Assessment of Fuel Cell Technologies to Address Power Requirements at the Port of Long Beach

FULL REPORT

Prepared by

Dr. Michael A. MacKinnon Senior Scientist

Dr. Scott Samuelsen Professor of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Environmental Engineering

Submitted to

Port of Long Beach

Irvine, California 92696-3550

949-824-7302

In conjunction with:

Contract Number HD-8381, Job Task 1605

June 28, 2016

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Primary Authors of the report would like to acknowledge the following

persons that contributed to the report.

• Project Oversight and Support - Brendan Schaffer: Research Staff

• Distributed Energy Resource Sizing – David White: Graduate Student

2

Abstract

The Port of Long Beach faces challenges and opportunities in managing and

meeting future energy requirements. Fuel cells are emerging as a technology that can

facilitate meeting future energy requirements and contributing to Port energy and

environmental goals. Power generation can be provided at multiple scales by solid

oxide fuel cell (SOFC), molten carbonate, and phosphoric acid fuel cell systems.

Additionally, combined cooling, heat, and power applications from the same systems

can further enhance environmental and energy benefits and reduce costs. Tri-

generation systems that produce on-site hydrogen represent a system and application

that can support both Port operations and customer requirements. For vehicle

applications, proton exchange fuel cells can be used to power motive applications

including cargo-handling equipment (CHE), light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles,

and rail switching locomotives. SOFC/Gas Turbine hybrid power blocks are emerging

to power medium and long-distance locomotives. Relative to other self-generation

technologies, fuel cells have the benefits of zero local pollutant emissions, very low

GHG emissions, and virtually net zero water consumption.

This report describes the potential application of fuel cells to meet the electric

power generation and vehicle power requirements of the Port in the context of high

efficiency and environmental sensitivity. The science of fuel cells is presented in a

companion supplementary report.

3

Contents Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 8

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 10

1.1 POLB Energy Considerations ....................................................................................................... 13

1.1.1 Configuration of the POLB Electrical System ...................................................................... 14

1.1.2 POLB Microgrid ................................................................................................................... 16

1.2 Stationary Power Generation ..................................................................................................... 16

1.2.1 Primary Power Generation ................................................................................................. 17

1.2.2 Back-up and/or Emergency Power Generation .................................................................. 19

1.2.3 Provide Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power ................................................................ 20

1.2.4 Tri-Generation of Electricity, Heat, and Hydrogen ............................................................. 21

1.2.5 Provide Portable Auxiliary Marine Power ........................................................................... 23

1.3 Motive Power for Transportation ............................................................................................... 24

1.3.1 Light Duty Vehicles .............................................................................................................. 24

1.3.2 Cargo Handling Equipment ................................................................................................. 25

1.3.3 Heavy-Duty Vehicles ........................................................................................................... 27

1.3.4 Auxiliary Power Units .......................................................................................................... 28

1.4 Summary of POLB Fuel Cell Applications .................................................................................... 28

2 Benefits of Fuel Cell Applications at POLB .......................................................................................... 30

3 Area, Required Infrastructure, and Other Considerations ................................................................. 36

3.1 Fuel Cell Footprint ....................................................................................................................... 36

3.2 Required Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 36

3.2.1 Site Considerations ............................................................................................................. 36

3.2.2 Electrical Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 37

3.2.3 Natural Gas Infrastructure .................................................................................................. 39

3.2.4 Hydrogen Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 40

3.3 Operating and Maintenance ....................................................................................................... 40

3.4 Fuel Cell Lifetime ......................................................................................................................... 41

4 Fuel Cell Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 43

5 Fuel Cells vs. Other Self-generation Devices ....................................................................................... 47

5.1 Self-Generation Devices .............................................................................................................. 47

4

5.1.1 Reciprocating Engines ......................................................................................................... 47

5.1.2 Gas Turbines ........................................................................................................................ 48

5.1.3 Microturbines ...................................................................................................................... 48

5.1.4 Steam Turbines ................................................................................................................... 48

5.1.5 Combined Cycle Generation ............................................................................................... 49

5.1.6 Hybrid Fuel Cell Heat Engine Plants .................................................................................... 49

5.2 Self-Generation Technology Comparison ................................................................................... 51

5.2.1 System Size .......................................................................................................................... 53

5.2.2 Emissions ............................................................................................................................. 53

5.3 Advantages/Disadvantages of Self Generation Devices ............................................................. 56

6 CCHP at POLB ...................................................................................................................................... 57

6.1 Benefits of CCHP ......................................................................................................................... 57

6.1.1 Economic Benefits ............................................................................................................... 59

6.1.2 CCHP Emissions ................................................................................................................... 60

6.1.3 Improved Reliability and Resiliency .................................................................................... 61

6.2 Opportunities for CCHP at POLB ................................................................................................. 61

6.2.1 Space Cooling/Heating ........................................................................................................ 62

6.2.2 Industrial Applications ........................................................................................................ 63

7 Self-generation and CCHP Efficiencies ................................................................................................ 64

7.1 Electrical Efficiencies ................................................................................................................... 65

7.2 CCHP Efficiency ........................................................................................................................... 66

8 Power-to-Gas at POLB ......................................................................................................................... 68

8.1 Power-to-Gas Overview .............................................................................................................. 68

8.2 Power-to-Gas at POLB ................................................................................................................. 70

9 References .......................................................................................................................................... 72

5

Nomenclature AB Assembly Bill

AC Alternating Current

AMP Auxiliary Marine Power

APU Auxiliary Power Unit

CA California

CC Combined Cycle

CCHP Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power

CHP Combined Heating and Power

CH Cargo Handling

CHE Cargo Handling Equipment

CHP Combined Heating and Power

CO Carbon Monoxide

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

DC Direct Current

DG Distributed Generation

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

FC Fuel Cell

FCEV Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle

FUE Fuel Utilization Effectiveness

GE General Electric

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GT Gas Turbine

GW Gigawatt

HDV Heavy Duty Vehicle

6

HHV Higher Heating Value

HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator

HVAC Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning

KW Kilowatt

LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy

LDV Light Duty Vehicle

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

MCFC Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell

MDV Medium Duty Vehicle

MMBTU Million British Thermal Units

MT Microturbine

MW Megawatt

NG Natural Gas

NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

O&M Operating and Maintenance

PAFC Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell

PEMFC Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell

PM Particulate Matter

POLA Port of Los Angeles

POLB Port of Long Beach

PPA Power Purchase Agreement

PV Photo Voltaic

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

SCE Southern California Edison

7

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

SGIP Self-Generation Incentive Program

SOx Oxides of Sulfur

SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell

ST Steam Turbine

TRU Transport Refrigerated Units

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

8

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to assess the role of fuel cell technology in

addressing future energy requirements at the Port of Long Beach (POLB or Port). Like a

heat engine, a fuel cell converts fuel and air into electricity. Unlike a heat engine, a fuel

cell converts the chemical energy in a fuel directly into electricity in one step via

electrochemical reactions that are similar to those electrochemical reactions occurring in

batteries. As a result, fuel cells provide clean, efficient energy conversion and today

serve a spectrum of industrial, commercial, and institutional electrical and thermal

demands with a wide range of energy, environmental, and economic benefits.

The diversity and flexibility of fuel cells yield opportunities to support and

enhance operations at POLB, both as stationary and mobile power generators. In

particular, the flexibility, modularity and scalability of stationary fuel cell systems yield

different options for deployment including reliable, load-following generation to

continuously meet a substantial portion of POLB electrical demand. Fuel cells also

provide combined cooling, heat, and power (CCHP) opportunities through the

cogeneration of high quality heat that can be captured, rather than exhausted, to meet

thermal demands including heating or cooling of buildings and warehouses.

Tri-generation stationary fuel cell systems produce electricity, heat, and

hydrogen. Installation of tri-generation systems at POLB would provide hydrogen in

addition to efficient and environmentally sensitive high quality electricity for port

loads. The hydrogen could then support hydrogen fuel cell mobile applications

including cargo and materials handling equipment (CHE), light- and heavy-duty

vehicles, and auxiliary power units. Tri-generation could also serve terminals that

receive fuel cell electric vehicles.

9

In addition to stationary fuel cell applications, fuel cell engines could provide

efficient and zero-emission motive power to many different mobile applications at the

POLB including propulsion power for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles, and

various CHE including forklifts. In particular, fuel cells could be used to power forklifts

with zero emissions of criteria pollutants and reductions in GHG emissions.

The key conclusions of this study are:

• Stationary fuel cells can provide clean, efficient self-generation to meet

primary power for the Port commensurate with POLB environmental and

energy goals.

• Key advantages of fuel cell generation include high efficiencies, virtually

zero local emission of pollutants, and reduced emission of greenhouse gases.

• Tri-generation systems generating electricity, heat, and hydrogen are highly

suited for deployment at POLB.

• Fuel cells in mobile applications can provide clean, highly efficient motive

power that contributes to emission reduction goals at POLB.

• Deployment of fuel cell powered cargo handling equipment, including

forklifts, top-picks, side handlers, and rubber-tired gantry cranes, should be

considered at POLB.

• A key opportunity and challenge for CCHP at POLB will be identifying

appropriate thermal loads that can utilize generated waste heat. In the

absence of thermal loads, high-efficiency electric-only fuel cells are available.

In the absence of CCHP opportunities, perfectly suited “electric only” fuel

cell product is emerging with remarkably high efficiency.

10

1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to assess the role of fuel cell technology in

addressing future energy requirements at the Port of Long Beach (POLB or Port). A

fuel cell is a power generator, similar to a gas turbine or diesel engine. Rather than

using combustion to drive a turbine or push a piston, a fuel cell converts the chemical

energy in a fuel directly into electricity via electrochemical reactions that are similar to

those electrochemical reactions occurring in batteries. The key difference between fuel

cells and batteries is that fuel cells operate on an external fuel source rather than stored

chemical reactants. Thus, fuel cells do not run down or require charging and will

continuously provide electricity as long as fuel is provided in the same manner as heat

engines. In contrast to combustion engines, fuel cells provide clean, efficient energy

conversion in many different industries and applications with a wide range of energy,

environmental, and economic benefits.

Figure 1: Overview of fuel cell technology. A Doosan PureCell is shown as an example only.

Fuel cells produce electricity, heat, and hydrogen effectively for a diverse range

of consumer applications. Fuel cells avoid many of the problems associated with

combustion - including the inefficiencies and high pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG)

11

emissions that are typical of combustion heat engines. Despite the many different fuel

cell types and configurations, collective benefits of fuel cell systems include operation

with high electrical efficiencies (potentially greater than 60%) [1, 2], emission of

virtually zero local pollutants (Figure 3), low GHG emissions (Figure 4)1 [3],

consumption of virtually zero to net negative water, a high degree of flexibility and

modularity with regards to fuel choice, system sizing, and siting which broadens the

scope of potential applications, and acoustically benign operation. Fuel cells operate on

both hydrocarbon and renewable fuels including natural gas, biogas, and renewable

hydrogen. (A detailed overview of fuel cell technologies is provided in a companion

report.)

Figure 2: Overview of fuel cells including fuel sources, conversion products, and applications

1 CO2 emissions from fuel cells operating on natural gas without CCHP exceed the “CA grid (Total)” CO2 emissions, and are lower than the “CA grid (Total)” CO2 emissions with CCHP.

12

Figure 3: Comparison of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from the CA electrical grid [4] and fuel cells [5].

Figure 4: Comparison of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the CA electrical grid [4] and various types of fuel cells [5] including Proton Exchange Membrane (PEMFC), Solid Oxide (SOFC), Molten Carbonate (MCFC), and Phosphoric Acid (PAFC) .

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

NOx SO2

g/kW

h

CA Grid Fuel Cell

0.0059 .0001

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

gCO

2/kW

h

CA Grid (Total)

SCE (2014)

13

1.1 POLB Energy Considerations Energy management is a fundamental tenant for the continued growth and

success of POLB as a cornerstone of the U.S. and California economies. POLB faces

fundamental challenges in managing its electricity and energy consumption in coming

decades due to a range of economic, technological, environmental and regulatory

issues.

