient
PV Efficiency
Range: 0.80 kW/m2
Average: 0.16 kW/m2
Range: 26.76 m/sAverage: 5.80 m/s
Range: 0.032Average: 0.15
Range: 0.49Average: 0.38
Range: 42.91 ºCAverage: 8.79 ºC
Step 1: Pre-Processing Phase Infrastructure & Equipment
System Component Supplier SpecificationPower Generation Wind Turbine Enercon 800 kW
PV Solar Cell Canadian Solar 0.191 kW/Cell
Refueling Station
Electrolyzer Hydrogenics 1 MWPre-storage Compressor Fluitron Discharge - 430 bar
Storage Tanks CP Industries 21.3 kg – 430 barBooster Compressor HydroPac Discharge – 875 barDispensing Station Two-Hose Dispenser1 875 bar
Backup Power System
Pre-storage Compressor RIX Industries Discharge – 310 bar
Storage Tank (Fabricated) – ASME Steel 89 kg – 172 bar
Fuel Cell Hydrogenics 1 MWElectrolyzer Hydrogenics 1 MW
Vehicle-To-Grid Charger & Parking Spot AC Propulsions Inc. 20 kW
Step 2: Design Phase
Simulation• Yearly energy supply/demand• Simulation with GAMs
Optimization• Case Specific Criteria• List of technologies &
Infrastructure• Economic Objective
Solution• Optimal number of each
component• Electrolysers• Fuel Cells• Wind and Solar modules
Step 3: Post-Processing PhaseCases I & II
Case 1: No V2G - $45.9 M
Case 2: Implementing V2G - $41.2 M
• 4 Fuel Cells required• 42% Total Cost
• 3 Fuel Cells required• 35% Total Cost
Step 3: Post-Processing PhaseCost Analysis for Case II
Cost Optimization
Scenario
Case
Total CostUSD
Economic OffsetUSD
Environmental offset
USD
Net Present ValueUSD
1 1 44,669,928 78,349 - (35,595,326)
2 2 40,017,432 78,349 - (30,942,829)
… … … … … …
12 2 40,017,432 2,810,109 47,343 (3,657,189)
Fixed feed in tariff price Sell excess hydrogen Premium selling price
during emergency scenarios
Step 3: Post-Processing PhaseRoot Cause Analysis
Overall cost with V2G: $41.2 millionRequired number of fuel cells exaggerated during
worst part of blackout simulation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500
1
2
3
Fuel Cells Required for 48-Hour Emergency Energy Back-up
Time (hr)Num
ber
of F
uel C
ellsCost of one Fuel Cell:
$4.7 M
Site Layout
Design of Hydrogen Infrastructure
Final Design Image
Jonathan [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Prof. Fowler [email protected]. Azadeh [email protected] [email protected]
AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks to:Prof. FowlerDr. Azadeh MaroufmashatUshnik MukherjeeVera Medici
