The Clean Hydrogen JU as the successor of the FCH 2 JU will continue to monitor and report the on-going projects funded by FCH 2 JU. The relevant technology KPIs can be found in the Annexes of the FCH 2 JU MAWP.
Fuel cell light duty vehicles (including cars)
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art |
FCH 2 JU target
| |||
SoA 2012 | International SoA 2017* | Target 2020 | Target 2024 | Target 2030 | |||
1 | Fuel cell system durability | h | 2,500 | 4,000 | 5,000 | 6,000 | 7,000 |
2 | Hydrogen consumption | kg/100 km | na | 1.2 | 1.15 | 1,1 | 1 |
3 | Availability | % | 95 | 98 | 98 | 99 | >99 |
4 | Maintenance | EUR/km | na | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
5 | Fuel cell system cost | EUR/kW | 500 | 100 | 60 | 50 | 40 |
6 | Areal power density | W/cm2 | na | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.0 |
7 | PGM loading | g/kW | na | 0.4 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.05 |
8 | Cell Volumetric power | kW/l | na | 5.0 | 7.3 | 9.3 | 10.0 |
Notes:
1. Durability of the fuel cell system until 10% power degradation. The typical vehicle lifetime requirement is 6,000-7,000 h of operation
2. Hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven under real life operation using exclusively hydrogen feed
3. Percent of time that the vehicle is able to operate versus the overall time that it is intended to operate, assuming only FC related technical issues
4. Costs for spare parts and labour for the drivetrain maintenance per km travelled over the vehicle's complete lifetime of 6,000 to 7,000 hours
5. Actual cost of the fuel cell system - excluding overheads and profits, assuming 100,000 systems/year as cost calculation basis
6. Power per cell area @ 0.66V: Ratio of the operating power of the fuel cell to the active surface area of the fuel cell
7. Overall loading in Platinum Group Metals at cathode + anode. (to be only used as guidance, not as a development target)
8. Power for single cell (cathode plate, MEA, anode plate) per unit volume, ref: Autostack-core Evo 2 dimensions: cell pitch 1.0 mm and cell area: 595 cm2
* for cost aspects, when relevant, the European SoA is indicated and labelled with an asterisk
Fuel cell electric buses (e.g. non-articulated type of bus)
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
SoA 2012 | International SoA 2017* | Target 2020 | Target 2024 | Target 2030 | |||
1 | Fuel cell system durability | h | 10,000 | 16,000 | 20,000 | 24,000 | 28,000 |
2 | Hydrogen consumption | kg/100 km | 9 | 8.5 | 8.0 | 7.5 | 7.1 |
3 | Availability | % | 85 | 90 | 90 | 93 | 93 |
4 | Yearly operation cost (including labour) | EUR/year | - | - | 16,000 | 14,000 | 11,000 |
5 | Fuel cell system cost | EUR/kW | 3,500 | 1,500 | 900 (250 units) | 750 (500 units) | 600 (900 units) |
6 | Bus cost | thousand EUR | 1,300 | 650 | 625 (150 units) | 600 (250 units) | 500 (300 units) |
Notes:
1. Durability of the fuel cell system subject to EoL criterion, fuel cell stack life 10% degradation in power or H2 leak rate as per SAE2578
2. Hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven under operations using exclusively hydrogen feed acc. to SORT 1 and 2 drive cycle
3. Percent amount of time that the bus is able to operate versus the overall time that it is intended to operate for a fleet availability same as diesel buses
4. Costs for spare parts and man-hours of labour for the drivetrain maintenance
5. Actual cost of the fuel cell system - excluding overheads and profits subject to yearly overall fuel cell bus module volume as stated
6. Cost of manufacturing the vehicle. In case of buses for which a replacement of the fuel cell stack is foreseen, the cost of stack replacement is included in the calculation. Subject to yearly volumes per OEM as assumed in Roland Berger FC bus commercialisation study
* for cost aspects, when relevant, the European SoA is indicated and labelled with an asterisk
Fuel cell electric trains (300 passengers, 150 seated)
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | International SoA 2017* | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
1 | Fuel cell system durability | h | N/A | 12,000 | 20,000 | 25,000 | 30,000 |
2 | Hydrogen consumption | kg/100 km | N/A | 24 - 34 | 22 - 32 | 21 - 30 | 20 - 28 |
3 | Availability | % | N/A | 87 | 94 | 97 | >99 |
Notes:
No possibility at this time to estimate train cost, including fuel cell system cost and yearly operation costs targets.