Currently the exclusive supplier of electricity to POLB and its tenants is the

utility grid operated by Southern California Edison (SCE). Electricity consumption and

associated costs at POLB are estimated in 2011 to be 150,000-200,000 MWh at a price of

roughly $20 million [6]. Further, electricity use at POLB is projected to quadruple by

20302 in response to various factors including growth, terminal automation, and

increasing electrification of port technologies (e.g., ship-to-shore power and battery

electric cargo handling equipment) in response to operational, regulatory, and

environmental drivers [6].

The increase in electricity demand could exacerbate existing concerns regarding

the reliability, resiliency, and quality of POLB power supply due to the aging national

and regional electrical grids that currently provide electricity. An example of outages

due to unreliable and insufficient infrastructure include the 2003 Northeastern U.S.

blackout [7]. Electrical grids are vulnerable to disruption from natural disasters such as

the large scale outage events following Superstorm Sandy and Tropical Storm Irene [8],

sabotage or malfeasance such as the attack on the San Jose area Metcalf substation3.

Maintaining a reliable and resilient supply of high quality power is essential for POLB

due to the significant economic damages that can occur from disruption. For example,

it is estimated that frequency or voltage variation can interrupt wharf crane operation 2 http://www.polb.com/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1464 3 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304851104579359141941621778

14

and result in $75,000 in costs for the first hour of delay [6]. Complete outages could be

even more harmful with costs to the U.S. economy potentially reaching $150 million per

day for POLA and POLB [6]. Therefore, as terminal operation becomes more

automated and technologies at POLB become increasingly electrified, the ability to

secure reliable, resilient, and high quality electricity will be imperative.

A central driver of POLB energy management strategies is the need to reduce the

impacts on the environment and human health. These include a commitment to reduce

GHG through its Green Port initiative.4 Additionally, POLB is committed to reducing

harmful impacts on air quality from emissions of pollutants including NOx, PM, and

SOx. Under the Clean Air Action Plan, POLB and the POLA seek to reduce diesel PM

by 72%, NOx by 22%, and SOx by 93% below 2005 levels by 2020 [9]. To reduce air

emissions, electrification strategies are being instituted including the California Air

Resources Board’s mandate for shore power (or equivalent) for 80% of vessel calls by

2020; electrification of cargo handling equipment; and the procurement of renewable

electricity. Additionally, strategies to improve operational efficiencies will lead to

lower emissions and costs moving forward.

1.1.1 Configuration of the POLB Electrical System Figure 5 displays the current structure of the POLB electrical system. The

configuration relates to its operational structure as a parent organization (POLB)

managing a collection of individual tenants (the 22 comprised terminals). Each terminal

is leased from the POLB and operated by a distinct company with different cargoes

handled, berth specifications, special equipment. As the parent organization, POLB has

SCE meters servicing various loads (e.g., pumping stations, sewer stations or buildings,

irrigation, traffic signals, streetlights pedestals) separate from the individual terminals.

4 http://www.polb.com/environment/green_port_policy.asp

15

The major container terminals are fed from one or more SCE circuits, each with separate

SCE utility meters, and represent an individual microgrid with a collection of electrical

loads needed to support operations (e.g., wharf cranes, high-mast lighting, and

buildings). Therefore, in Figure 5, the meter in line with the infrastructure associated

with Terminal A would be managed between the operators of Terminal A and SCE –

not the POLB. Similarly, the meter servicing the POLB electrical infrastructure would

be managed between the POLB and SCE as a separate customer. It follows then that

downstream of the meter, either the tenant or the Port maintains the electrical

infrastructure.

Figure 5: Basic overview of the electrical grid configuration at POLB

While this is the infrastructure today, alternative infrastructures may evolve in

the future. For example, the Port itself could evolve to become a master microgrid with

the terminals operating as nanogrids and interacting with each other and Port resources

to assure high reliability and resiliency in the context of environmental sensitivity and

low operating costs.

16

1.1.2 POLB Microgrid The development of a microgrid structure has been identified as a key strategy

for achieving many POLB goals for energy management including security,

sustainability, and resiliency. Microgrids can be defined as stand-alone energy

networks comprising different electricity sources (i.e., DG, energy storage) and loads

that can operate synchronously with the traditional centralized grid (i.e., utility grid) or

disconnect and function autonomously (i.e., island). The importance of establishing a

microgrid infrastructure to manage future POLB energy needs is reflected in the vision

for the Port’s power plan as an “Energy Island.”5 Benefits of using a microgrid

approach to port energy management6 include the ability to:

• Protect critical Port infrastructure from power loss • Sustain POLB operations during grid outages • Facilitate integration of renewable energy and distributed generation • Manage installation electrical power and consumption efficiency

1.2 Stationary Power Generation A primary application of stationary fuel cells at POLB is to provide distributed

self-generation that can assist in meeting required electricity loads with high efficiency

and very low emissions and water consumption. The flexibility, modularity and

scalability of fuel cell systems yield many different opportunities at POLB including

generation to fill primary, backup, emergency, or auxiliary load demands. Fuel cells

with potential application at POLB include phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFCs), molten

carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs), and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) for electric power

generation and additional benefits including CCHP and hydrogen fuel production.

Fuel cell systems could be installed ranging in scale from kilowatts to multi-megawatts

5 http://www.polb.com/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1464 6 https://www.metrans.org/sites/default/files/WartianElectricEnergy.pdf

17

depending on the goals of the system in relation to the POLB load. Fuel cell installation

at POLB could comprise single stand-alone units to provide backup or emergency

power to small loads (e.g., building) or larger multi-unit systems that provide baseload

power and are integrated with the utility grid, CCHP, energy storage, hydrogen fueling

stations, and energy management strategies. The modularity and scalability of fuel cells

is important given the structure of the POLB microgrid with the individual tenants

responsible for their own electricity consumption. Deploying fuel cells allows the

individual terminals to size systems to best meet their needs and would provide

benefits including better control for islanding and ensured power quality.

Table 1: Benefits of utilizing stationary fuel cells at POLB. Adapted from [10].

Benefits of Stationary Fuel Cells at POLB • Provide primary or backup/emergency power generation • Operate connected or independent from utility grid • Provide high quality, reliable power • High electrical and system (thermal, fuel) efficiencies • Near-zero emissions even if operating on natural gas • Fuel flexible including conventional and renewable fuels • Very low to potentially net negative water consumption • Lightweight and quiet • Modular and scalable to meet a range of needs and sizes

1.2.1 Primary Power Generation Fuel cells can provide continuous clean, reliable generation to help meet a

portion of POLB electrical demand during normal day-to-day operations. Fuel cell

generation can support different POLB electrical loads including shore-side power for

ocean going vessels, cranes, electric cargo handling equipment and battery exchange

facilities, reefer units, office buildings, warehouses, tele-communications systems, and

security operations. This would allow POLB to offset a portion of its electricity

purchased from SCE, improve reliability and resiliency, potentially assist in reducing

costs, and provide the capability to island in the event of a utility grid outage. The use

18

of fuel cell generation would also allow POLB to better manage balancing electricity

demand and generation, maintain appropriate frequency and voltage range, and ensure

high power quality. Figure 6 shows an overview of a fuel cell system providing

primary generation to support the POLB terminal operations in conjunction with

imported power from the SCE grid.

Figure 6: Provision of primary power generation by fuel cell systems to support terminal operations at the POLB

There are numerous successful commercial fuel cell deployments providing

primary power in applications similar to those for the POLB. A large FedEx Express

hub in Oakland, California that operates around the clock is equipped with a 500 kW

installation of Bloom Energy SOFCs on natural gas [10]. In 2014, the fuel cell

installation, in concert with an on-site solar energy, met 44% of the facility’s power

demand with clean electricity. Similarly, a FedEx Ground facility in Rialto, California

uses a 400-kW Bloom Energy fuel cell to meet ~33% of its electricity and represents one

of the company’s most energy-efficient hubs [10]. Many additional examples of

commercial fuel cell generation for primary power needs can be found in References

[10] and [11] , including the use of fuel cells to provide 40-60% of individual Walmart

store’s electricity demand, 20% of an IBM data center electrical needs, and 85% of the

Panasonic Avionics global headquarters campus needs.

19

1.2.2 Back-up and/or Emergency Power Generation Fuel cells are particularly suited for providing back-up power generation in the

event of utility grid outages. Should POLB require, stationary fuel cells can seamlessly

island (separate from the SCE grid network), support critical loads, and thereby allow

continued operations without interruption. Islanding could occur (1) on demand which

can be requested by SCE to relieve grid transmission congestions, generation shortages,

additional supply/demand challenges, (2) in the event of a fault on the utility grid

including unplanned outages, and (3) upon loss or lowering of voltage on the utility

grid. The flexibility of fuel cells also allows them to assist in resynchronization and

reconnection with the utility grid when required (e.g., post-outage, return of frequency

and voltage to acceptable ranges). Figure 7 shows the fuel cell system supporting

critical loads at the various terminals during a grid disruption event.

Figure 7: Provision of backup power generation by fuel cell systems to support terminal operations at the POLB

Fuel cell installations can be sized to meet specific needs of container terminals in

maintenance of critical loads, e.g., fuel cell systems installed to backup an array of

wharf cranes to provide power and help maintain appropriate power quality in the

event of disruptions in grid supplied electricity. Fuel cells can efficiently operate on

20

hydrogen or natural gas for days to weeks at a time which reduces the amount of fuel

delivery required for diesel or propane generators or battery replacement.

Fuel cells are currently deployed commercially in many different roles to provide

backup and emergency generation when needed. During Hurricane Irene, a Whole

Foods in Glastonbury, Connecticut was able to maintain operating coolers with a 200-

kW fuel cell system [12]. An Apple iCloud data center in Maiden, North Carolina

receives

10 MW from 24 Bloom Energy fuel cells including some operation on renewable

fuels [12]. The Beacon Capital Partners property in Manhattan installed a 400-kW

Doosan Fuel Cell America fuel cell to provide 20% of the buildings electricity and 50%

of its hot water [10]. Additionally, the system is configured to provide backup power to

a section of the building to provide a shelter in emergencies and power the outdoor

news ticker to provide important public service announcements. St. Francis Hospital in

Hartford, Connecticut has two fuel cells installed including a 400-kW system that backs

up the operating room and buildings air conditioning system and a 400-kW system to

meet 50% of a campus building’s electrical demand [12].

1.2.3 Provide Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power The use of distributed stationary fuel cells would also allow POLB to pursue

CCHP opportunities through the cogeneration heat along with electricity. The thermal

energy produced during the fuel cell generation process could be captured and utilized

to meet thermal demands at the Port including the space heating or cooling of buildings

and warehouses. An additional use of waste heat could include process heat for

industries situated near the Port (e.g., large refinery complexes) although these

opportunities need to be explored as little is known regarding the feasibility. The use of

CCHP systems for self-generation will achieve many benefits in line with POLB energy

21

goals including reductions in cost and emissions and improvements in energy

efficiency.

Stationary power fuel cell systems have been used successfully in many

commercial CCHP applications. A Pepperidge Farm plant in Bloomfield, Connecticut

installed a 250-kW and 1.2-MW FuelCell Energy fuel cell in 2006 and 2008 and plan to

add a 1.4-MW system in 2016 that, in combination with an on-site solar array, will meet

nearly the entire energy demand of the facility [10]. The fuel cell systems will enable

CCHP applications including the recovery of heat to generate steam for baking

processes, the preheating of supply air for the thermal oxidizer used for odor

destruction, and the assist the operation of an ammonia-based chilling system. Many

additional examples can be found in Reference [10].

1.2.4 Tri-Generation of Electricity, Heat, and Hydrogen Installation of tri-generation systems at POLB would provide an efficient and

low emitting source of high quality electricity for port loads (Figure 8). Additionally,

waste heat could be recovered and utilized for thermal loads (as discussed in the CCHP

section) and produced hydrogen could be compressed to provide on-site fueling for

hydrogen fuel cell mobile applications including CHE, light- and heavy-duty vehicles,

and auxiliary power units (APUs) that provide energy for functions other than

propulsion, e.g., to power refrigerated train cars. In particular, tri-generation systems

could be highly suitable for terminals that receive automobiles as the increase in the

commercial fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) market could create a demand for hydrogen

fueling on-site.

