ARTICLE IN PRESS

Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656 www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Technical Note

Unit sizing and cost analysis of stand-alone hybrid wind/PV/fuel cell power generation systems
D.B. Nelson, M.H. Nehrir, C. Wang
Electrical & Computer Engineering Department, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA Received 8 January 2005; accepted 8 August 2005 Available online 20 October 2005

Abstract An economic evaluation of a hybrid wind/photovoltaic/fuel cell (FC) generation system for a typical home in the Pacic Northwest is performed. In this conguration the combination of a FC stack, an electrolyser, and hydrogen storage tanks is used as the energy storage system. This system is compared to a traditional hybrid energy system with battery storage. A computer program has been developed to size system components in order to match the load of the site in the most cost effective way. A cost of electricity, an overall system cost, and a break-even distance analysis are also calculated for each conguration. The study was performed using a graphical user interface programmed in MATLAB. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Unit sizing; Hybrid wind; Photovoltaic; Fuel cell power generation systems; Economic evaluation

1. Introduction Hybrid wind/photovoltaic (PV) power generation systems have been studied extensively. Energy storage is needed in these systems due to the intermittent nature of wind and solar energy. Traditionally, deep-cycle lead acid batteries have been used as the means of energy storage. However, there are environmental concerns associated with the use of batteries; thus other alternatives are sought for this application. Fuel cells (FCs) in combination with an electrolyser (for hydrogen generation) and hydrogen storage tanks have been considered for energy storage [15] and implemented
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 406 994 5958.

E-mail address: hnehrir@ece.montana.edu (M.H. Nehrir). 0960-1481/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2005.08.031

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1642 D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656

[68]. However, a detailed economic analysis has not been carried out for these systems. In this paper unit sizing and economic analysis are performed for a wind/PV system with a FC/electrolyser system and the results are compared with a wind/PV system with battery storage. A graphical user interface (GUI) program has been developed in MATLAB for sizing the components of a hybrid wind/PV system (with hydrogen storage and battery storage) to match the load of a typical home in the Pacic Northwest that is not located near the electric grid. The electrolyser in the FC/electrolyser storage system is used as a part of dump load. Fig. 1 shows the system conguration used. When there is excess wind or solar generation, the electrolyser turns on to begin producing hydrogen, which is delivered to the hydrogen storage tanks. If the H2 storage tanks become full, the excess power will be diverted to another dump load. When there is a decit in power generation, the FC will begin to produce energy for the load using hydrogen from the reservoir tanks. For the wind/PV system with battery storage, the combination of FC/electrolyser, H2 reservoir tanks, and their associated DC/DC converter are replaced with battery banks. Fig. 2 shows the ow chart of the decision algorithm for the wind/PV system with FC/ electrolyser hydrogen storage system. The ow chart for the battery storage system can be obtained by replacing the Use FC to meet load block with Battery discharging, the Operate electrolyser block with Battery charging, and the H2 tanks full? block with Battery storage full? The number of wind turbines is used as a free input parameter to the computer program, and the number of PV panels is calculated using the Loss of Power Supply Probability (LPSP) technique [912], to match generation with load. The LPSP technique is used for sizing both the conventional battery storage system and for the FC/electrolyser storage system. The cost of electricity (COE), and the total annual cost are then calculated for both congurations. A break-even distance analysis is also performed for each system. This analysis determines how far the site of the stand-alone alternative energy system should be from the existing utility line so that the system is cost effective (breaks even) when compared to using conventional grid power.

DC Bus Wind Turbine Generator(s) AC/DC

AC Bus AC Loads

PV Arrays

DC/DC

A/DCC

Fuel Cells

DC/DC

Electrolyzer Dump Load

H2 Reservior Tanks
Fig. 1. Proposed wind/PV system with FC/electrolyser storage [5].

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656 1643

Wind/PV meets load?

No

Use fuel cell to meet load

Yes

No

Is there excess power available? Yes Yes H2 tanks full?

Send power to dump load

No

Operate electrolyzer

Fig. 2. Flowchart of the control algorithm for wind/PV/FC/electrolyser system.