1.Durability of the fuel cell system subject to EoL criterion output voltage at maximum power
2. Hydrogen consumption for 100 km driven under operations using exclusively hydrogen feed
3. Percent amount of time that the train is able to operate versus the overall time that it is intended to operate
* for cost aspects, when relevant, the European SoA is indicated and labelled with an asterisk
Fuel cell electric aircraft
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | International SoA 2017* | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
1 | Fuel cell system durability | h | 2,000 | 5,000 | 10,000 | 15,000 | 20,000 |
2 | Availability | % | - | - | 60 | 75 | 90 |
|
|
|
| >20,000 | 20,000 | 6,000 | 3,000 |
3 | Fuel cell system cost | EUR/kW | 3,500 | >10,000 >15,000 | 10,000 15,000 | 3,000 5,000 | 1,500 3,000 |
4 | Gravimetric Power density | kW/kg | - | 2 5 | 2.5 | 3 7 | 3.5 8 |
Notes:
No possibility at this time to estimate aircraft production cost at an assumed up-scaled production level.
1. Durability of the fuel cell system until 10% power degradation.
2. Percent amount of time that the aircraft is able to operate versus the overall time that it is intended to operate.
3. Actual cost of the fuel cell system - excluding overheads and profits for mass production volumes.
- Ram air turbine - emergency system replacement (RAT) (15-50 kW)
- Propulsion (40 kW)
- Cabin Loads - APU (5-20 kW)
4. FC Stack & Power converter.
* for cost aspects, when relevant, the European SoA is indicated and labelled with an asterisk
Fuel cell forklifts
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | International SoA 2017* | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
1 | Vehicle lifetime | h | na | - | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 |
2 | Hydrogen consumption | kg/h | na | - | 6.67 | 6.3 | 6.0 |
3 | System electrical efficiency | % | 45 | - | 50 | 53 | 55 |
4 | Availability | % | 90 | - | 98 | 98 | 98 |
5 | Mean time between failures (MTBF) | h | na | - | 750 | 1,000 | 1,250 |
6 | Cost of spare parts | EUR/h | na | - | 7 | 5 | 4 |
7 | Labour | Person h/kh | na | - | 10 | 7 | 5 |
8 | Fuel cell system cost (10 kW) | EUR/kW | 4,000 | - | 2,500 | 1,250 | 450 |
9 | Est. FC system cost @ mass prod. | EUR/kW | na | - | - | 1,250 | 450 |
Notes:
1. Total number of hours of vehicle operation until end of life (assuming >98% availability in the fleet in heavy duty 3/7 or 3/5 shift operation).
2. Hydrogen consumption for h of operations using exclusively hydrogen feed for Class 1 forklift load cycle @ 10 kW avg. system power output (Begin-of-Life)
3. Percentage (%) of electricity generated by the fuel cell vs. energy contained in the hydrogen delivered to fuel cell (LHV) for Class 1 forklift load cycle @ 10 kW avg. system power output (Begin-of-Life)
4. Percent amount of time that the forklift is able to operate versus the overall time that it is intended to operate.
5. Average time between successive failures leading to downtime (MTBF in the fleet in heavy duty 3/7 or 3/5 shift operation).
7. Costs for spare parts for the system maintenance as percentage of system investment over the vehicle's complete lifetime.
