High Temperature Fuel Cell

Systems
PV Aravind
 T,Q - DIAGRAM and VALUE DIAGRAM
temperature to heat (T,Q) diagrams are often used to depict heat transfer processes
(in particular in case of complex heater arrangements, e.g. Heat Recovery Steam
Generators (HRSG’s)):
in T,Q – diagram
Q
dQ = m
 ⋅ dh = m
 ⋅ c p ⋅ dTp
in out
p
out
total heat transferred: Q = m ∫ c p ⋅ dTp = m ( hout − hin ) = H out − H in
(p = constant) in
In value-diagram:
dQ = area 1-3-4-6-1
dEx = area 1-2-5-6-1
Q,T-diagram Value diagram
1
T [T = ∞] 3 4
Tp, out
T
1− 0
dTp T
Tp
5
2
Tp, in
1 6
T0 [T = T0] 0
dQ Q Q 2
dQ
 Q,T - DIAGRAM and VALUE DIAGRAM
 T 
the exergy of the heat transferred to a fluid: dExQ = dQ ⋅  1 − 0 
 Tfluid 
In value-diagram:
dQ = area 1-3-4-6-1
exergy change due to dEx = area 1-2-5-6-1
heat transfer: Value diagram
1
out
 T0  [T = ∞] 3 4
∆ExQ = ∫ 

1 −
T
 ⋅ dQ
fluid 
in
T0
1−
ΔExQ equals the area below T
the temperature curve 5
2

attention 1 6
0
[T = T0]
exergy change of a fluid flow: Q
dQ
∆Ex = (Hout – Hin) – T0 ⋅ (Sout – Sin)
in case of an infinitesimal change: dEx = dH – T0 · dS (1)
dQ
no heat loss, then: dH = dQ (2) no friction, then: dS = (3)
 T0  Tfluid
combining (1), (2) and (3) gives: dExQ = dQ ⋅  1 − 
 Tfluid 
3
 Q,T-diagram
T,Q - DIAGRAM and VALUE
Ts, in
DIAGRAM T Ts secu
ndar
y

(heat exchanger) dTs Tp, out

Ts, out
dTp
Tp
evolution of heat transfer in
the T,Q-diagram ima
ry
p r
Tp, in

T0
value diagram Q
[T= ~ ] 1 3 4
dQ
dQ = area 1-3-4-6-1

dEx = area 1-2'-5'-6-1

T evolution of heat transfer in

1- 0 5'
T 2'
exergyloss due to
the value-diagram
dary
s ecun 5
heat transfer
dEx loss = area 2-2'-5'-5-2
2
ary
prim
exergy loss in heat exchanger
1 6
equals the surface between both
[T= T0 ] 0 curves in value diagram.
dQ Q 4
 EXERGY OF FUEL approximate values for fex, F
fex, F
in general the exergy of a fuel does not
Natural gas 1.04
differ much from the heating value,
Hard coal 1.05 – 1.15
then:
Fuel oil 1.06
=
exF fex , F ⋅ LHVF
(T= ~ ) 1

T0
(1- )
T

representation of the HHV LHV

area = exF
exergy of fuel in the
value diagram

area of diagram = (T= T0 )

0 LHV natural gas
1 x exF = exF ex F
5
 EXERGY LOSS DUE TO COMBUSTION

exergy before combustion = exergy of fuel.

exergy after combustion = exergy of (heat from) flue gas.
assume:
only heat transferred from 1
T fg
flue gases is available
for producing work
T0
(1- )
T
Tfg flue gas temperature
 T 
ExQ =∫  1 − 0  ⋅ dQ
T0 
Tfluid 

exergy loss due to combustion 0 T0

can be shown LHV = Q fuel
in the value diagram: ex fuel

ex loss, combustion
6
 EXERGY LOSSES IN A STEAM BOILER
(value diagram)