22

Figure 8: Overview of potential tri-generation applications at POLB

Deploying renewable resources is important for POLB to reduce the

environmental impacts and improve the sustainability of port operations. Potential

opportunities for on-site renewable generation include wind, solar, and geothermal

resources. Fuel cell electric power generation can balance intermittencies and improve

the performance of on-site PV and reduce costs. Additionally, the use of fuel cells and

renewable fuels represents a direct pathway for 100% renewable operation at POLB

with virtually zero emission of criteria pollutants. Therefore, fuel cell generation can

assist POLB in securing energy from renewable resources by two key mechanisms.

First, fuel cells generation can be directly renewable when biogas or renewable

hydrogen is utilized as a fuel. Second, integration of on-site photo voltaic panels or

wind or geothermal generation with fuel cell systems and potentially battery energy

storage systems can provide load following complementary generation required to

balance POLB loads with intermittent generation.

Additionally, electrification of CHE at POLB will increase in coming years

through projects such as the Middle Harbor Redevelopment and future marine terminal

23

improvements.7 A component of electrification includes the construction and operation

of exchange facilities to meet the battery charging needs of technologies such as

automated guided vehicles. A potentially effective system to maximize benefits of on-

site solar PV would be the incorporation of battery exchange facilities with fuel cells as

they can provide complementary generation to balance solar resource intermittencies to

ensure 24/7 availability of charged batteries for electrified CHE or other loads (Figure 9).

The battery system could also provide support to the POLB microgrid or SCE utility

grid if needed.

Figure 9: Potential integration of fuel cell, solar P.V. and battery system to support POLB electric loads

1.2.5 Provide Portable Auxiliary Marine Power The application of barge-mounted fuel cell systems to provide auxiliary marine

power for ocean going vessels has the potential to reduce emissions and fossil fuel use

of maritime vessels at POLB. In contrast to shore-based electric power, a barge

mounted fuel cell system provides flexibility and could provide power for ships at

anchorage but not at-berth. A conceptual design of a proton exchange membrane fuel

7 http://www.polb.com/about/projects/middleharbor.asp

24

cell (PEMFC) system was found to be technically feasible in several configurations to

meet different power levels and run times [13]. The authors estimate that to supply an

average container ship 1.4 MW for 48 hours would require four 40-ft containers

including two for the system and two for hydrogen storage that could readily be

installed on a flat-top barge. While this study evaluated PEMFC application which

limited fueling options to gaseous or liquid hydrogen, future application of high

temperature fuel cells (e.g., SOFCs, MCFCs) could allow for operation on natural gas

and potentially liquefied natural gas.

1.3 Motive Power for Transportation In addition to stationary fuel cell applications, mobile applications for fuel cells

also exist at POLB with high energy and environmental benefits. PEMFCs are today the

engine of choice for the commercialization of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) by

entities such as Hyundai, Toyota, and Honda. The same engine could provide efficient

and zero-emission motive power to many different mobile technologies at the Port

including light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles, and various cargo and materials

handling equipment including forklifts. Additionally, various fuel cell types could be

used as APU for heavy-duty trucks or refrigeration units. Currently, POLB is working

with the California Air Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management

District, and vehicle manufacturers to test emerging FCEV technologies through grants

and the Port’s Technology Advancement Program.

1.3.1 Light Duty Vehicles The increased use of light duty vehicles powered by fuel cells is being

encouraged in California through State initiatives and regulations including the Zero

25

Emissions Vehicle action plan8 and funding for a network of hydrogen fueling stations.9

FCEVs could be used at the POLB by Port and container terminal staff as personal

vehicles or onsite transportation. This would reduce emissions of GHG and pollutants

and improve efficiencies from current gasoline and diesel-fuel vehicles.

An additional consideration of FCEV deployment in California with implications

for POLB is that the shipping of FCEVs to the U.S. on ocean going vessels will result in

increased throughput of FCEVs being handled at the POLB. When FCEVs arrive at

POLB, a source of hydrogen is needed for vehicle fueling to facilitate the logistics of

storage and distribution to retail locations. This need could be met by on-site refueling

with hydrogen provided by tri-generation systems (see Section 2.2.4) that are also

providing clean power and heat to the container terminal operations with high

efficiencies and very low emissions.

1.3.2 Cargo Handling Equipment Fuel cells could be used to efficiently power CHE at POLB with zero local

emissions of criteria pollutants (Table 2). Currently, fuel cell-powered forklifts are

commercially available and have achieved success in the materials handling industry in

North America, totaling 7,500 units operating within 60 warehouses and distribution

centers in 20 states and Canada [11]. Fuel cell forklifts are particularly suited for high

throughput warehouses and distribution centers with similar demands as CHE at POLB

(e.g., long shifts, satisfactory operation during all weather conditions). Fuel cell-

powered fork lifts, as well as other CHE such as top-picks, side handlers, and rubber

tired gantry cranes, can improve POLB operational efficiencies by completing a 6 to 8

hour shift on a single tank of hydrogen while delivering constant power free of voltage

8 https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_zero-emissionvehicles.php 9 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hydrogen/hydrogen.htm

26

sag [14]. Fuel cell CHE also have benefits over electric battery powered CHE including

easy and rapid refueling by the operator which negates the need for dedicated staff to

perform battery swaps and recharge. Additionally, the avoidance of batteries and

associated activities can free up terminal space and prevent the need for handling and

disposal of toxic lead acid batteries.

Table 2: Benefits of utilizing fuel cell powered cargo handling equipment at POLB. Adapted from [10].

Benefits of Fuel Cell Cargo Handling Equipment at POLB • Zero emissions • Consistent power for the entirety of shifts • Reliable performance in all weather conditions • Quick and simple refueling • Elimination of batteries and charging infrastructure • All above increase productivity and reduce costs

Furthermore, the replacement of current CHE technologies at POLB with fuel cell

powered CHE would achieve significant reduction in GHG and pollutant emissions.

According to the 2014 Air Emissions Inventory, the POLB has 231 forklifts in operation

with diesel (100) and propane (108) being the most common technologies [15]. Shown

in Table 3, in 2014 forklifts at the POLB emitted 1,881 metric tons of carbon dioxide

equivalents (CO2e), 16 tons of NOx, 0.3 tons of diesel PM, and 22.3 tons of CO [15]. As

fuel cell forklifts operate with negligible emissions, deploying them at POLB would

achieve complete reductions of direct on-site pollutant emissions. It must be considered

that hydrogen production has emissions that vary with respect to pathways, but if high

efficiency/low emitting pathways like tri-generation are used GHG emissions will also

be significantly reduced. Additionally, emission reductions from forklifts will become

more important as cargo throughput at POLB increases to meet future demands.

Table 3: 2014 Forklift Data for POLB including number, hours of operation, and emissions. From [15].

Fuel Number Annual Operating Hours

CO2e (metric tons)

NOx

(tons) Diesel PM

(tons) CO

(tons)

27

(Avg.) Diesel 100 498 1,200 10.4 0.3 7.0 Propane 108 314 509 5.5 0.0 14.0 Gasoline 14 403 172 0.1 0.0 1.3 Electric 9 207 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Additional examples of fuel cells for motive power in specialty applications

include tow tractors for use in ground support applications at airports.10,11 While not

currently commercially available, fuel cells are suitable for the various additional CHE

equipment in use at POLB including side handlers, top handlers, yard tractors and

sweepers. Potential future applications of fuel cell technologies may include integration

of motive power into these forms of CHE and their deployment at POLB would achieve

similar benefits as discussed for forklifts. It would be beneficial for POLB to consider

this possibility in the planning and design of future infrastructure to support the

hydrogen fueling of CHE and other mobile applications.

1.3.3 Heavy-Duty Vehicles Fuel cell powered heavy-duty vehicles represent a potential future application at

POLB that would provide high emissions and efficiency benefits relative to the current

diesel truck fleet. Currently, heavy-duty FCEV or battery electric heavy-duty vehicles

with fuel cell range extenders are largely in the demonstration stages, including at

POLB, for commercial applications.12 Recent demonstrations for heavy-duty FCEVs

include transit buses, shuttle buses, refuse trucks, drayage trucks, and delivery vehicles.

The California Air Resources Board believes that fuel cell technologies are a principal

approach to reach zero and near-zero application in the heaviest vehicle classes

including line haul trucks [16]. With similar respect to CHE, it may be valuable for

10 http://www.ushybrid.com/documents/PDF/2/H2TUG.pdf 11 https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review13/mt011_petrecky_2013_o.pdf 12 Two early commercial model fuel cell electric transit buses are available

28

POLB to consider hydrogen fueling for heavy-duty FCEVs moving forward in the

design of energy management strategies.

1.3.4 Auxiliary Power Units An additional application for fuel cells at POLB is to power APUs for trucking,

rail, and marine applications. APUs provide power for functions other than propulsion

and typically include an internal combustion engine. A key application for APUs on

commercial heavy-duty trucks is to provide power for transport refrigeration units

(TRU) and to provide climate control, light, and power in place of idling main

propulsion engines.13 The most common APUs for commercial trucks are small diesel

powered engines which have emissions of GHG and criteria pollutants. Use of fuel cell

powered APUs at POLB would dramatically reduce emissions, noise, fuel consumption,

and size relative to conventional APU relying on internal combustion engines [17]. A

fuel cell APU operating on diesel fuel was able to provide power for electronics and air

conditioning in long haul trucks under simulated idling conditions.14

1.4 Summary of POLB Fuel Cell Applications Table 4 provides a summary of potential fuel cell types and benefits for

application at POLB. The diverse capabilities of fuel cells provide many opportunities

for deployment at POLB. Power generation can be provided at multiple scales by

SOFC, MCFC and PAFC systems to assist in meeting POLB electrical loads with high

environmental, energy, and additional benefits. Additionally, CCHP applications are

possible from the same systems which can further enhance benefits and reduce costs.

Tri-generation systems producing hydrogen are also possible and represent the

system/application with the highest efficiency and environmental benefits.

13 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/ivf4_lasher.pdf 14 http://energy.gov/fe/articles/solid-oxide-fuel-cell-successfully-powers-truck-cab-and-sleeper

29

Additionally, PEMFCs can be used to power motive applications including CHE, light-,

medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles, and rail switchers. SOFC/Gas Turbine hybrid

systems are being developed for medium and long haul rail. Various fuel cell types

could also be used in APU for mobile sources.

An overview of potential fuel cell applications at the POLB is shown in Figure 10.

Installation of fuel cells for stationary power can provide highly efficient, zero local

pollutant emitting generation to meet electricity loads from wharf cranes, AMP,

lighting, refrigeration containers, buildings, warehouses, and other miscellaneous loads.

Additionally, generation can be used to balance on-site renewable resources via

complementary generation both with and without the presence of a battery storage

system that, if present, could also be used to meet needs of electrified CHE. If CCHP is

utilized, heat generated by a high temperature fuel cell could be used to meet thermal

loads of buildings and warehouses. If a tri-generation system is installed at POLB, the

hydrogen generated could be used to fuel mobile applications including fuel cell electric

CHE, heavy-duty vehicle and rail applications, and fueling for light duty vehicles both

operated at POLB and arriving via ship. Table 4: Potential fuel cell applications and benefits at POLB

Fuel Cell Type Potential POLB Applications POLB Benefits

SOFC, MCFC, PAFC

• Provide electricity that can meet all or a portion of POLB primary, backup, and/or emergency load requirements

• Provide useful waste heat that can generate heating, cooling, or steam for POLB or industrial needs

• Provide H2 to support mobile applications at POLB • Power APU for motive applications

• Reduce local emissions • Increase resiliency and reliability • Increase security • Provide ancillary services • Reduce noise

PEMFC • Provide motive power for CHE, LDV, MDV, HDV, and rail

• Significantly reduce local emissions

• Reduce fuel consumption • Reduce noise • Improve efficiencies

30

2 Benefits of Fuel Cell Applications at POLB The use of stationary fuel cells to generate electricity, heat, and hydrogen at

POLB can result in energy and environmental benefits. So would replacing internal

combustion engines with fuel cell electric drivetrains utilizing hydrogen in mobile

applications. The following section provides a review of some of the key benefits of

utilizing fuel cell technology in POLB applications.

