1、4668 Results of a Residential Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell Demonstration at a Military Facility in New York Franklin H. Holcomb Nicholas M. Josefik ABSTRACT Residential proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells are in the precommercial stages of development, and limited jeld testing and
2、demonstrations have been performed to date. This paperprovides an overview of the Department ofDefense POD) Residential PEM Fuel Cell Demonstration Program, as well as an in-depth case study of the ten PEM fuel cells installed at a military facility in New York as part of this program. The installat
3、ion, operation, performance, and bene- jts of these units arepresented in this papel; along with lessons learned from the demonstration. INTRODUCTION Distributed generation technology and devices have received increased attention, due in part to the events in Cali- fornia that led to rolling blackou
4、ts in January of 2001, as well as the events of September 11, 2001, which emphasized energy security where critical power assets were at stake. Fuel cells, as a subset of distributed generation devices, have also received increased attention and publicity. The most recent example of increased public
5、ity was the January 2003 Presi- dential State of the Union Address, where President Bush announced a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to reverse Americas growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells to power cars, trucks, hom
6、es, and businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases (Bush 2003). Fuel cells are electrochemical devices, converting a fuel (such as hydrogen) and an oxidant (such as oxygen) into direct current (DC) electricity, heat, and water. The electrochemical nature of fuel cells gives them advantages ove
7、r conventional generation sources, such as high electrical efficiencies and Brian C. Davenport Michael J. Binder, Ph.D. virtually no emissions. When a hydrocarbon such as natural gas or propane is used as the input fuel, the fuel must be reformed to liberate the hydrogen. This reforming process does
8、 produce some particulate pollutants, such as oxides of nitrogen and sulfur (NO, and SO,) and carbon dioxide (CO,). However, the levels ofNO, and SO, are almost unmeasurable, and the levels of CO, are approximately half the levels of a comparable fossil fuel-burning electrical generator. The latter
9、is because the fuel cell is approximately twice as efficient at generating electricity as a fossil fuel-buming device. With regard to power output, for facility applications the DC output of a fuel cell is typically converted to alternating current (AC) by means of an invertor. The waste heat of a f
10、uel cell can some- times be used in cogeneration applications, which offsets existing heating requirements and correspondingly increases the overall (electrical plus thermal) efficiency of the fuel cell system. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has invested its own resources to develop and demons
11、trate fuel cell technol- ogy for many years. Warfighter applications of fuel cells, such as for ships, aircrafi support, field base camps, heavy trucks, and soldier power requirements, are ofparticular interest to the DOD. However, the DOD also maintains a large inventory of fixed facilities at its
12、bases, which include buildings of all sizes and types, including office buildings, hospitals, industrial facilities, barracks buildings, and gymnasiums. All of these facilities can benefit from distributed generation, and, in particular, fuel cells, to augment their power, heat, reliability, and sec
13、urity requirements in an environmentally friendly fash- ion. Residential PEM fuel cells are in the precommercial stages of development, with limited field demonstrations and F.H. Hoicomb is an electrical engineer and principal investigator at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, C
14、onstruction Engi- neering Research Laboratory (ERDC/CERL), Champaign, 111. Brian C. Davenport is a market engagement manager at Plug Power, Inc., Latham, N.Y. N.M. Josefik is a mechanical engineer and associate investigator and Michael J. Binder is the DOD Stationary Fuel Cell Program manager at ERD
15、C/ CEE, Champaign, 111. 02004 ASHRAE. 25 testing being performed to date. Beginning in fiscal year 2001 (FYOl), Congress appropriated funding to demonstrate domestically produced residential PEM fuel cells at military facilities (HR 2000). The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cons
16、truction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDCKERL), in Champaign IL, was assigned to manage and implement this activity; rhus, the DOD Residen- tial PEM Demonstration Program was begun. Subsequent increments of funding in FY02 and FY03 have effectively extended this program, where additional fuel c
17、ells are being- and will be-placed at various military facilities. In this paper, the main focus is a case study of the instal- lation of ten PEM fuel cells at a military facility in New York, conducted under the FYOl Program. This paper addresses the following: 1. 2. A description of the program an