1
T fg Exergy losses in steam
boiler as result of:
T0  combustion
(1- )
T
flue gas temperature  heat transfer
T stack
 exhaust of hot flue gas
water/steam temperature

the exergy transferred to

0 T0 water/steam is the (white)
Q steam
area below the
LHV = Q fuel
water/steam temperature
ex fuel curve in the diagram

7
 ENERGY FLOW energy flow diagram
DIAGRAM (Sankey diagram)
hot water boiler
hot water boiler
fuel
537.7 kW

500
ηth
= = 0.93
537.7

flue gas
37.7 kW
hot water
500 kW

8
 EXERGY FLOW DIAGRAM
hot water boiler
exergy flow diagram
(Grassmann diagram)
hot water boiler
the exergy flow diagram
fuel
provides better insight into 559.2 kW
extent and location of combustion
combustion
ηex = 66.1 % Ex loss = 35.0 %
thermodynamic losses
flue gas
363.4 kW

heat transfer heat tr.

ηex = 22.3 % Ex loss = 49.3 %

flue gas
hot water 6.4 kW
81.1
ηex=
, boiler = 0.145 81.1 kW
559.2

9
 SOFC SYSTEMS
exergy losses in a SOFC stack (example)

• thermo-mechanical exergy at
inlet high (high temperatures)
• very low exergy loss of SOFC
stack
• chemical exergy at outlet very
low
• thermo-mechanical exergy at
outlet very high (because of
very high temperatures)
 Open Question

Compare the electrical and exergy efficiencies of a PEMFC and an SOFC.

a) Give approximate values for the achievable electrical and exergy efficiencies for
PEMFCs and SOFCs.
b) Explain the differences
5 kW SOFC CHP system
Siemens SOFC system (5 kW)
 SOFC CHP system fuelled by natural gas
SOFC CHP system
112
117 111 116
Heat recovery by hot
Flue gas stack
water production
Hot water 303
305 304 304 303 302
H

Cold water 302

301 301
115
Air preheating
Air 203
201 202 202 203
H

205
111 110

106 105 107

114
SOFC
110 A C
105 stack
Reformer
106
108

108
107
104 109 112

104 109
113
H

Natural gas 103 After

101 101 102 102 103 burner

Liu M, Aravind PV, Woudstra T, Cobas VRM, Verkooijen AHM. Development of an

integrated gasifier-solid oxide fuel cell test system: A detailed system study. Journal of
Power Sources.196(17):7277-89
Gasifier- LTGCS-SOFC CHP system (case 1)

biomass air water

Input 101 201 301
Stack SOFC CHP Unit
101 201 301

126
202 Heat
302 127 125 126
203 Hot water recovery
123
204 204 306 308 305 307
302 H

401 401
125
Cold water
303 306
Gasifier 102 Air 122
120 121 121 122
H
402 402 Air preheater
102
305 123
124
120 117
Cyclone/ 103 504 504 Reformer
Filter SOFC
112
103
304 111
Tar 104 113
111 119
reformer A C
104 304 112
113 114 116
Scrubber 105 505 505
114
105 110

Activated 106 506

110
506
carbon H 115

106 Fuel preheater 115

109
117
Storage 107 107 108 108 109
After burner
 SOFC CHP system performance

Base case Case 1

Fuel exergy input (kW) 9.45 20.76

AC power output SOFC (kW) 4.65 4.61

Heat output (kW) 0.39 0.69

Auxiliary consumption (kW) 0.16 0.35

Gross electricity exergy efficiency (%) 49.1 22.2

Net AC electricity exergy efficiency (%) 47.5 20.5

Heat exergy efficiency (%) 4.1 3.3

CHP exergy efficiency (%) 51.6 23.9

 Exergy Flow Diagrams

Ex air=0.0034 kW
Ex Air=0.001 kW
Ex aux.
=0.0043 kW Ex Biomass = 20.76 kW (100%)