2. Unit sizing 2.1. Resource and load data Hourly average wind speed and solar insolation data over a 3-year period, which was collected in a remote location in Montana, are shown in Fig. 3 [13]. Average hourly load demand data for a typical home in the Pacic Northwest was obtained from a study conducted by Bonneville Power Administration [14], as shown in Fig. 4. These data are used in system unit sizing, and the generation and load are assumed to keep constant in each hour interval. 2.2. Components The performance data of the wind turbine and PV panels used in this evaluation are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. A Bergey BWC XL.1 1 kW wind turbine and a BP SX-120S (120 W) solar panel were selected for the study. The rated power of the wind turbine and PV panel, and the number of turbines used are free inputs to the program and can be changed. The capital costs listed in the above tables include all installation and balance of plant costs. The annual maintenance costs for the wind turbine(s) and PV panels, and the total capital cost of the hydrogen tanks are input parameters to the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1644
8

D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656

0.8

7 Wind Speed (m/s) Insolation 6

Wind Speed

0.6 Isolation (kW/M2)

0.4

0.2

10

15

20

0 25

Time (Hour of Day)

Fig. 3. Average hourly wind and insolation prole [13].

Fig. 4. Average hourly demand [14].

program. In the current study an annual maintenance cost of 3% of capital cost is used for the wind turbine, but the annual cost for the PV system has been neglected. 2.3. Power output Average hourly wind speed data is evaluated and converted to wind turbine power. If the speed is between the cut-in and the rated speed of the wind turbine, then the power

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656 Table 1 Wind turbine parameters Rated output (kW) Cut-in speed (m/s) Rated speed (m/s) Cut-out speed (m/s) Rotor diameter (m) Air density (kg/m3) Total capital cost ($) Annual maintenance cost ($) 1 2.5 11 13 2.5 1.225 3200 100 1645

Table 2 PV panel parameters Maximum power (W) Efciency (%) Area (m2) Annual maintenance cost ($) Total capital cost ($) 120 12 1.07 0 614

output is dened as [15] PWind t 1rAvt3 C p Ef f ad , 2 (1)

where r is the air density (kg/m3), A is the swept area of the rotor (m2), v is the wind speed (m/s), Cp is the efciency of the wind turbine, and Effad is the efciency of the AC/DC converter (assumed to be 95% in this study). If wind speed is between the rated wind speed and the furling speed of the wind turbine, the power output will be equal to the rated power of the turbine. Finally, if the wind speed is less than the cut-in speed or greater than the furling speed, there will be no output power from the turbine. The power calculated for each hour is multiplied by one hour to determine the energy produced (kW h) for the particular hour. Insolation data is converted into power output from the PV array using the following equation [19]: PPV t InstA Ef f pv , (2)

where Ins(t) is the insolation data at time t (kW/m2), A is the area of a single PV panel (m2), and Effpv is the overall efciency of the PV panels and the DC/DC converter. Eq. (2) assumes that the PV array has a tracking system and a maximum power point tracker. It also assumes that the temperature effects (on PV cells) are ignored. The power output from the wind turbine and a single PV panel are shown in Fig. 5. The data used in this study is hourly average, which is useful for unit sizing, but it does not show the times when there are spikes in the wind speed. As shown in (1), wind-generated power is proportional with the cube of wind speed. Therefore, more power could be produced at these times than what is predicted here. This may result in a slightly oversized system, which is acceptable. Similarly the data does not show the times when no wind

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1646 D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656
360 80

Wind Turbine Output Power (W)

PV 270 Wind 180 40 60 PV Output Power (W)

90

20

0 0 5 10 15 20 Hour (Time of Day)

0 25

Fig. 5. Output of the wind turbine and a single PV panel.