• Directly Support POLB Energy Island Initiative

The deployment of fuel cell technologies for self-generation will support the

development and operation of a microgrid at POLB. A key goal of the POLB Energy

Island Initiative is to procure sufficient local (on-site) generation to meet critical loads

during periods of islanding. Fuel cells represent a distributed energy resource that can

effectively provide needed on-site generation. In addition, fuel cells in stationary and

mobile applications have many energy and environmental benefits that can directly

contribute towards the five goals established by POLB under its Energy Island

Initiative.

• Advance green power

Fuel cells can be operated on renewable fuels including on-site or directed biogas

and renewable hydrogen to provide self-generation with very low, zero, or even net

negative GHG emissions. In the long term, the POLB could consider implementing

anaerobic digestion onsite, if adequate land could be dedicated to this purpose, while

pursuing the use of directed biogas in the short-term. Additionally, the ability of fuel

cells to effectively load follow would allow the Port to support both onsite renewable

power (e.g., solar photovoltaic panels, battery energy storage systems) and the large

scale integration of renewables into the utility grid and provide ancillary services to

SCE.

31

• Use self-generated, distributed power with microgrid connectivity

Fuel cells directly encompass this goal as a source of very clean and efficient 24/7

self-generated power at the distributed scale with high suitability for microgrid

application. Fuel cells can provide POLB with generation to meet primary electricity

loads and remain on-line in the event of a utility grid outage. Additionally fuel cells are

an effective component of microgrids with many associated energy and environmental

benefits.

• Provide cost-effective alternative fueling options

Fuel cell systems can be installed to provide on-site hydrogen generation in

tandem with power and heat. While the electric generation will support electric vehicle

charging, the hydrogen generated can be used for many different applications at the

port including powering fuel cell electric mobile technologies including automobiles;

CHE; and APU for ships, heavy-duty trucks and equipment, and trains. Hydrogen

production from such systems enable high efficiencies, very low emissions, and cost

effectiveness.

• Improve energy-related operational efficiencies

Fuel cells can contribute to improving the energy efficiency of POLB in many

ways. While being themselves highly energy efficient, control strategies can be applied

to fuel cell operations that maximize generation in terms of operations to improve

system-wide efficiencies. Fuel cells can support and enhance the operation of other

resources in POLB microgrid including electric and hydrogen powered CHE, battery

systems, and renewable resources. For example, the rapid refueling of hydrogen CHE

relative to extended battery charging times for all electric equipment could reduce

equipment refueling periods. Additionally, the flexibility and scalability of fuel cells

32

will allow them to support the upgrading and operation of equipment and

consumption controls.

• Increase Green Port visibility for POLB

Fuel cell installation at a major shipping port would represent a first of its kind

technological breakthrough and would provide a showcase for the POLB as a leader in

the use of sustainable, advanced technologies, and complement the electrification and

automation advancements currently underway at the Middle Harbor Container

Terminal.

• Increase Energy Efficiency at POLB

The high energy efficiencies inherent in fuel cells from both an electrical and

CCHP perspective will assist in improving the overall energy efficiency of POLB

operations. If hydrogen production is included via tri-generation energy efficiencies

can increase even further. For example, using fuel cell powered CHE in place of diesel

equipment will reduce the amount of energy needed to conduct Port operations by

significantly increasing the propulsion efficiency of equipment. Benefits of using highly

efficient fuel cell systems include reducing fuel consumption, emissions and costs

which can assist POLB in meeting its energy management and environmental goals.

• Improve Resiliency, Reliability, and Security of POLB Energy Supply

The reliability of energy supply describes the availability of high-quality

consistent electricity that entirely meets predicted demands at frequencies and voltages

within tolerances of the equipment requiring it. The resiliency of energy supply is the

ability to resist, absorb, recover from, or successfully adapt to adversity or a change in

conditions. Specifically, energy resiliency at the POLB relates to the ability to maintain

commercial operations during an unscheduled power outage or to recover rapidly after

33

a catastrophic event including natural or manmade disasters. Both resiliency and

reliability in the POLB energy supply are essential for ensuring uninterrupted

operations at POLB which itself is vital for the economic health of Southern California.

Fuel cells in stationary power applications can increase the resiliency and

reliability of energy supply at the POLB by providing high quality, 24/7 generation for

day to day needs and during periods of outages or low power quality. Fuel cells can be

configured to operate independent from the central electrical grid and thus provide

emergency power during periods of grid outage. Further, deploying fuel cells will

reduce POLB’s reliance on high voltage power generation which can be vulnerable to

outages and natural disasters.

• Reduce Pollutant Emissions and Improve Regional Air Quality

POLB is located in the South Coast Air Basin of southern California which

experiences high levels of health damaging air pollution (also termed air quality). The

POLB is committed to reducing the air quality impacts of Port operations through

various programs including the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan15 and the

Green Port Policy.16 Fuel cells produce virtually zero local emissions of air pollutants

while operating. Thus, deployment of stationary fuel cell systems provides a means of

distributed self-generation for the POLB without the addition of emissions to

operations. This is a key benefit of fuel cells as other methods of combustion-driven

self-generation (e.g., natural gas turbines, reciprocating engines) have pollutant

emissions which incur air quality and permitting challenges. The use of fuel cells for

stationary power provides a path for the POLB to secure its energy island future while

minimizing criteria pollutant emissions. Additionally, replacing mobile technologies at

15 http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/ 16 http://www.polb.com/environment/green_port_policy.asp

34

POLB with fuel cell powered equipment provides a significant reduction in criteria

pollutant emissions, particularly if replaced equipment operates on distillate fuels.

Therefore, the use of fuel cells at POLB will reduce local criteria pollutant

emissions and provide improvements in regional air quality with health benefits to

disadvantaged communities in the surrounding area. Specifically, reductions in

pollutants will assist the POLB in meeting goals established under the San Pedro Bay

Ports Clean Air Action Plan and the Green Port Policy.

• Support California’s GHG Goals under AB 32

California has committed to significantly reducing GHG emissions through

various policies including the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Assembly Bill 32. As

with criteria pollutants, fuel cells emit less GHG than similar self-generation

technologies even when operating on natural gas. Additionally, fuel cell powered

mobile applications will substantially reduce GHG from existing strategies. Therefore,

the use of fuel cells can help reduce POLB carbon footprint and support California’s

long-term GHG goals.

• Provide Beneficial Grid Support and Ancillary Services

A wide range of grid support and ancillary services can be attained through fuel

cell deployment in stationary applications at POLB. Power quality can be maintained

and improved via the power conditioning inverters in fuel cell systems for system

power factor correction and voltage support. This is important at POLB as disruptions

in power quality can cause essential technologies (e.g., wharf cranes, automatic stacking

cranes) to experience downtime.

The potential mechanisms for support of the regional utility grid by fuel cells

discussed in Section 1 could be used to support the SCE electrical grid. POLB fuel cell

35

systems can deliver peaking or intermediate load service which can prevent the need

for new transmission and distribution infrastructure in southern California and provide

peaking capacity in constrained areas in the Southern California Edison grid.

Fuel cells can also provide various load shifting services that could benefit POLB

including peak shaving and off-peak charging by delivering on-site generation to offset

costly electricity during periods of peak-load. As the primary driver is reducing cost,

low equipment cost and high reliability are preferred and reciprocating engines are

often utilized in peak shaving applications. However, relatively high pollutant

emissions from reciprocating engines could prevent project siting and permitting at

POLB. Fuel cells avoid this barrier by providing peak shaving in addition to other

functions including standby power with very low emissions. And natural gas powered

fuel cells are waived from permitting in the South Coast Air Basin.

• Support and Enhance POLB’s Leadership as an Environmental Steward and

Green Port

POLB is committed to expanding its sustainability and environmental

stewardship and has a reputation as being the number one “green” port in the U.S.

This is evident through various Port policies and programs including the Green Port

Policy and the Middle Harbor Redevelopment Project. The use of fuel cells at POLB

would champion the deployment of advanced sustainable technology with very high

environmental benefits that would serve as a model for ports around the world. By

demonstrating the use of fuel cells to provide clean, efficient, 24/7 renewable energy for

operations POLB will bolster its reputation as a world-leader in sustainable operations.

36

3 Area, Required Infrastructure, and Other Considerations

3.1 Fuel Cell Footprint The required area for fuel cell systems (including the fuel cell power system and

any required balance of plant) varies with respect to specific technologies but is

generally modest and amenable to distributed generation applications. For example, a

2.8 MW scalable MCFC system requires roughly one quarter of an acre in total footprint

– a four-unit 11.2 MW installation providing power in South Korea occupies

approximately an acre of land.17 Similarly, a scalable 440 kW PAFC system including a

power and cooling module can be combined to reach 2.4 MW (six units) with a site area

of 4,400 ft3. Figure 11 displays site areas for larger installations of the same units with

the maximum system capacity of 24 MW requiring an area of 44,500 ft3 . In a new

project in South Korea, a 30 MW PAFC power plant will be built with a two-story

structure that will halve the area otherwise required.

3.2 Required Infrastructure

3.2.1 Site Considerations Site considerations will vary by fuel cell system and location but generally will

require a well-drained area with level ground. Drain lines for water (e.g., 1.5”-2”) from

the system to a local sewer are usually required. Installation of systems must be in

compliance with any federal, state, and local regulatory authorities for building

construction regulations and zoning ordinances for issues including system foundation,

17 http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/news-resources/white-papers/case-study-11-2-mw-fuel-cell-park-daegu-city-south-korea/

37

protection of weather hazards, security enclosure, distance from roads and public ways,

etc.

Figure 11: Total site area by capacity for PAFC fuel cell systems. Data from [18].

3.2.2 Electrical Infrastructure The deployment of self-generation technologies, including fuel cells, will require

consideration of interconnection with the POLB electrical system and ultimately the

SCE utility grid, which will require approval from SCE. This is in part because a self-

generation power system will alter POLB electrical load and the one-way flow of power

from SCE to the Port. An engineering review will be necessary to identify any adverse

system impacts from fuel cell system interconnection including exceeding the short

circuit capability of any breakers, violations of thermal overload or voltage limits, and

inadequate grounding requirements and electric system protection. The specific steps

required during the interconnection process will be established by SCE. Environmental

reviews and permitting, including Harbor Development Permits, will be necessary for

installations within the Long Beach Harbor District. Additional items may be required

05000

100001500020000250003000035000400004500050000

2.4 4.8 9.6 14.4 19.2 24

Tota

l Site

Are

a (ft

3 )

Total System Capacity (MW)

Site Area by Capacity for PAFC System

38

by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Major infrastructure upgrades

or installation will be dependent on the existing electrical infrastructure and the needs

of the fuel cell system.

Fuel cells produce direct current (DC) electricity which is then converted by an

inverter to alternating current (AC) for most applications including utility

interconnection.

The sizing of the fuel cell system will require consideration of the strategies and

economics associated with POLB energy consumption. If a fuel cell system is desired to

provide both baseload and back-up generation, the system would need to be sized to

meet the portion of electrical and thermal demand chosen during day-to-day

operations. Additionally, sizing considerations would include maintaining critical

POLB facility loads during grid outages. This would require both an assessment of

year-round POLB energy consumption and loads designated as critical to evaluate the

benefits of different system configurations.

The judicious deployment of fuel cell systems at POLB will provide an

opportunity to establish the ability to island. To achieve this capability, the system will

need to be properly sized and configured to effectively insulate the Port from grid

failure (i.e., islanding mode). Important considerations for islanding include (1) black

start capability, (2) synchronous generators with safeguards to prevent export to the

downed grid, (3) appropriate carrying capacity, and (4) parallel utility interconnection

and switchgear control.18

A further consideration for POLB is the availability and participation in

programs that can provide financial or other incentives for fuel cell system deployment.

One example includes the Self-generation Incentive Program (SGIP) which provides

18 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/distributedenergy/pdfs/chp_for_reliability_guidance.pdf

39

incentive funding for distributed generation projects. Other funding opportunities are

emerging associated, for example, with Cap and Trade, short lived climatic pollutants,

and the Porter Ranch episode.