8. Man-hours of labour for the system maintenance per 1,000 h of operations over the vehicle complete lifetime.
9. Actual cost of the fuel cell system - excluding overheads and
10. Estimated fuel cell system cost at an assumed up-scaled production level of 2024: 20,000 units/production & 2030: FC cost level benefits from automotive, bus and truck volumes.
* for cost aspects, when relevant, the European SoA is indicated and labelled with an asterisk
On-board gaseous hydrogen storage tank
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | International SoA 2017* | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
1 | CAPEX - Storage tank | EUR/kg H2 | 3,000 | 1,000 | 500 | 400 | 300 |
2 | Volumetric capacity (at tank system level) | kg/l | 0.02 | 0.023 | 0.03 | 0.033 | 0.035 |
3 | Gravimetric capacity (at tank system level) | % | 4 | 5 | 5.3 | 5.7 | 6 |
Notes:
1. Total cost of the storage tank, including one end-plug, INCLUDING the in-tank valve injector assembly assuming 100,000 parts/year.
2. Weight of hydrogen that can be stored over the volume of the tank (including in-tank valve injector assembly, tank walls, bosses, plug and the volume for the hydrogen itself).
* for cost aspects, when relevant, the European SoA is indicated and labelled with an asterisk
Hydrogen Refuelling Stations (HRS)
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | International SoA 2017* | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
1 | Lifetime | years | na | 10 | 12 | 15 | 20 |
2 | Durability | years | na | - | 5 | 10 | 15 |
3 | Energy consumption | kWh/kg | na | 10 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
4 | Availability | % | na | 95 | 96 | 98 | 99 |
5 | Mean time between failures (MTBF) | days | na | 20 | 48 | 72 | 168 |
6 | Annual maintenance cost | EUR/kg | na | - | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
7 | Labour | Person h/kh | na | - | 70 | 28 | 16 |
8 | CAPEX for the HRS | Thousand EUR/ (kg/day) | 7.5 | 7 | 4-2.1 | 3-1.6 | 2.4-1.3 |
9 | Cost of renewable hydrogen | EUR/kg | 13 | 12* | 11 | 9 | 6 |
Notes:
1. Total number of hours of station operation.
2. Time that the HRS without its major components/parts (storage, compressor, pump) being replaced, is able to operate (storage shall be changed when the number of cycle reaches the regulatory limit. Replacement of hydraulic compressor is forecasted between 10 to 15 years).
3. Station energy consumption per kg of hydrogen dispensed when station is loaded at 80% of its daily capacity - For HRS which stores H2 in gaseous form, at ambient temperature, and dispense H2 at 700 bar in GH2 from a source of >30 bar hydrogen.
4. Percent amount of hours that the hydrogen refuelling station is able to operate versus the total number of hours that it is intended to be able to operate (consider any amount of time for maintenance or upgrades as time at which the station should have been operational).
5. Parts and labour based on a 200 kg/day throughput of the HRS. Includes also local maintenance infrastructure. Does not include the costs of the remote and central operating and maintenance centre.
6. Person -hours of labour for the system maintenance per 1,000 h of operations over the station complete lifetime.
7. Total costs incurred for the construction or acquisition of the hydrogen refuelling station, including on-site storage. Exclude land cost & excluding the hydrogen production unit. Target ranges refer to a 200 kg/day station and a 1000kg/day station.
