integration of solid oxide fuel cells and ... - Ea Energianalyse

2. MARKET INVESTIGATION
2.4.4 Conclusion
In general both the SOFC and the ABS seem to have an economical
potential. The SOFC profitability depends a lot on the purchase
price, and ABS profitability depends a lot on the gas price and SOFC
efficiency. Furthermore it seems that hot climates make the ABS far more
advantageous because of the increased usage fraction.
The general tendency is that the addition of the SOFC (Case B vs
A) is very profitable, since the electricity generated by the SOFC is
only 0,4DKK/kWh - about half the price of the electricity form the grid
(0,75DKK/kWh). So the total cost is almost cut in halves, and 12mil.
DKK is saved over a 10 year period with an original investment of
around 1,0mil. DKK for the SOFC system. This does however require the
fuel cell system to last 10 years, so stack degradation has to be minimized
from today’s level.
But since the yearly savings of electricity is 3,0mil. DKK and the extra
cost of natural gas is 1,5mil. DKK, the purchase price of the SOFC (1,0-
1,2mil. DKK) will be earned back within the first year!
If an ABS unit is used, the additional investment (compared to a purely
electrical air conditioner) will be 0,4 mil. DKK, and the electricity savings
in 10 years are around 1,9mil. DKK for the hot climate, so this looks very
profitable with a pay back time or around 1,5 years).
It must, however, be noted that there are a lot of assumptions and simplifications
in the calculations, such as neglected installation costs, piping,
maintenance, equal selling and buying prices of electricity and nonfluctuation
cooling and electricity consumption during the day (the latter
might be solved by a storage of cold water and electricity).
38