3.2.3 Natural Gas Infrastructure Current fuel cell system installation requires a supply of natural gas and thus

interconnection with the POLB natural gas infrastructure which is provided by

Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Two key issues requiring consideration

include natural gas availability and natural gas pressure. Availability of required

natural gas supply includes both the quantity of natural gas needed for fuel cell

operation and required gas lines to provide it. The amount of natural gas required for

operation will vary with respect to the size of the system. For example, depending on

various factors including operation conditions a 5 MW SOFC installation requires ~30

million British thermal units per hour (MMBTU/hr) natural gas [19], a 2.8 MW MCFC

system uses ~20 MMBTU/hr [20], and a 440 kW PAFC system consumes ~3.6-4.06

MMBTU/hour [18].

In contrast to heat engines, typical fuel pressures required by fuel cells range

from less than 0.5 to 45 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) [5] which generally does

not require upgrading from traditional natural gas infrastructure established in

commercial buildings. For example, the 440 kW system in Reference [18] requires an

inlet pressure of natural gas of 0.36-0.51 psig.

The potential need to update natural gas infrastructure to facilitate fuel cell

systems, or other self-generation systems, will depend on existing POLB natural gas

supply lines and system requirements. Similar to the agreement reached for electricity

rates and billing charges with SCE, POLB should seek to establish an agreement with

SoCalGas regarding natural gas rates. The cost structure of natural gas distribution is

40

similar to electricity but the cost of the infrastructure is generally a smaller ratio of the

overall costs for large volume customers [19]. POLB should also consider contacting

SoCalGas to provide a natural gas service evaluation for potential new power projects,

including a description of the necessary improvements to existing gas infrastructure to

support fuel cell project installation and a preliminary estimate of the costs require to

construct facilities.19

3.2.4 Hydrogen Infrastructure While current commercial distributed fuel cell systems operate on natural gas

and biogas by internally reforming the gas to hydrogen, fuel cells can be supplied with

hydrogen directly if and when renewable hydrogen becomes commonplace as a

solution to capturing wind energy that would otherwise be curtailed. Thus, while not

necessary in the short term, future infrastructure at POLB could include hydrogen

pipeline infrastructure. Pipelines are the most efficient mechanism for transportation

large amounts of hydrogen. Construction costs for hydrogen pipelines are 10-20%

higher than those for natural gas due largely to materials associated with hydrogen

embrittlement [21]. On-site hydrogen storage could be beneficial and include high

pressure gaseous storage vessels of varying composition (e.g., all-metal cylinder, carbon

fiber). Cryogenic liquid storage tanks could be employed to store large quantities of

hydrogen. If tri-generation systems are deployed, any produced hydrogen could be

stored on-site and used when needed for power or as a transportation fuel.

3.3 Operating and Maintenance Fuel cell operating and maintenance (O&M) requirements are relatively low

given the few moving parts associated with fuel cell systems. Short term maintenance

19 https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/power-generation/new-or-expanding-facilities

41

include filter changes for the sulfur trap, fuel, and air. Depending on the type of fuel

cell, the required changes occur annually (8,766 hours), or 2,000 to 4,000 hours of

operation [5]. Similarly, the fuel reformer may require maintenance including

replacement of a reformer igniter. Additional maintenance can be required for water

treatment beds, flange gaskets, valves, and electrical components. Consumable

products also can require replacement including sulfur adsorbent bed catalyst and

nitrogen for shutdown purging. Long term O&M considerations include the

replacement of the shift and reformer catalysts. Remote monitoring by the

manufacturer is used as a vehicle to manage maintenance and detect a requirement for

unscheduled maintenance before it becomes an operating issue.

Fuel Cell O&M considerations for the POLB will depend on the structure of

ownership as many manufacturers offer a range of options including leasing, power

purchasing agreements (PPA), and warranties (Discussed further in Section 4). Direct

ownership would require the most O&M responsibility for the POLB while a PPA

would require the virtually no responsibility.20 A leasing agreement would typically

require the lease (e.g., POLB) to be responsible for the purchase and delivery of fuel

with O&M and other costs assumed by the leasing agent.

3.4 Fuel Cell Lifetime Fuel cell operating lifetimes have evolved to achieve and exceed a commercial

target of 20 years for the balance of plant, and between 5 and 10 years (depending on

the fuel cell type) for the fuel cell stack [5]. Many fuel cell manufacturers provide stack

replacement as a part of warranty coverages. Further, for installations using either a

PPA or leasing arrangement, manufacturer or developer assumes the responsibility for

20 https://www.wbdg.org/resources/fuelcell.php

42

replacement of system components experiencing failure prior to the agreement

deadline.

43

4 Fuel Cell Costs Costs for stationary fuel cell systems vary by type and application and include

capital cost (equipment and installation), operating and maintenance (O & M) costs, and

cost for fuel. Costs for five CCHP fuel cell systems reported in Reference [5] are

displayed in Table but should be considered “typical” pricing (it should be noted that

costs for larger SOFC systems (~200-1000 kw) are much less expensive than those

presented by System 2 but those data were unavailable to the authors). Total costs

range from $4,600/kw for a large commercial and industrial application to $23,000/kw

for a small residential application, although costs for systems more representative to

those for POLB range from $4,600-$10,000. Installed costs range depending on factors

such as the scope of plant equipment, geographical deployment area, competitive

market condition, existence of specialized site requirements, and current rates of labor

[5]. Additionally, incentive programs and other funding opportunities may be available

at state and federal levels due to the environmental benefits associated with their use

that can make fuel cell costs competitive with other technologies and support their

deployment at POLB.

Table 5: Estimated Costs for Fuel Cells in CCHP Applications. Adapted from [5].

Installed Cost Components System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5

Application Residential Residential Com./Ind. Com./Ind. Com./Ind. Fuel Cell Type PEMFC SOFC MCFC PAFC MCFC Capacity (kW) 0.7 1.5 300 400 1400 Total Cost (2014 $/kW) $22,000 $23,000 $10,000 $7,000 $4,600

O&M Costs (2014 $/MWh) $60 $55 $45 $36 $40

Real-world costs of fuel cell installation projects are more in line with the lower

end of the CCHP systems shown in Table 5 when incentives are available. In California,

the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) has led to the deployment of over 300

44

stationary fuel cell systems operating on renewable biogas and natural gas [22]. The

average estimated costs for fuel cells in the SGIP range by capacities from $9,524-

$10,932/kW without incentives and $5,587-$8,299/kW with incentives [22]. Generally,

systems with larger capacities have lower unit costs and also receive more incentives,

further reducing costs.

Figure 12 compares unsubsidized levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of different

distributed self-generation technologies as well as average prices from the CA utility

grid. The LCOE of fuel cells can range from 10.6 to 16.7 cents/kWh unsubsidized and

9.4 to 16.0 cents/kWh with federal tax subsidies [23]. Commercial deployments of fuel

cells systems similar to what would be utilized at POLB have been shown to have

LCOE of 8-10 cents/kWh to 9-11 cents/kWh with subsidies and 14-15 cents/kWh without

subsidies depending on manufacturer and system [14]. This is reasonably competitive

with pricing for grid electricity in markets with relatively high electricity costs –

including California which can range from 10-17 cents/kWhr depending on the time of

year and end-use sector [24]. Fuel cells operating on natural gas and renewable fuels

are also eligible for Federal tax incentives including the Business Energy Investment

Tax Credit with a maximum incentive of $1,500 per 0.5 kW21. While the POLB could not

benefit from such incentives, the individual tenants at the Port are eligible.

While the costs of fuel cells are high relative to other forms of self-generation,

future improvements in technology and manufacturing are expected to significantly

reduce them moving forward. Indeed capital costs for fuel cells have steadily declined

in recent years. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has established the following

targets for stationary fuel cells applicable to POLB which would allow fuel cells to be

more competitive economically with other forms of self-generation [25]:

21 http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/658

45

Figure 12: Unsubsidized levelized cost of electricity for self-generation technologies [23] and average California utility grid [24]. Solar PV pricing represents a range from rooftop commercial and industrial to community-scale deployment.

• By 2020, develop DG and micro-CHP fuel cell systems (5 kW) operating on natural gas that achieve 45% electrical efficiency and 60,000 hours durability at an equipment cost of $1,500/KW

• By 2020, develop medium-scale combined heat and power (CHP)22 fuel cell systems (100 kW-3 MW) operating on natural gas that achieve 50% electrical and 90% CHP efficiency, 80,000 hours durability and costs of $1,500/kW operating on natural gas and $2,100/kw operation on biogas.

• By 2020, develop a fuel cell system for APU (1-10 kW) with a specific power of 45 W/kg, a power density of 40W/L, and cost of $1000/kW.

A strategy for procurement of generation and heat from fuel cell systems that has

achieved success and may be favorable to POLB includes the establishment of a power

purchase agreement (PPA) with a fuel cell manufacturer or provider. A PPA is a

contract between an electricity generator (fuel cell manufacturer or other financing

party) and consumer (POLB or its tenants) that would allow for no upfront capital

22 CHP is distinct from CCHP in that it does not include space cooling

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Fuel Cell

Avg. CA Utility Grid

Solar PV

Microturbine

Reciprocating Engine

Gas Combined Cycle

$/kWh

Levelized Cost of Electricity

46

investment as the manufacturer or third-party installer is responsible for the cost of the

equipment, the cost of installation, and operation and maintenance. Instead, POLB

would purchase electricity and heat from fuel cell generation over a period of 10-20

years, often at favorable rates. Essentially a PPA could allow the POLB to procure

generation from fuel cells at the prices that are competitive with the CA utility grid such

as 8-11 cents/kWh without high upfront capital costs. The PPA is a common

mechanism for attaining financing of alternative energy projects with benefits to POLB

including:

• Budget certainty by pre-defined price of electricity/heat specified for multi-year periods with potentially favorable rates (e.g., 8-15 cents/kWh)

• System installation with no capital expense for the consumer • System design, engineering, permitting, installation, and utility

interconnection are handled by installer • O & M costs included for contract duration • Performance guarantees established in contract

Tri-Generation systems are able to achieve substantially lower electricity costs due to the production of a highly-valued revenue stream of hydrogen.

47

5 Fuel Cells vs. Other Self-generation Devices

5.1 Self-Generation Devices In addition to fuel cells, self-generation technologies available for distributed

applications include reciprocating engines, gas turbines, steam turbines, and micro-

turbines. Furthermore, fuel cells can be integrated with a heat engine in hybrid fuel

cell/heat engine plants. These technologies are also suitable for combined cooling,

heating, and power applications (CCHP) and can be integrated in microgrids.

Similar to fuel cells, the following devices convert chemical energy in fuel into

electric power and heat. In contrast to fuel cells, the devices listed require the

additional steps of converting hot gases to provide electricity through a series of

mechanical devices such as pistons or turbines and an electrical generator whereas fuel

cells convert fuel chemical energy into electrical energy electrochemically in one step).

The following section briefly describes self-generation devices and compares

operational parameters relative to fuel cells for stationary applications at the POLB.

5.1.1 Reciprocating Engines Reciprocating engines represent a mature and commercially available heat

engine technology that make up over half of existing CHP systems in the U.S [5].

Reciprocating engines can operate with either spark ignition or compression ignition

and can range from very small (0.005 MW) to large (80 MW) systems, although typical

CHP systems sizes range in the 0.005 – 10 MW. Benefits of reciprocating engines

include low investment and operating cost, high flexibility, reliability and availability,

high part-load efficiencies and load following capabilities, and fast start-up times.

Drawbacks of reciprocating engines include the need for regular service due to moving

parts, noisy operation, and emissions of criteria pollutants and elevated GHGs which

48

can represent hurdles for permitting in regions constrained by poor air quality –

including the South Coast Air Basin in which POLB is situated.

5.1.2 Gas Turbines Gas turbines have been used for stationary power generation for many decades

and range in size from 500 kW to hundreds of MW. Typically, for CCHP applications,

the most economic size range is 5-MW to the hundreds of MW-scale [5]. Gas turbines

have higher efficiencies and lower emissions than other common fossil combustion heat

engines but require clean-up or control strategies including lean pre-mixed combustion

and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to meet permitting requirements. Typically gas

turbines as CCHP are best suited for processes with a need for high temperatures (i.e.,

steam production) [26].