8. Cost for the hydrogen dispensed (at the pump), considering OPEX and CAPEX according to the operator's business model
* for cost aspects, when relevant, the European SoA is indicated and labelled with an asterisk
Fuel Cell and Hydrogen – Energy Applications
Hydrogen production from renewable electricity and other resources
Hydrogen production from renewable electricity for energy storage and grid balancing using alkaline electrolysers
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | 2017 | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
Generic system* | |||||||
1 | Electricity consumption @nominal capacity | kWh/kg | 57 | 51 | 50 | 49 | 48 |
2 | Capital cost | EUR/(kg/d) (EUR/kW) | 8,000 (~3,000) | 1,600 (750) | 1,250 (600) | 1,000 (480) | 800 (400) |
3 | O&M cost | EUR/(kg/d)/yr | 160 | 32 | 26 | 20 | 16 |
Stack | |||||||
4 | Degradation | %/1000hrs | - | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.10 |
5 | Current density | A/cm2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
6 | Use of critical raw materials as catalysts | mg/W | 8.9 | 7.3 | 3.4 | 2.1 | 0.7 |
Notes:
*Standard boundary conditions that apply to all system KPIs: input of 6 kV AC power and tap water; output of hydrogen meeting ISO 14687-2 at a pressure of 30 bar. Correction factors may be applied if actual boundary conditions are different.
2. Capital cost are based on 100 MW production volume for a single company and on a 10-year system lifetime running in steady state operation, whereby end of life is defined as 10% increase in energy required for production of hydrogen. Stack replacements are not included in capital cost. Cost are for installation on a pre-prepared site (fundament/building and necessary connections are available). Transformers and rectifiers are to be included in the capital cost.
3. Operation and maintenance cost averaged over the first 10 years of the system. Potential stack replacements are included in O&M cost. Electricity cost are not included in O&M cost.
4. Stack degradation defined as percentage efficiency loss when run at nominal capacity. For example, 0.125%/1000 h results in 10% increase in energy consumption over a 10 year lifespan with 8000 operating hours per year
5. The critical raw material considered here is Cobalt. Other materials can be used as the anode or cathode catalysts for alkaline electrolysers. 7.3 mg/W derives from a cell potential of 1.7 V and a current density of 0,5 A/cm2, equivalent to 6.2 mg/cm2
Hydrogen production from renewable electricity for energy storage and grid balancing using PEM electrolysers
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | 2017 | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
Generic system | |||||||
1 | Electricity consumption @nominal capacity | kWh/kg | 60 | 58 | 55 | 52 | 50 |
2 | Capital cost | EUR /(kg/d) | 8,000 | 2,900 | 2,000 | 1,500 | 1,000 |
(EURkW) | (~3,000) | (1,200) | (900) | (700) | (500) | ||
3 | O&M cost | EUR/(kg/d)/yr | 160 | 58 | 41 | 30 | 21 |
Specific system | |||||||
4 | Hot idle ramp time | sec | 60 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
5 | Cold start ramp time | sec | 300 | 120 | 30 | 10 | 10 |
6 | Footprint | m2/MW | - | 120 | 100 | 80 | 45 |
Stack | |||||||
7 | Degradation | %/1000hrs | 0.375 | 0.250 | 0.190 | 0.125 | 0.12 |
8 | Current density PEM | A/cm2 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 2.5 |
9 | Use of critical raw materials as catalysts PGM | mg/W | - | 5.0 | 2.7 | 1.25 | 0.4 |
10 | Use of critical raw materials as catalysts Pt | mg/W | - | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
Notes:
Availability is fixed at 98% (value from the electrolysis study).
1 to 3 and 7 similar conditions as for alkaline technology (previous table)
2. The time from hot idle to nominal power production, whereby hot idle means readiness of the system for immediate ramp-up. Power consumption at hot idle as percentage of nominal power, measured at 15°C outside temperature.
3. The time from cold start from -20°C to nominal power
9. This is mainly including ruthenium and iridium as the anode catalyst and platinum as the cathode catalyst (2.0 mg/cm2 at the anode and 0,5 mg/cm2 at the cathode). The reduction of critical raw materials content is reported feasible reducing the catalysts at a nano-scale.