18、d its requirements. A description of the military facility, along with a descrip- tion ofthe three sites within the base where the fuel cells are located. The specifications of the PEM fuel cells. Highlights and issues from the installation, operation, performance, and benefits of these units. The l
19、essons learned and conclusions. 3. 4. 5. THE DOD RESIDENTIAL PEM FUEL CELL PROGRAM As stated earlier, Congress appropriated funding in FYO1, FY02, and FY03 to demonstrate domestically produced resi- dential PEM fuel cells at military facilities. The primary objec- tives for this demonstration progra
20、m include: Assessment of fuel cells in supporting sustainable mili- tary installations. Increasing the DODs ability to more efficiently con- struct, operate, and maintain its installations. Assessing the role of PEM fuel cells in supporting the DODs training, readiness, mobilization, and sustain- ab
21、ility missions. Providing a technology demonstration site for a military base market. Providing operational testing and validation of product to assess installation, grid interconnection, operation of systems in all seasonal conditions, and integration of units into an existing military base environ
22、ment. Stimulating growth in the distributed generatiodfuel cell industry. For this program, ERDC/CERL researchers developed and advertised a broad agency announcement (BAA), which outlined a core set of requirements for proposals. The core set of requirements is presented below. All PEM fuel cells s
23、hall be substantially produced in the U.S. The units will be installed at U.S. military or related facilities. The fuel cell contract awardees are responsible for all siting and installation requirements. The fuel cells will provide one year of fuel cell power with a minimum 90% unit availability. A
24、ll units will have a comprehensive maintenance con- tract for a minimum demonstration period of one year. Data performance monitoring will be conducted for each PEM unit. Removal of the he1 cell(s) and site restoration will be included in the contract price. Location of the PEM fuel cell(s) will be
25、in a specified US. geographic region. Beyond the core set of requirements, bidders had the flexibility to propose the number of units, the manufacturer and, subsequently, the specific size and fuel input of the units, and the electrical and/or thermal application of the units, among other attributes
26、. From the FYOl Program BAA solicitation, 12 preproposals were received, requesting a total of approximately $10.6M in funding. After a review period and request and evaluation of full proposals, six contracts were awarded for a total of approximately $3M in funding, representing 21 fuel cells at ni
27、ne military installations. From the FY02 Program solicitation, 20 preproposals were received, requesting a total of approximately $15.8M in fund- ing. As of March of 2003, five contracts have been awarded, and some are pending due to a recent acqusition of one fuel cell manufacturer by another. For
28、the FY03 Program, the BAA has been issued, and preproposals were due by April 1, 2003. Contract awards are expected to be made between August and December of 2003. A summary of the FYOl Program awards is presented in Table 1. CASE STUDY The host military facility is located near Albany, New York. It
29、 is part of the U.S. Army Industrial Operations Command, where it is the oldest continually active arsenal in the U.S. Its primary mission is the manufacture of large caliber cannons. Electricity to the military facility is provided by a local electric utility company, and natural gas is purchased t
30、hrough an energy supplier and is based on a negotiated rate. On October 1 O, 200 1, a New York-based manufacturer of residential PEM fuel cells was awarded a contract to install ten units at three sites within the military facility. These fuel cell systems were rated for a nominal 5 kW power output,
31、 with output setpoints at 2.5 kW, 4 kW, and 5 kW. The units were operated in electric-only, grid-parallel mode, using natural gas as fuel. It should be noted that these particular fuel cell models did not have thermal recovery (cogeneration) capabilities. The product specifications for the units are
32、 listed in Table 2. The three base sites chosen for this project include Quar- ters 19, Building 1 15, and Building 110. Quarters 19 is a historic building that has been converted into housing that accommodates four separate residences. Four PEMFCs have been placed on this site-one unit for each res
33、idence. Building 26 ASHRAE Transactions: Research Table 1. FYOI DOD Residential PEM Demonstration Program Site Summary Site Name Sierra Army Depot Building Application Input Fuel Size (kw) No. Units Cogen. Y/N Barracks Propane 4.5 1 Yes I Brooks AFB I Base housine: I Naturalgas I 5 I 3 I No I MCB Ka