5.1.3 Microturbines Microturbines are small (typically 60-1,000 kilowatts) distributed gas turbine

power plants that can be combined with a bottoming steam turbine cycle or operated as

a stand-alone Brayton cycle. Microturbines and offer the benefits of simple design,

compact size, low vibration and noise, and no required cooling [5]. Downsides of

microturbines include high costs, low flexibility, and low electrical efficiencies,

particularly at part load [26]. Typically, microturbine systems operate on natural gas

but can also operate on renewable gaseous fuels but must be integrated with CHP to

achieve reductions in GHG, and must be integrated with SCR to achieve low criteria

pollutant emissions [5, 27, 28].

5.1.4 Steam Turbines Steam turbines are typically matched to solid fuel boilers, industrial waste heat,

or integration with a gas turbine as a bottoming cycle to create combined cycles.

49

Typical capacities for steam turbines range from 50 kW to several hundred MW in large

centralized power plants. Steam turbines benefits include high fuel flexibility, high

reliability and equipment lifetime, and flexibility of design.

5.1.5 Combined Cycle Generation Gas and steam turbines can provide combined cycle (CC) generation comprised

of three main components – a gas turbine (Brayton cycle that includes compressor,

combustor and turbine), a steam turbine (operating on the Rankine cycle), and a heat

recovery steam generator (HRSG) that integrates the two cycles together by generating

steam from the upstream gas turbine exhaust. Combined cycle generation systems can

range in capacity from 10 MW to GW-scale has the benefits of high thermal efficiencies,

high reliability and availability, low installed and O & M costs, and flexibility of

generation. At the central plant scale, natural gas CC plants are capable of high fuel-to-

electricity efficiency of between 50-60% and ultra-low criteria pollutant emissions when

integrated with a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) emissions clean up system.

5.1.6 Hybrid Fuel Cell Heat Engine Plants Hybrid fuel cell heat engine plants integrate a high temperature fuel cell (solid

oxide or molten carbonate) with a heat engine (e.g., gas turbine, reciprocating engine) to

achieve a higher fuel-to-electricity efficiency than a fuel cell alone (converting fuel cell

heat to electricity) [29]. A basic schematic is provided in Figure 13. By utilizing

synergies between the different technologies, improved performance including higher

efficiencies are achieved relative to the fuel cell and heat engine generator alone. These

emerging power plants are being developed by several manufacturers and have been

shown to achieve very high electrical efficiencies [30-32] with virtually zero criteria

pollutant emissions even at distributed power sizes [30], and dynamic dispatch

characteristics [31, 33].

50

Figure 13: Basic design concept of a gas turbine fuel cell hybrid power plant. From [30]

An overview schematic of a proposed commercial example of a hybrid fuel cell

heat engine plant is presented in Figure 12 for the General Electric (GE) fuel cell-

combined cycle (FC-CC) technology. The FC-CC comprises a heat and power

generation system comprised of a SOFC and a GE Jenbacher reciprocating engine that

can operate on natural gas [34]. The synergistic impacts of the FC and reciprocating

engine allow for very high efficiencies including electrical efficiencies as high as 60-65%

and overall CHP efficiencies as high as 90%.23 The FC-CC system also has the

environmental benefits of ultra-low emissions and a net producer of water. The ability

of FC-CC systems to attain these benefits at a distributed scale makes them particularly

attractive for stationary power applications from 1 to 10 MW.

23 CHP efficiency is equivalent to both electricity and heat output divided by the heating value of the fuel

51

Figure 14: Overview diagram of the GE FC Heat Engine Hybrid Energy System. From [34]

5.2 Self-Generation Technology Comparison Table 6 displays costs, emissions, sizing and performance for the self-generation

technologies discussed in this report. The values are compared and contrasted in

subsequent sections.

52

Table 6: Cost and Performance Parameters for Self-Generation Devices. Data adapted from [5, 34, 35]

Fuel Cell & Hybrid

Systems Recip. Engine Steam Turbine Gas Turbine Microturbine

Electric Efficiency (HHV) 30-65%* 27-41% 5-40% 24-36% 22-28%

Net CHP Efficiency (HHV) 55-90%* 77-80% Approx. 80% 66-71% 63-70%

Typical Capacity (MW) 0.2 – 2.8 0.005 – 10 0.5 – hundreds 0.5 – 300 0.08 – 1

Power Density (kW/m2) 5-20 35-50 >100 20-500 5-70

Part-load Potential Good OK OK Poor OK

CHP Installed Cost ($/kW) 5,000-6,500 1,500-2,900 670-1,100 1,200-3,300 2,500-4,300

Non-fuel O&M Cost($/kWh) 0.032-0.038 0.009-0.025 0.006-0.01 0.009-0.013 0.009-0.013

Availability >95% 96-98% 72-99% 93-96% 98-99%

Start-up Period 15 min - 3 hrs - 2 days (by type) 10 seconds – 15 min 1 hour - 1 day 2 min - 1 hr 60 sec

Fuels NG, H2, biogas, propane, methanol

NG, biogas, LPG, sour gas, industrial waste gas, All NG, biogas,

synthetic gas NG, biogas, sour gas, liquid fuels

NOx Emissions (g/kWh) 0.004-0.005 0.032-0.8 0.014-0.127 0.023-0.594 0.027-

*The highest electric and CCHP efficiencies are achieved for FC-CC technologies, HHV: higher heating value

53

5.2.1 System Size The range of typical capacities for the self-generation technologies depend on

consumer and applications. Commercial fuel cell units range from 0.2 - 2.8 MW but the

modularity of fuel cells allow for larger systems potentially up to the hundreds of MW.

For example, a 59 MW fuel cell power plant composed of 21 2.8 MW units currently

provides clean generation and district heating to a major city in South Korea.24 Steam

turbine and gas turbine capacities can range from 0.5 - several hundred MW depending

on application and specific type. Microturbines are inherently small, with typical

systems ranging from 0.0.08 - 1.0 MW. Reciprocating engines can range from very

small to medium size installations (0.005 – 10 MW).

5.2.2 Emissions Pollutant emissions of concern from self-generation technologies include NOx,

SOx, CO, PM, and VOC. GHG emissions include CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide

(N2O). Figure 15 displays emissions of NOx in grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kWhr) for

self-generation technologies operating on natural gas. Emissions of NOx from fuel cells

are significantly lower (0.004 to 0.005 g/kWhr) than all other options due to the

avoidance of combustion and require no emission control device or strategy [5].

Emissions from NGCC plants can be low (0.014 to 0.11 g/kWhr) but require clean-up

with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) strategies to achieve the minimum values

indicated in the range. Gas turbine NOx emissions have a large range (0.023 to 0.594

g/kWhr) but typical commercial systems generate 0.07 to 0.11 g/kWhr with lean

premixed burners and the inclusion of SCR can further reduce emissions by 80 to 90%

[5]. Microturbines operating on natural gas can achieve low NOx emissions with lean

premixed combustion at full load with typical emissions from 0.036 to 0.091 g/kWhr [5].

24 http://www.powermag.com/worlds-largest-fuel-cell-plant-opens-in-south-korea/

54

However, emissions commonly increase during operation at part load with implications

for complementary generation or dynamic operation to support distributed loads.

Reciprocating engines have the potential for high emissions, including NOx, depending

on the type of engine used. Smaller scale engines utilizing rich burn combustion and

catalytic after treatment can emit 0.027 g/kWhr while larger lean burn systems may emit

0.36 g/kWhr in the absence of SCR. Steam turbine emissions depend directly on fuel

choice with natural gas systems ranging from 0.014 to 0.127 g/kWhr.

Figure 15: Emissions of NOx from Self-generation Technologies Operating on Natural Gas. NGCC: Natural Gas Combined Cycle, GT: Gas Turbine, MT: Microturbine, ST: Steam Turbine. Data for NGCC from [36-38], Data for others from [5].

A key benefit of the very low direct emissions from fuel cells is that systems can

be sited in air basins with poor air quality and restrictive permitting processes. This

allows for distributed generation applications with benefits including improved

reliability, flexibility, economy of scale, avoidance of transmission and distribution

losses, and others. This has importance to POLB applications as the Port is situated in

the South Coast Air Basin which experiences some of the worst air quality in the U.S.

and therefore has stringent pollutant emission regulations required for stationary

55

sources. Other self-generation technologies can meet the regulations but require

additional costly pollutant control strategies, e.g., SCR, CO oxidation.

Emissions of CO2 similarly vary across self-generation technology systems

operating on natural gas. Figure 16 shows the generation emissions (i.e., not including

CCHP) for considered systems with the exception of steam turbines due to a lack of

available data. Overall, fuel cells have the lowest emissions due to higher efficiencies

and lack of combustion. Combustion devices range depending on multiple factors but

generally NGCC plants have the lowest emissions followed by reciprocating engines

and gas turbines. Microturbines have a large range that include It should be noted

that inclusion of CCHP will significantly reduce emissions for all systems with

combustion devices having more uniformity due to the factors discussed for

efficiencies.

Figure 16: Emissions of CO2 from Self-generation Technologies Operating on Natural Gas. NGCC: Natural Gas Combined Cycle, GT: Gas Turbine, MT: Microturbine, ST: Steam Turbine. Data for NGCC from [36-38], Data for others from [5].

56

5.3 Advantages/Disadvantages of Self Generation Devices

Technology Advantages Disadvantages

Fuel Cells

• Very low emissions of pollutants and GHG with no control needed

• Very low to net-neutral water consumption

• Highest efficiency over load range • Very little noise • Modular, scalable • Good load following capability • Good part-load operation

• High unsubsidized cost • Low power densities • Some systems can have

longer start up periods • Can be sensitive to fuel

impurities

Gas Turbines

• High reliability • Low emissions with control

strategies • High heat quality • No cooling required

• Require high pressure gas or compressor

• Poor efficiency at part-load • Sensitive to ambient

temperature

Steam Turbines

• Reliable • Long operational life • Variable power to heat ratio • Fuel flexible

• Slow start-up • Very low power to heat ratio • Requires boiler or other

steam source

Microturbines • Small number of moving parts • Compact size, light weight • Potential for low emissions

• High costs • Relatively low efficiencies • Low temperature CCHP • Requires emission cleanup

(e.g., SCR)

Recip. Engines

• High power efficiency • Part-load flexibility • Rapid start-up • Low investment cost • Able to load-follow • Can operate on low-pressure gas

• CCHP limited by low temperature

• High emissions of pollutants and GHG

• Noisy • High O & M costs

57

6 CCHP at POLB

6.1 Benefits of CCHP Combined cooling, heating, and power (CCHP) represents an affordable solution

to entities such as POLB seeking to address the challenges associated with rising energy

costs and demand pressures in tandem with improving efficiencies and reducing

environmental impacts. CCHP is a proven and mature technology with an established

history in the U.S. and increasing installed capacities due to various energy and

environmental drivers [39]. CCHP is a clean and efficient approach to meeting

distributed electrical and thermal loads at POLB including providing space/process

cooling capacity in addition to space/process heating and steam generation. In contrast

to most other applications, marine terminals have relatively small thermal loads

compared with their overall power usage, and novel systems would likely be required

to facilitate and utilize CCHP benefits.

CCHP systems involve a primary driver (e.g., fuel cell, reciprocating engine,

turbine and micro-turbine) that is installed at/or near the user to allow for the waste

heat from electricity generation to be collected and used to meet thermal demands [40].

Because this allows for useful work to be done by the heat that would otherwise be

exhausted, the direct benefits of CCHP relative to using the devices alone include

reduced energy costs and emissions and increased reliability and energy efficiencies.

An additional efficiency benefit of CCHP is the avoidance of transmission and

distribution losses as electricity is generated on-site. Potential additional benefits of

CCHP include increased reliability and support for the electric grid and minimization

of the need for new construction of transmission and distribution technologies [5]. The

use of natural gas based CCHP systems to provide complementary generation would

provide a highly efficient and low-emitting method for providing the flexible and fast-

58

ramping generation needed to complement renewable integration – particularly if fuel

cells are used as the primary driver.

Often the largest barriers to CCHP are policy related including energy policies,

although California has a more favorable system than other States. Challenges can

include confusing or inconsistent permitting requirements, lack of interconnection

standards, unfavorable economics including charge fees, standby rates and exit fees,

and others [39].