and/or solar power are available. Therefore, increased storage capacity may be needed to ensure availability of power during such times. 2.4. LPSP storage sizing technique The total wind and PV-generated power during each hour is rst computed as follows: PGen t N Wind PWind t N PV PPV t, (3)

where NWind and NPV are the number of wind turbines and PV panels, and PWind(t) and PPV(t) are the power from wind and solar PV at time t, respectively. PGen(t) is equivalent to the energy generated at a particular hour (since there is a one hour time step). Table 3 summarizes the parameters of the different components used in the FC/electrolyser and battery storage systems. Capital costs shown in this table include installation costs. 2.4.1. FC/electrolyser approach The procedure for determining the number of hydrogen storage tanks is adapted from the LPSP procedure for sizing a traditional battery storage system presented in [9]. The most notable difference between the approach used in [9] and that used in this paper is as follows: Here a charging efciency for electrolyser and a discharging efciency for FC are used in calculating the efciency of the storage system, where as a single round trip battery energy efciency is used in [9]. If the power generated from the wind/PV system is greater than the load for a particular hour, the electrolyser will be used to ll the hydrogen tanks. The amount of hydrogen stored in the tanks (calculated as an equivalent kW h) can be written as E stor t E stor t 1 E Gen t E load t=Ef f inv Ef f elect , (4)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656 Table 3 Component parameters Fuel cell Rated power (kW) Efciency (%) Lifetime of individual cells (yrs) Capital cost ($) Replacement cost ($) Electrolyser Rated power (kW) Efciency (%) Lifetime of individual cells (yrs) Capital cost ($) Replacement cost ($) Total capital cost of hydrogen tanks ($) Power converter Rated power (kW) Efciency (%) Capital cost ($) Battery Voltage (V) Capacity (kWhr) Roundtrip efciency (%) Minimum charge (%) Capital cost ($) Lifetime (yrs) 3 50 5 20,000 1400 3 74 5 20000 1400 2000 1647

3 95 2000 12 1.35 85 30 130 5

where Estor(t) and Estor(t1) are the energy stored in the hydrogen tanks at hours t and t1, respectively, EGen(t) is the energy generated by the wind/PV system at hour t, Eload(t) is the energy demand for the particular hour, Effinv is the efciency of the inverter, and Effelect is the efciency of the electrolyser. When the energy demand of the load is greater than the available energy generated by the wind/PV system, the FC will be used to help supply the load. In this case, the amount of hydrogen in the tanks at hour t is E stor t E stor t 1 E load t=Ef f inv E Gen t=Ef f fuel_cell . (5)

Efffuel_cell is the overall efciency of the FC and its corresponding DC/DC converter. For both Eqs. (4) and (5), there is a logical constraint: 0pE stor tpE stor_max , (6)

where Estor_max is the maximum storage capacity of the hydrogen tanks. When the sum of the energy generated from the wind/PV system and the energy available from storage is insufcient to supply the load, the loss of power supply (LPS) will be: LPSt E load t E Gen t E stor t 1Ef f fuel_cell Ef f inv . (7)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1648 D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656

The LPSP can then be calculated over a given time period T as follows [11]: PT t1 LPSt . LPSP PT t1 E load t

(8)

LPSP, which is normally a very small number corresponding to the number of days supply is lost over a given time period; it is an input parameter to the program. For example, LPSP of 0.0003 (used in this study) corresponds to having a loss of power supply of approximately 1 day in 10 years [11]. Such a small value for LPSP is used for generating stations requiring very high power supply reliability. This number could be larger (e.g., 1 day of power outage in 1 year) for systems with lower reliability. A GUI program has been developed in MATLAB to size the components for each conguration, for a particular LPSP specied by the user. In this study, the hydrogen storage tank unit size is set to 300 equivalent W h (9.09 g/8.1 l of H2 under 298 K temperature and 13.6 atm pressure). Once the total number of tank units needed is calculated, the total kW h of storage required will be found. With the number of wind turbines as input, the program calculates the number of PV panels and the number of the hydrogen storage tanks that will satisfy a particular LPSP desired. The result for the case studied is shown in Fig. 6. It is clear from this gure that many different combinations of storage tanks and PV panels could be used to obtain the desired LPSP. The extreme left side of the graph represents the absolute minimum number of PV panels that would be required in the system to obtain the desired LPSP, and the extreme right side of the graph represents the minimum number of storage tanks that would be needed. The graph could go further to the right but it is approaching a at horizontal line. Any conguration above the line of the graph would result in an acceptable LPSP. Due to the high cost of PV panels compared to the cost of a hydrogen storage tanks, the optimum conguration is found on the extreme left side of the plot, resulting in 168 PV panels and 148 hydrogen storage tanks (corresponding to 44.4 kW h). This minimum number of PV panels is determined by the
155 150 Number of Storage Tank Units 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 110