34、neohe Bay Ft. Bragg TBD Propane TBD 1 TBD Office building Natural gas 5 1 No Ft. Jackson Barksdale AFB Patuxent River NAS I Patuxent RiverNAS I Officers auarters I Natural pas I 4.5 I 1 I Yes I Officers quarters Natural gas 5 1 Yes Base housing Natural gas 5 1 No Office building Propane 4.5 1 Yes Ge
35、iger Field Watervliet Arsenal I Watervliet Arsenal I Manufactunnp facilitv I Natural pas I 5 I 3 I No I Maintenance facility Hydrogen 3 1 No Research facility Natural gas 5 3 No Watervliet Arsenal 1 15 is a laboratory facility. Three units were placed at this site to support a destructive testing la
36、boratory that is located within the building. The final site was Building 1 1 O, which is a heavy machining facility. Three units were placed here to support a telecommunications room. Figures 1 to 3 are photos of the installed units at Quarters 19, Building 1 15, and Building 1 10, respectively. Of
37、ficers quarters Natural gas 5 4 No Installation of the PEM Fuel Cell Units lower OutpuVSetpoints Data Collection and Monitoring The ten PEM fuel cell units were installed and commis- sioned in January 2002. In addition to the configurations, each site had its own characteristics and demands that pos
38、ed chal- lenges to site preparation and unit installation. These chal- lenges are discussed in the following sections (Doud et al. Potable Water Requirements. The systems installed at the military facility required a supply of potable water. The water is purified in a deionization (DI) process. Pota
39、ble water provided by the local municipality presented two challenges. 1. Water quality was tested at 11-12 grains of hardness. This level of hardness would require changing DI filters twice a month. A design modification was made where in-line scale-inhibiting cartridges were installed before the D
40、I filters. These cartridges are expected to extend the life of the DI filters by six months. As a comparison, the manufac- turers experience shows these filters to last one year in normal residential applications. The military facility has six connection points to the public water supply where the N
41、ew York State Board of Health requires backflow preventors. In addition, the military facil- ity requires a backflow preventor at each building and for each process utilizing water with the possibility of contam- ination. Each installed backflow preventor reduces static pressure of the water supply
42、by 4 to 5 psi. Water pressure levels dropped from a street pressure of 58 psi to 32 psi measured at one installation site. Normal operating condi- 2002). 2. 2.5 kW, 4 kW, and 5 kW Remote via phone line Table 2. Product Specifications of PEM Fuel Cells Installed at the Military Facility 84.5 in. (214
43、.6 cm) L x 32 in. (81.3 cm) W x 68 in. (172.7 cm) H (excludes 22 in. r55.9 cml exhaust stack) Certification Power Quality Installation Location I Outdoor Integrated system: CSA Certified Inverter: UL Listed IEEE 5 19 or better Electrical Grid Parallel I Configuration Standard Operating Conditions Te
44、mperature: 0F- 104F (-1 7.8“C-40C) Elevation: up to 6,000 fi (1 828 m) Noise: 70 dB at 1 m Output Voltage I 1201240 VAC 60Hz Emissions (steady-state) NO, 0.3 PPM SO, 0.3 PPM CO 5 PPM tions require a minimum static pressure of 40 psi to completely process potable water into DI water. Residential appl
45、ications typically have 60 psi. Failure to produce suffi- ciently deionized water could ultimately short the fuel cell stack. To recti& the low water pressure conditions, a booster pump similar to that found on residential wells was installed. The low water pressure problem was solved but resulted i
46、n unforeseen installation costs. ASHFtAE Transactions: Research 27 Figure 1 PEM fuel cells installed at Quarters 19. Figure 2 PEA4 fuel cells installed at Building I1 5. Underground Natural Gas Piping Location. Due to the age of the military facility and condition of the as-built draw- ings, verific
47、ation of location, size, material, and elevations of underground gas supply lines contributed to higher installa- tion costs. At the Quarters 19 site, two roads had to be pene- trated, and conflicting reports and drawings led to confusion as to the exact depths and locations of the natural gas heade
48、r, sanitary water lines, and storm drains. Underground line detection devices failed to yield concrete information. Because of this uncertainty, contractors had to resort to hand digging until locating the natural gas header. Electrical Interconnection. Although the military facil- ity has a peak de
49、mand of approximately 40 MW of electricity, the local utility wanted to perform a coordinated electrical system interconnection review because of concerns that the ten fuel cell systems could backfeed across the point-of- common coupling (PCC) onto the local grid. The manufac- turers past experience with this utility indicated a coordinated electrical system review would cost approximately $20,000- $40,000 and would delay the project two to four months. The military facility chose to cite precedence in the autonomy of its facilities from local utility jurisdiction and notified t