Table 7: Direct and Associated Benefits of CCHP

Direct Benefits of CCHP Additional Benefits of CCHP • Reduced energy expenditures via direct

cost savings • Increased economic competitiveness via

reduced operating costs and others • Increased reliability and resiliency

• Increased energy efficiency and reduce overall energy consumption

• Reduced criteria pollutant emissions • Reduced GHG emissions • Provide economic development value • Resource adequacy • Increased reliability and grid support for

utility system • Increase the competitiveness of business • Reduce need for infrastructure

improvements

While a range of costs and benefits exists for CCHP systems relative to the utility

grid and other self-generation systems, three in particular are chosen and discussed in

more detail due to their importance to the POLB. They include (1) significant

improvements in economics, and (2) potential reductions in pollutant and GHG

emissions, and (3) increased reliability and resiliency of energy supply. It should be

noted that efficiency gains are a large benefit of CCHP but are discussed in a stand-

alone section in this report.

59

6.1.1 Economic Benefits The use of CCHP can potentially reduce energy costs due largely in part to its

high efficiencies, translating to reductions in fuel costs and electricity purchases. This

can also be beneficial by reducing the potential impact of electricity rate increases and

by allowing POLB to generate its own electricity during periods of peak electricity costs.

The fuel flexibility of most self-generation technologies, including fuel cells, provides a

hedge against fluctuations in fuel prices (natural gas is currently abundant and

affordable but could experience price increase in the future). Financial incentives

designed to encourage the use of CCHP in California may also be available and reduce

costs further. Additionally, some capital costs associated with heating and/or cooling

may be avoided (e.g., cost for boilers and chillers) although this would need to be

balanced relative to the capital cost of the system. A major economic benefit of CCHP

technology is the protection of POLB revenue streams, namely the successful transport

of goods. As previously discussed, even brief disruptions in POLB activities incur a

massive financial penalty to the Port and the economies of southern California and the

U.S. By installing CCHP self-generation the POLB will reduce the risk of operational

interruption via disruption of grid electricity service which minimizes financial losses.

However, in order for POLB to determine how CCHP will impact energy-related

costs it will be necessary to establish the cost of the technology including installation,

fuel, operation, and maintenance and compare the final price of electricity with current

SCE rate structures. For example, the up-front capital cost to install CCHP or replace an

existing boiler must be considered. Moreover, any additional costs associated with

meeting the goals of the system should be accounted for such as those to enable

islanding and/or black start capability. This will allow a determination to be made if

CCHP is worthwhile investment solely on the basis of economics (i.e., the additional

benefits of CCHP may make it desirable to POLB anyway, including reduced emissions

60

and increased resiliency and reliability). A major determinant of cost includes the value

of produced thermal energy and for POLB to maximize benefits and minimize costs a

beneficial use should be identified.

6.1.2 CCHP Emissions The use of CCHP technologies provides direct reductions in emissions of

pollutants and GHG emissions simply because less fuel is consumed to provide a unit

of energy output for a given system. Additionally, reductions in emissions are achieved

through avoided activity including the construction of new transmission and

distribution infrastructure. However, reductions in emissions must also be considered

in the context of where the emissions occur. Currently, the POLB receives its electricity

from the SCE utility grid with the actual sites of generation and the associated

emissions occurring off-site and not on POLB property. By replacing grid electricity

with generation from on-site distributed technologies, emissions will introduced at

POLB, even though the total emissions per unit energy is potentially lower compared to

the grid. This will require the system to be permitted by the South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) prior to operation. Fuel cells provide a pathway to

self-generation at POLB to reduce overall emissions and avoid issues with the situation

of new emissions sources within the Port. Other technologies can provide self-

generation with emission levels at acceptable permitting levels; however these may

require expensive controls and/or clean-up strategies. Additionally, POLB is especially

constrained by emissions due to the high levels of emissions from existing port activity

and stringent environmental regulations being imposed on the Port. Thus, fuel cells

represent the lowest emitting self-generation technology that can capture the benefits of

CCHP.

61

6.1.3 Improved Reliability and Resiliency By providing electricity and meeting thermal loads on-site the POLB can attain

the benefits of increased resiliency and reliability of its energy supply. By having on-

site generation POLB will reduce its reliance on the existing SCE utility grid and

experience of disruption from grid outages. CCHP systems can function flexibly both

as primary generation during periods of normal operation and as back-up generation

during outages including operation during grid-connected and islanding periods.

CCHP systems can use a variety of fuels and many systems have very high reliabilities.

6.2 Opportunities for CCHP at POLB As described above, CCHP can provide significant energy, efficiency, economic,

and environmental benefits but only if a chosen system is a suitable match for a given

entity both technically and economically [41]. The technical potential for CCHP at

POLB is determined by the coincident demand for electricity and thermal energy

including steam, hot water, chilled water, process heat, refrigeration, and

dehumidification [41]. The economic suitability for CCHP at POLB is established by

current and future fuel costs and utility rates, planned new construction or heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment replacement, the need for power

reliability, and various programs including utility policies [41].

The POLB is somewhat unique relative to other commonly considered CCHP

targets such as commercial office buildings, groceries, hospitals, laundries, etc.

Generally, applications with continuous or fixed needs for both electricity and thermal

energy represent optimal CCHP targets from an economic perspective. POLB has a

very large, fixed electrical load which it requires 24/7. By providing a significant

portion of this load with CCHP enabled technologies a substantial thermal load would

also be generated, captured and available for use. However, operations at the POLB

62

driving electricity demands do not necessarily correspond directly on-site with the large

available thermal loads that would then be co-available. For example, the large ship-to-

shore cranes operating at container terminals require large amounts of electricity but

may not be directly adjacent a source for the co-generated thermal energy.

A benefit of fuel cells at POLB may then be that the economics of CCHP for fuel

cells depend less on the effective use of recovered thermal energy than for other, less

electrically efficient self-generation technologies. Essentially electric only efficiency

would become a much more important factor if some or all of the available thermal

loads are not converted into useful work.

6.2.1 Space Cooling/Heating Thermal loads from CCHP systems can provide hot water, space heating and/or

cooling via an absorption chiller to buildings at POLB, including commercial office

buildings housing POLB employees and operations. This would offset electricity and

natural gas currently being used to maintain comfortable building environments for

POLB and terminal operator staff. Potential challenges include the mismatch of needed

thermal load with electricity load (i.e., buildings would consume a relatively small

amount of thermal energy compared to electricity generated) if larger systems are

deployed.

An additional target for the utilization of waste heat could be to support the

handling and storage of refrigerated cargo. It is possible that absorption chilling from

CCHP technologies could be used to assist in maintaining chilled temperatures for

produce and other cargo requiring refrigeration. This would likely require the

construction of a facility on-site to house refrigerated cargo or perhaps the development

of a novel technology or strategy for refrigerated cargo that can utilize cold air or water

to reduce the amount of electricity required to maintain the container temperature.

63

Such a system could also potentially be integrated a thermal energy storage that could

provide energy and economic benefits to POLB microgrid. For example, a thermal

energy storage system designed to around chilled water could allow for peak shifting

which would contribute to reduced energy costs and improved efficiencies.

6.2.2 Industrial Applications POLB is located adjacent to areas of industry including large refinery complexes

which may be a potential target for heat or steam produced by self-generation CCHP

systems. The CCHP demands from refineries could potentially be a good match for the

electricity generated at POLB as both can operate 24/7 and the magnitude of required

thermal energy would be comparable to generated electricity. Potential industries

include energy intensive segments such as chemical manufacturing, refining,

paper/pulp, food processing and primary metals. Large refineries typically have large

process steam requirements and could provide a source for steam generated at POLB

and transported via pipeline or other methods.

64

7 Self-generation and CCHP Efficiencies The following section will briefly describe different efficiency measures for self-

generation and CCHP technologies and compare and contrast reported values for each.

Understanding the efficiencies of self-generation and CCHP technologies requires an

understanding of how efficiencies are calculated. Efficiency of generation is a ratio

between the useful output of conversion (electricity) and the energy input (fuel).

Typically, efficiency of electricity generators is inversely proportional to the heat

generated as heat is energy from the fuel that is lost to the environment. However, in

CCHP devices heat is captured and then utilized for useful output (space

heating/cooling, steam generation). Thus, assessing the efficiency of CCHP devices

requires consideration of both electricity and thermal outputs in relation to fuel inputs.

Figure 17 displays an overview and comparison of the efficiencies from

conventional and CHP systems from Reference [42]. The numbers present in the arrows

represent unit energy, e.g., for CHP 100 units of energy in as fuel provide 31 units of

electricity and 52 units of heat. As can be seen, to provide the same net electricity and

thermal loads as a 5 MW NG combustion turbine CHP system, a conventional power

plant at 30% efficiency and a conventional boiler at 80% efficiency would require an

additional 68 units of fuel input. This results in net system efficiencies of 49% for

conventional generation and 83% for CHP and highlights the efficiency benefits of

distributed CHP generation.

65

Figure 17: Overview and Comparison of Efficiencies from Conventional and CCHP Generation. From [42].

7.1 Electrical Efficiencies Electric efficiencies overlap in range between technologies and also depend on

the size of the installation as larger installations are commonly more efficient than

smaller installations for the same technology. Table 8 displays the electrical efficiencies

of the self-generation technologies considered in this work. Generally, the highest

electric efficiencies are attributed to fuel cells (30-63%) due to the operational

parameters discussed in Section 1, including the FC – CC system which can achieve the

highest electric efficiency of 65% [5, 34]. Combined cycle applications involving only

natural gas turbines also achieve very high efficiencies in the 40-50% range. Electric

efficiencies of additional technologies in descending order include large reciprocating

engines (27-41%), simple cycle gas turbines (24-36%), microturbines (22-28%), and steam

turbines (5-40+%) [5].

66

7.2 CCHP Efficiency As discussed, the CCHP efficiency of self-generation is much higher than

electricity only efficiencies due to the ability to capture and utilize otherwise wasted

thermal energy. This is particularly important for devices that have lower electric

efficiencies (e.g., microturbines, gas turbines) as the utilization of heat from

inefficiencies increases the overall efficiencies of the system to better compare with

higher electric only efficiency devices (e.g., fuel cells, combined cycle, large

reciprocating engines). Therefore, the total CCHP efficiency is generally calculated

accounting for the energy content of electricity and useful thermal energy divided by

the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel consumed.

Net (or CCHP) system efficiencies of CCHP technologies experience greater

consistency due to nature of CCHP – heat generated during electric conversion

inefficiencies is captured and used for thermal loads. As CCHP efficiency is equivalent

to the net electricity plus the net useful thermal output divided by the consumed fuel

this results in higher efficiencies for less electrically efficient technologies. Table 8

displays the CCHP efficiencies for the self-generation devices considered in this work.

FC-CC systems achieve the highest potential CCHP efficiency around 90% while fuel

cell systems alone range from 55-80%. Reciprocating engines and steam turbines also

can achieve around 80% system efficiency while gas turbines and microturbines are

around 70%.

However, the value of electrical output could be higher than thermal output at

POLB due to smaller thermal loads relative to electrical loads. To better account for this

an additional definition of CCHP efficiency is effective electrical efficiency or fuel

utilization effectiveness (FUE). FUE expresses CCHP efficiency by comparing net

electrical generation relative to net fuel consumption with the portion of fuel that goes

67

to useful heat excluded [5]. By using FUE a direct comparison can be made of CCHP

generation relative to each other. Table 8 displays the FUE for the self-generation

technologies described in this work. FUE are highest for fuel cells ranging from 55-80%

and reciprocating engines ranging from 75-80% [5]. Steam turbine FUE are also high

from 75-77% while FUE for gas turbines and microturbines are lower ranging from 50-

62% and 49-57%, respectively.

Table 8: Various efficiency measures for self-generation and CCHP technologies.