200

250 300 Number of PV Panels

350

400

Fig. 6. Results of LPSP simulation for FC/electrolyser.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656 1649

system generation and demand proles. For the above minimum number (168) of PV panels, the difference between the total generated energy and demand over a 24-h period (DE) is zero [13]. If that number is lowered, DE will be negative indicating generation deciency. To nd the size of the tank in liters, the rst step is to nd the grams of hydrogen in 44.4 kW h of storage. Eq. (9) shows this calculation: G H 2 E tank =LHV 1000, (9)

where G H 2 is the grams of hydrogen needed, Etank is the storage energy required, and LHV is the lower heating value of hydrogen (33 kW h/kg). The number of grams of hydrogen is then converted to moles by dividing by 2.016 (g/mol). The size of the tank in liters is found using the ideal gas law given below [16]: V t T R n=P, (10)

where Vt is the volume of the tank (liter), T is the temperature (298 K), R is the gas constant [0.0821 l atm/(mol K)], n is the number of moles, and P is the tank pressure (13.6 atm). This results in a tank size of 1200.6 l. 2.4.2. Battery approach The LPSP sizing technique used for batteries is adopted from [9]. There are some differences in sizing a battery system and the technique used for the FC/electrolyser system. FC/electrolyser systems have a much lower overall efciency compared to the batteries. Moreover, adding batteries is expensive and the cost will rise linearly as the size of batteries increases (linear cost curve), while increasing the size (or number) of the hydrogen storage container(s) has a nearly at nonlinear cost curve. For example, increasing hydrogen storage size by 30% may result in only a 5% increase in total cost. Another difference is that batteries are not discharged beyond a minimum level (30% in this study), but hydrogen storage can go to zero. The results (number of batteries vs. number of PV panels) for the battery system are shown in Fig. 7. Since there is a similarity in costs of batteries and PV panels, it is not obvious (as for the FC/electrolyser systems) where on the graph the optimum solution lies. In order to determine the optimum conguration the following equation is used [9]: @N pv C PV , @N batt C Batt (11)

where CPV is the cost of a single PV panel and CBatt is the cost of a single battery. The point where the line dened by (11) is tangent to the graph of the LPSP (Fig. 7) is where the optimum solution lies. Due to the current high cost of PV panels compared to that of the batteries, it is found that the result again lies in the far left of the graph. As a result, minimizing the number of PV panels is currently the optimum solution, as it was in the FC/electrolyser storage system. From Fig. 7, the optimum solution is reached (at the far left end of the curve) when 27 batteries and 101 PV panels are used. Note that in Figs. 6 and 7, the required minimum number of PV panels would decrease if the size or the number of wind turbines increased, and/or the wind or solar insolation prole of the site improved. A summary of the procedure discussed in this section for unit sizing is given in Table 4.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1650 D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656

28 27 26 Number of Batteries 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 Negative slope of the cost of a single PV panel vs. cost of a single battery 150 200 250 300 350 400

Number of PV Panels
Fig. 7. Results of LPSP simulation for battery storage.