Ex NG =9.45 kW (100%)
Ex Gasifier loss =4.89 kW (23.6%)

Ex aux.
Ex Fuel cell stack =0.93 kW (9.84%) Ex Reformer loss
=0.0006 kW
Ex Raw biosyngas =15.84 kW (76.4%) Ex ashes =0.04 kW
=0.15 kW
Ex Gas cleaning loss =1.73 kW (8.3%)
Ex aux.
=0.345 kW Ex impurities=1.86 kW
Ex Heat= Ex Clean biosyngas =12.22 kW (58.9%)
Ex AC= Ex Combustor loss
0.39 kW Ex scrubber water =0.03 kW
4.65 kW (49.1%) =0.5 kW
(4.1%) Ex Fuel cell stack loss =0.94 kW (4.5%)
Ex Inverter Ex reformer=0.32 kW
Ex HE, nodes=2.68 kW
=0.4 kW(4.2%)
Ex heat Ex combustor=0.57 kW
Ex AC electricity
=0.69 kW
Ex CHP=4.88 kW Ex inverter = 4.61 kW (22.2%)
(3.3%)
(51.6%) =0.4 kW (1.9%)
Ex HE.,nodes=4.6 kW
Ex flue gas stack=0.29 kW
(3.1%) Ex CHP=4.96 kW
Ex Ancillary=0.16 kW(1.7%) (23.9%) Ex flue gas stack
=0.77 kW (3.7%)
Ex Ancillary
=0.35 kW (1.7%)
 SOFC – GT SYSTEM

Heat Recovery Fuel Cell Gas Turbine

fuel HR

SOFC

HR

G
Gas Turbine
air flue gas

Heat flow
 EXERGY LOSSES IN THE NATURAL GAS FUELLED
SOFC-GT PLANT (target system)

Grassmann diagram SOFC-GT exergy efficiency of a SOFC-

(optimal system) GT plant: ~80 %
Ex,fuel = 100 %
reasonable losses in all sub-
Fuel Cell Ex,loss = 5.59 %
systems
HR Fuel Cell Ex,loss = 1.52 %

21.19 Ex,to combustor assumed fuel cell data

TFC = 700 °C; Req = 0.5 Ωcm2
combustor Ex,loss
2.90 %
Uf = 0.8586;
18.29% Ex,to GT cycle

GT cycle Ex,loss = 1.66 %

gas turbine data
TIT = 900 °C; π = 6.0
generator Ex,loss = 0.19 %

Ex,to HR = 7.37 % resulting stack temperature

PFC = 71.70 % HR Ex,loss = 0.95 % Texhaust = 290 °C
stack Ex,loss = 6.42%
Pel = 80.77 %
PGT = 9.07 %
 Therm. Eval. : Gasifier-SOFC+GT system with high. temp
gas cleaning

PV Aravind, T Woudstra, N Woudstra, H Spliethoff, J. Power. Sources, 190(2): 461-475

 Therm. Eval. : Gasifier-SOFC+GT system with high.
temp gas cleaning-2
Isentropic efficiency for gas turbine (113) 78%
Isentropic efficiency for gas turbine compressor (602) 78%
Mechanical efficiency for gas turbine (113) 98%
Mechanical efficiency for gas turbine compressor 98%
(602)
Isentropic efficiencies for other compressors, blowers 75%
and pumps
Mechanical efficiencies for other compressors, 95%
blowers and pumps
Generator 90%
DC/AC conversion efficiency 97%
Cell resistance 5x10-5 ohm-
m2
Current density 2500 A/m2
Effect of Pressure changes
Therm. Eval. : Gasifier-SOFC+GT system with high.
temp gas cleaning
Exergy Flow Diagram
Therm. Eval. : Gasifier-SOFC+GT system with room temp gas
cleaning

•With high temp. gas cleaning, gasifier-SOFC+GT systems have

• better efficiency but the difference is not much