Technology Fuel Cell

Recip. Engine

Steam Turbine

Gas Turbine Microturbine

Electric Efficiency (HHV) 30-63% 27-41% 5-40% 24-36% 22-28% Net CCHP Efficiency (HHV) 55-90% 77-80% ~80% 66-71% 63-70% Fuel Utilization Effectiveness 55-90% 75-80% 75-77% 50-62% 49-57%

68

8 Power-to-Gas at POLB

8.1 Power-to-Gas Overview Power-to-gas (P2G) is a technology strategy that involves the conversion of

electricity into a gaseous fuel (an overview is shown in Figure 18). Generally, the

produced gaseous fuel is hydrogen, although hydrogen can be combined with CO2 and

converted to methane. Most often however, P2G is associated with the use of electricity

to split water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis which can then be used on- or

off-site in transportation, power generation, or industrial applications. Hydrogen can

be directly fed into a fuel cell for both stationary power and motive applications either

on- or off-site (when P2G strategies return power to the grid they are often termed

Power-to-Gas-to-Power). All P2G strategies can also have the end-result of injecting the

produced gas into the existing natural gas system which can be stored and transmitted

for additional uses. While still an area of active research, hydrogen can be injected

safely into the existing gas grid potentially at levels from 5-20% by volume [43].

P2G is particularly attractive from an environmental and energy benefits

perspective when the source of electricity is renewable – notably the excess generation

from wind or solar resources. By converting surplus renewable generation into

hydrogen, P2G provides an effective manner of capturing renewable energy that would

otherwise be wasted and making it available for use at later times in various

applications by both storing and transporting hydrogen. P2G systems can respond

rapidly and dynamically to renewable fluctuations, can be sited unrestricted to a

geologic formation, and are scalable with similarity to a fuel cell. Additionally, P2G can

provide energy storage at the seasonal scale (i.e., terawatt range) by using the existing

natural gas pipelines and underground storage facilities. Several grid services can be

provided by P2G strategies including [43]:

69

Figure 18: Overview of P2G Concept. From [43]

• Time shifting of energy (e.g., to better match renewable resource availability with demand)

• Voltage and frequency regulation • Ramping • System Capacity • Rapid demand and supply response • Avoided investment in novel transmission and distribution infrastructure

However, as all conversion processes are associated with energy losses the P2G

chain results in less energy being available at the end than was initially provided in the

electricity. Figure 19 displays the process efficiency for current electrolysis technologies

delivering hydrogen at 25 bar with an electrical efficiency of 70% and a methanation

reactor operated at 20 bar with an efficiency of 78% representing the maximum

chemical efficiency [44]. Therefore, for every unit of electricity input into the system

70% of the energy is available as hydrogen or 55% as methane. If the supply of

electricity is renewable energy that would be curtailed or otherwise not utilized than

70

this efficiency loss is acceptable. On the other hand, if grid electricity or electricity from

fossil sources is used to produce gaseous fuels then the loss of energy associated with

each conversion step limits the effectiveness of P2G. Efficiency losses incurred by the

system results in the application of P2G with grid electricity achieving efficiency and

emissions dis-benefits relative to the power from the SCE grid (i.e., the use of electricity

directly has lower emissions on a per unit energy basis than using the gaseous fuels

produced as a result of P2G systems).

Figure 19: P2G Process Efficiency Diagram. From [44].

8.2 Power-to-Gas at POLB Due to the increase in emissions relative to the California electrical grid, P2G

strategies should be avoided at POLB in favor of directly utilizing grid electricity unless

on-site supplies of excess renewable resources are available. Therefore, a key limitation

associated with P2G at POLB is the lack of on-site renewable generation necessary to

provide emission reductions from the displacement of grid electricity. While expansion

of renewable resources including solar photovoltaic and wind is possible in the future,

it has been cited as being too costly and area intensive to facilitate large capacity

additions at POLB [6]. Therefore, on-site P2G systems at POLB may not be feasible

from an environmental standpoint if emission reductions are targeted (e.g., it would be

a lower emitting strategy to use electrified technologies with grid electricity). However,

future application of large-scale P2G systems in California may provide a market-based

71

mechanism for purchasing directed renewable hydrogen or methane with similarity to

the current methods for directed biogas. This option may be attractive to POLB as a

means of securing a renewable fuel source with very high environmental benefits. This

is a long term possibility (order of decades). In the short to medium terms, the tri-

generation systems previously described represent a viable and attractive option to

achieve the desired environmental and economic benefits during hydrogen generation.

72

9 References 1. Larminie, J., A. Dicks, and M.S. McDonald, Fuel cell systems explained. Vol. 2. 2003: Wiley New

York. 2. O'Hayre, R.P., et al., Fuel cell fundamentals2006: John Wiley & Sons New York. 3. Ellis, M.W., M.R. Von Spakovsky, and D.J. Nelson, Fuel cell systems: efficient, flexible energy

conversion for the 21st century. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2001. 89(12): p. 1808-1818. 4. U.S EPA, The Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) 2012, 2015:

http://www.epa.gov/energy/egrid-2012-summary-tables (Accessed January 8, 2015). 5. Darrow, K., et al., Catalog of CHP Technologies 2015: Available at

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/catalog_of_chp_technologies.pdf (Accessed January 12, 2015).

6. Matulka, R., J.R. DeShazo, and C. Callahan, Moving Towards Resiliency: An Assessment of the Costs and Benefits of Energy Security Investments for the San Pedro Bay Ports, 2013, UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation: Los Angeles, CA. Available: http://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/Port%20Report.pdf (Accessed 2/8/2016).

7. NERC, Technical Analysis of the August 14, 2003, Blackout: What Happened, Why, and What Did We Learn?, 2004, North American Electric Reliability Council. Available: http://www.nerc.com/docs/docs/blackout/NERC_Final_Blackout_Report_07_13_04.pdf (Accessed 2/9/2016): Princeton, New Jersey

8. GRIDWISE Alliance, Improving Electric Grid Reliability and Resilience: Lesson Learned from Superstorm Sandy and other Extreme Events. Workshop Summary and Key Recommendations. , 2013: Available: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/03/f20/GridWise%20Improving%20Electric%20Grid%20Reliability%20and%20Resilience%20Report%20June%202013.pdf (Accessed 2/9/2016).

9. The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan 2010 Update, Appendix A: San Pedro Bay Ports Emissions Forecasting Methodology and Results, 2010: Los Angeles, CA. http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2431.

10. Curtin, S. and J. Gangi, The Business Case for Fuel Cells 2015: Powering Corporate Sustainability 2015, Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA). Available: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/01/f28/fcto_2015_business_case_fuel_cells.pdf (Accessed 1/26/2016).

11. Curtin, S. and J. Gangi, Fuel Cell Technologies Market Report 2014, 2015: U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Available: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/10/f27/fcto_2014_market_report.pdf (Accessed January 28,2016).

12. Fuel Cells 2000, When the Grid Fails: Fuel cells power critical infrastructure in disasters: Available: http://www.fuelcells.org/uploads/Fuel-Cells-in-Storms.pdf (Accessed 2/16/2016).

13. Pratt, J.W. and A.P. Harris, Vessel Cold-Ironing Using a Barge Mounted PEM Fuel Cell: Project Scoping and Feasibility, 2013, Sandia National Laboratories. : Albuquerque, NM and Livermore, CA. Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/sand2013-0501_barge_mounted_pemfc.pdf

14. Curtin, S. and J. Gangi, The Business Case for Fuel Cells 2014: Powering the Bottom Line for Businesses and Communities, 2014, Breakthrough Technologies Institute. Available: http://www.fuelcells.org/pdfs/2014BusinessCaseforFuelCells.pdf (Accessed 1/26/2016).

73

15. Starcrest Consulting Group, Air Emissions Inventory - 2014, 2015, Available:http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=13033 (Accessed 2/8/2016): Long Beach, CA.

16. California Air Resources Board, Technology Assessment: Medium and Heavy-Duty Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, 2015: Sacramento, CA. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/techreport/fc_tech_report.pdf (Accessed 2/16/2016)

17. Brodrick, C.-J., et al., Evaluation of fuel cell auxiliary power units for heavy-duty diesel trucks. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2002. 7(4): p. 303-315.

18. Doosan Fuel Cell America, PureCell Model 400 Fuel Cell System, http://www.doosanfuelcell.com/attach_files/link/PureCell%20Model%20400%20Datasheet.pdf.

19. J. Thijssen, Natural Gas-Fueled Distributed Generation Solid Oxide Fuel Cell: Projection of Performance and Cost of Electricity, 2009, Prepared for the U.S. DOE. https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/research/coal/energy%20systems/fuel%20cells/Natural-Gas-DG-FC-paper-update-090330a.pdf.

20. FuelCell Energy, 2.8 Megawatts DFC3000, http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/assets/PID000156_FCE_DFC3000_r3_hires.pdf.

21. Dodds, P.E. and W. McDowall, A review of hydrogen production technologies for energy system models. UCL Energy Institute, University College London, 2012.

22. NREL, VII.2 Stationary Fuel Cell Evaluation 2014, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress14/vii_a_2_saur_2014.pdf.

23. Lazard, Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis - Version 9.0, 2015, https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf.

24. U.S. EIA, Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector: December 2014 and 2015, 2015, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a.

25. U.S. DOE, Technical Plan - Fuel Cells 2012, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/pdfs/fuel_cells.pdf.

26. Alanne, K. and A. Saari, Sustainable small-scale CHP technologies for buildings: the basis for multi-perspective decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2004. 8(5): p. 401-431.

27. Moore, M.J., Micro-turbine generators2002: John Wiley & Sons. 28. Barsali, S., et al., Dynamic modelling of biomass power plant using micro gas turbine. Renewable

Energy, 2015. 80: p. 806-818. 29. Roberts, R. and J. Brouwer, Dynamic Simulation of a Pressurized 220kW Solid Oxide Fuel-Cell-

Gas-Turbine Hybrid System: Modeled Performance Compared to Measured Results. Journal of fuel cell science and technology, 2006. 3(1): p. 18-25.

30. Samuelsen, S. and J. Brouwer, Fuel Cell/Gas Turbine Hybrid. Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, 2009: p. 124-134.

31. Costamagna, P., L. Magistri, and A. Massardo, Design and part-load performance of a hybrid system based on a solid oxide fuel cell reactor and a micro gas turbine. Journal of Power Sources, 2001. 96(2): p. 352-368.

32. Chan, S., H. Ho, and Y. Tian, Modelling of simple hybrid solid oxide fuel cell and gas turbine power plant. Journal of Power Sources, 2002. 109(1): p. 111-120.

33. Mueller, F., F. Jabbari, and J. Brouwer, On the intrinsic transient capability and limitations of solid oxide fuel cell systems. Journal of Power Sources, 2009. 187(2): p. 452-460.

34. Owens, B. and J. McGuinness, GE-Fuel Cells: The Power of Tomorrow, 2015: General Electric Company. Available: http://www.ge.com/sites/default/files/GE_FuelCells.pdf (Accessed January 13, 2016).

74

35. DNV GL, A Review of Distributed Energy Resources, 2014, http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/media_room/press_releases/2014/Child_Distributed_Energy_Resources/A_Review_of_Distributed_Energy_Resources_September_2014.pdf.

36. IEAGHG, Emissions of substances other than CO2 from power plants with CCS, 2012, Available: http://www.ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/2012-03.pdf (Accessed January 12, 2016).

37. Rubin, E.S., A.B. Rao, and C. Chen. Comparative assessments of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. 2005.

38. DOE/NETL, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Vol. I, , 2007: Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/KMD/cds/disk50/NGCC%20Plant%20Case_FClass_051607.pdf.

39. Kalam, A., et al., Combined heat and power systems: economic and policy barriers to growth. Chemistry Central Journal, 2012. 6(Suppl 1): p. S3.

40. Shipley, M.A., et al., Combined heat and power: Effective energy solutions for a sustainable future, 2008, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL/TM-2008/224. U.S. Department of Energy. Available http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/distributedenergy/pdfs/chp_report_12-08.pdf. .

41. U.S EPA, CHP Project Development Handbook http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/chp_project_development_handbook.pdf.

42. U.S. EPA, Efficiency Metrics for CHP Systems: Total System and Effective Electric Efficiencies Combined Heat and Power Partnership. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccei/presentations/chpefficiencymetrics_epa.pdf.

43. California Hydrogen Business Council, Power-to-Gas: The Case for Hydrogen White Paper, 2015, https://californiahydrogen.org/sites/default/files/CHBC%20Hydrogen%20Energy%20Storage%20White%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf.

44. Götz, M., et al., Renewable Power-to-Gas: A technological and economic review. Renewable Energy, 2016. 85: p. 1371-1390.