Table 4 Summary of the procedure proposed for unit sizing Steps 1. Program data: wind, solar radiation, load, wind turbine, PV panel, batteries, hydrogen tanks, desired LPSP 2. Power generation calculations 3. Storage level calculations 4. LPSP calculations 5. Storage capacity calculations, hydrogen 6. Storage capacity calculations, battery Corresponding equations

(1)(3) (4), (5) (7), (8) (9), (10) (11)

3. Cost analysis A cost analysis of the system is performed after the unit-sizing program has been run. In this section an annualized cost, a COE, and a break-even line extension distance (where the cost of the proposed hybrid stand-alone system breaks even with the cost of supplying the load with conventional (grid) power) are developed for both congurations. 3.1. Annualized cost The lifetime of the system is assumed to be 20 years. The annual cost for all components that do not need certain items replaced more often than the component lifetime is found by multiplying the total initial cost by the capital recovery factor (CRF). The CRF is dened as [18] CRF ir 1 ir ny =1 ir ny 1, (12)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656 1651

where ir is the annual interest rate (5% in this study) and ny is the lifetime of the component. For the FC and the electrolyser, the individual cells will need to be replaced several times over the project lifetime, while the rest of the components can last the entire project life. The total initial capital cost for the FC (CFC/elect.) will be C FC=elect: C fix C cell N cell , (13)

where Cx is the costs associated with the installation of the FC (or electrolyser), excluding the costs of individual cells (which will be replaced periodically), but including all balance of plant costs and installation costs. Ccell is the cost of each individual FC, and Ncell is the number of individual cells in the FC installation. The number of individual FCs used can be obtained from N cell P=V i Acell , (14)

where P is the rated power of the FC or electrolyser, V is the cell nominal voltage (0.6 V), i is the current density (1.8 A/cm2), and Acell is the active cell area (100 cm2) [17]. The capital recovery factor for the FC and electrolyser is calculated using (12), except ny is now the lifetime of the individual cells. The annual capital costs (ACC) of the FC and electrolyser is calculated as follows: ACC C fix CRF 1 C rep CRF 2 , (15)

where C rep C cell N cell is the replacement cost of the FC and electrolyser at the end of the cell lifetime. Both CRF1 and CRF2 are dened by (12); for CRF1, ny 20 (life time of the installation), and for CRF2, ny 5 (life time of individual cells). 3.2. Cost of electricity The rst step in this process is to calculate an annual energy demand (AED), which is the sum of the energy demand of the load for each hour over a day multiplied by 365 days/ year. The actual energy produced by each conguration is larger than the energy demand due to system losses and energy that might be consumed by the dump load. Nevertheless, the AED calculated is used in the COE calculations. The COE ($/kW h) of each conguration is found by adding the total annual costs of each component (ACCtotal) and their annual maintenance costs (AMCtotal) together and dividing the sum by AED. COE ACC total AMC total =AED. (16)

3.3. Break-even line extension distance (BELED) The BELED is found in order to determine if the load could be serviced more cost effectively from the grid, ignoring all practical considerations. Traditionally, stand-alone alternative energy (hybrid) systems are installed in remote locations far from the electricity grid. Although the COE of the hybrid system is greater than the COE of the grid, utilities charge by the foot for a grid extension. Therefore, as the distance from the grid increases, the COE of grid power will also increase. In order to determine the distance from the grid,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1652 D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656

Fig. 8. GUI program layout.

which results in an equal COE for both hybrid system and grid power, the following equation is used [18]: BELED ACC COE grid AED=C ext CRF , (17)

where BELED is the break even line extension distance (ft), COEgrid is the COE from the utility ($/kW h), and Cext is the cost of a line extension by the utility. Cost of utility line extension is site dependent; an average cost of 6 $/ft (2003 cost gure for a Montana utility) is used in this study. Fig. 8 shows a layout of the GUI program developed to perform the analyses discussed above. 4. Results Table 5 gives a comparison of the COE, annualized cost, number of PV panels and BELED for the FC/electrolyser and the battery storage systems for this study. It is clear from this table that economically battery is a better choice for energy storage. The primary reason for this is the low efciency of the FC/electrolyser system. In fact, it was found that even if the FC and electrolyser had zero capital costs, the battery system was still a superior conguration. This indicates that signicant improvements in efciency of both the FC and electrolyser will have to take place before they can be economically competitive as energy storage devices.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656 Table 5 Summary of results for the FC/electrolyser generation system FC/electrolyser COE ($/kW h) Annualized cost ($) Number of PV panels BELED (mile) 0.70 11,930 168 4.22 Battery storage 0.37 6304 101 1.98 1653

Inverter Wind 1% Turbine H2 Tank 3% 1% Electrolyzer 15% Fuel Cell 10%

Wind Turbine PV Fuel Cell Electrolyzer H2 Tank Inverter

PV 70%
Fig. 9. Break down of annualized cost of FC/electrolyser conguration.

Inverter Wind Turbine 3% 6% Batteries 13%

Wind Turbine PV Batteries Inverter

PV 78%
Fig. 10. Break down of annualized cost of battery conguration.

Figs. 9 and 10 show the breakdown of the annualized costs of the proposed wind/PV generation system with FC/electrolyser storage and with battery storage, respectively. For both systems, PV panels have the largest cost component. Another interesting result of this study was in comparing the AED with the annual energy generated (AEG) by each conguration. The AED of the site was found to be 17.0 MW h/yr. The AEG for the battery system (to satisfy the above AED) was found to be 19.6 MW h/yr while the AEG for the FC/electrolyser system to satisfy the same AED was 31.9 MW h/yr. The extra AEG (of over 50%) needed from the FC/electrolyser system is due to the low efciency of this system compared to that of the battery storage system. This

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1654 D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656

low efciency results in a signicant increase in the number of PV panels required for this system. Since wind/PV power generation with FC/electrolyser hydrogen storage is considered a green power supply system, an environmental benet (savings) may be considered with it [20,21]. Inclusion of this benet would lower the cost of electricity produced by this system. This environmental benet has not been considered in this study. Simulation results of the storage level throughout a typical day are also provided for both storage systems. Figs. 11 and 12 show the hourly average storage level (kW h

Fig. 11. Storage level of hydrogen tanks on a typical day.

Fig. 12. Storage level of batteries on a typical day.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656 Table 6 Advantages and disadvantages of each conguration Advantages FC/electrolyser storage Hydrogen can be shipped to the site if storage is low Smaller footprint Environmentally Friendly Cost of increasing the size of storage is small Battery storage High round trip efciency Disadvantages Low round trip efciencyresults in a higher number of PV panels needed for a given application Currently higher cost 1655

Lower cost

If storage runs out, there is no way of importing energybatteries must be charged or replaced Environmental cost is associated with batteries Increasing storage size is expensive

equivalent) of the hydrogen storage system and the battery system, respectively. The proles are similar for both systems since generation and load are the same in both cases. The storage level of the batteries does not go as low as that of the hydrogen tanks because the storage level for the batteries is not allowed to go below 30%. The difference in the minimum and maximum peaks of the storage level of the hydrogen system is much greater than that of the battery storage system, meaning that more hydrogen storage is needed. This higher storage need is due to the low efciency of the FC/electrolyser system compared to the battery system. In each case, the minimum storage capacity can be calculated from the distance (in kW h) from the minimum peak to the maximum peak of the daily average storage level variation [13]. Using this criterion, from Fig. 11, 44 equivalent kW h of hydrogen storage (corresponding to 147 hydrogen tanks) is needed for the FC/electrolyser system. Also, from Fig. 12, the minimum effective battery storage capacity is 25 kW h. Since the batteries are only allowed to discharge to 70% of their rated capacity, the actual number of batteries needed is 27 [25 kW h/(0.7 1.35 kW h per battery)]. The above number of hydrogen tanks and batteries compare well with the values obtained using the LPSP criteria proposed in this paper (see Figs. 6 and 7). Although this study shows that hydrogen energy storage systems are not economically competitive with battery storage systems, there are other benets to hydrogen storage system worth mentioning. Table 6. summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the two energy storage systems. 5. Conclusion This paper presented unit sizing and an economical evaluation of a hybrid wind/PV/FC generation system and a cost comparison with a wind/PV/battery system for a typical home in the US Pacic Northwest. Current cost gures as well as the break-even line distance comparison show a clear economic advantage of the traditional wind/PV/battery system over the wind/PV/FC/electrolyser system, indicating a need for research and technological advances in the FC/electrolyser area.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1656 D.B. Nelson et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 16411656

With improvement in the efciency of both FC and electrolyser, it is possible that FC/ electrolyser storage system be economically competitive in the future. Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by the US National Science Foundation Grant ECS0135229 and in part by Montana State University. References
[1] Vosen SR, Keller JO. Hybrid energy storage systems for stand-alone electric power systems: optimization of system performance and cost through control strategies. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 1999;24(12). [2] Iqbal MT. Simulation of a small wind fuel cell hybrid energy system. Renewable Energy 2003;28(4). [3] Torres LA, Rodriguez FJ, Sebastian PJ. Simulation of a solar-hydrogen-fuel cell system: results for different locations in Mexico. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 1998;23(11). [4] El-Shatter ThF, Eskandar MN, El-Hagry MT. Hybrid PV/fuel cell system design and simulation. Renewable Energy 2002;27(3). [5] Wang M, Nehrir MH, Nelson DB. A simulink-based model for a stand-alone wind-photovoltaic/fuel cell generating system. In: Proceedings of the NAPS 2001, Texas A&M University, College Station; 1516 October 2001. [6] Lehman PA, Chamberlin CE, Pauletto G, Rocheleau MA. Operating experience with a photovoltaichydrogen energy system. In: Proceedings, Hydrogen 94: The 10th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Cocoa Beach, Florida, June 2024, 1994. [7] Lehman, PA, Chamberlin CE. A photovoltaic-hydrogen-fuel cell energy system. In: Proceedings of the tenth European photovoltaic solar energy conference and exhibition, Lisbon, Portugal;812 April 1991. [8] Lehman PA, Chamberlin CE. Operating experience with a photovoltaic-hydrogen fuel cell energy system. In: Proceedings of the hydrogen 92, 9th world hydrogen energy conference, Paris, France; 2225 June 1992. [9] Borowy BS, Salameh ZM. Methodology for optimally sizing the combination of a battery bank and PV array in a wind/PV hybrid system. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 1996;11(2). [10] Ramakumar R, Abouzahr I, Ashenayi K. A knowledge-based approach to the design of integrated renewable energy systems. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 1992;7(4). [11] Giraud F, Salameh ZM. Steady-state performance of a grid-connected rooftop hybrid wind-photovoltaic power system with battery storage. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 2001;16(1). [12] Ghali FMA, ADB El Aziz MM, Syam FA. Simulation and analysis of hybrid systems using probabilistic techniques. In: Proceedings of the power conversion conference, vol. 2, 36 August 1997 Nagaoka, Japan. [13] Kellogg WD, Nehrir MH, Venkataramanan G, Gerez V. Generation unit sizing and cost analysis for standalone wind, photovoltaic, and hybrid wind/PV systems. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 1998;13(1). [14] Cahill J, Ritland K, Kelly W. Description of electric energy use in single family residences in the Pacic Northwest 19861992. Portland, OR: Ofce of Energy Resources, Bonneville Power Administration; 1992. [15] Patel MR. Wind and solar power systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1999. [16] Felder RM, Rousseau RW. Elementary principles of chemical processes. New York: Wiley; 1986. [17] Riensche E, Stimming U, Unverzagt G. Optimization of a 200 kW SOFC cogeneration power plant, Part I: variation of process parameters. Journal of Power Sources 1998;73(2). [18] HOMER Pro, Ver. 1.58, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden CO, 4 April 2002. [19] Chedid R, Akiki H, Rahman S. A decision support technique for the design of hybrid solar-wind power systems. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 1998;13(1). [20] Awad AH, Veziroglu TN. Hydrogen versus synthetic fossil fuels. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 1984;12(2). [21] Nelson DB, Nehrir MH, Gerez V. Economic evaluation of grid-connected fuel cell systems. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 2005;20(2):4528.