Hydrogen production from renewable electricity for energy storage and grid balancing using high-temperature SOE
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | 2017 | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
Generic system* | |||||||
1 | Electricity consumption @rated capacity | kWh/kg | na | 41 | 40 | 39 | 37 |
2 | Availability | % | na | na | 95% | 98% | 99% |
3 | Capital cost | EUR/(kg/d) | na | 12,000 | 4,500 | 2,400 | 1,500 |
4 | O&M cost | EUR/(kg/d)/yr | na | 600 | 225 | 120 | 75 |
Specific system | |||||||
5 | Reversible efficiency | % | na | 50% | 54% | 57% | 60% |
6 | Reversible capacity | % | na | 20% | 25% | 30% | 40% |
Stack | |||||||
7 | Production loss rate | %/1000hrs | na | 2.8 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.5 |
Notes:
* Standard boundary conditions that apply to all system KPIs: input of AC power and tap water; output of hydrogen meeting ISO 14687-2 at atmospheric pressure. Correction factors may be applied if actual boundary conditions are different.
From 3 and 4 please refer to table 2.1 ( similar conditions as for alkaline technology)
5. Reversible efficiency is defined as the electricity generated in reversible mode of the electrolyser, divided by the lower heating value of hydrogen consumed.
6. Reversible capacity is defined as a percentage of the electric capacity in fuel cell mode in relation to the electrolyser mode
7. Degradation at thermo-neutral conditions in percent loss of production-rate (hydrogen power output) at constant efficiency. Note this is a different definition as for low temperature electrolysis, reflecting the difference in technology.
Hydrogen production with low carbon footprint from other resources
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | 2017 | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
Hydrogen from raw biogas* | |||||||
1 | System energy use | kWh/kg | 62 | 56 | 56 | 55 | 53 |
2 | System capital cost | EUR/(kg/d) | 4,200 | 3,800 | 3,100 | 2,500 | 1,500 |
High temp. water splitting* | |||||||
1 | System energy use | kWh/kg | 120 | 110 | 100 | 94 | 88 |
2 | System capital cost | EUR/(kg/d) | 4,000 | 3,500 | 2,500 | 1,700 | 1,400 |
3 | System lifetime | years | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 10 |
Biological H2 production** | |||||||
1 | System hydrogen yield | H2/C | 0.60 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.65 |
2 | Reactor production rate | kg/m3 reactor | 2 | 10 | 40 | 100 | 200 |
3 | Reactor scale | m3 | 0.05 | 0.5 | 1 | 10 | 10 |
Notes:
* The system energy use values include the energy required for heat generation and for producing hydrogen at 30 bar output pressure to meet ISO 14687-2. Correction factors may be applied if the actual boundary conditions are different.
** Concerning Microorganisms e.g. Algae
Hydrogen storage and large scale storage
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | 2017 | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
Compressed gas tube trailers | |||||||
1 | Capacity | kg | 400 | 850 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 |
2 | Capital cost | EUR/kg | 550 | 400 | 350 | 350 | 350 |
Large scale H2 storage* | |||||||
1 | Chain efficiency | % | - | 60 | 67 | 70 | 72 |
2 | Release energy use | kWh/kg | - | 13.3 | 11 | 10 | 9.3 |
3 | System capital cost | EUR/kg | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 |
Notes:
* Storage of at least 10 tones of hydrogen for at least 48 hours, including all necessary conversion steps from clean H2 input to clean H2 output at 30 bar. Correction factors may be applied if actual boundary conditions are different.
Residential micro CHP for single family homes and small buildings (0.3 - 5 kW)
No. | Parameter | Unit |
State of the art |
FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | 2017 | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
1 | CAPEX | EUR/kW | 16,000 | 13,000 | 10,000 | 5,500 | 3,500 |
2 | Lifetime | years of appliance operation | 10 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
3 | Availability | % of the appliance | 97 | 97 | 97 | 97 | 98 |
4 | Durability of key component (stack) | hrs | 25,000 | 40,000 | 50,000 | 60,000 | 80,000 |
5 | Reliability | MTBF (hrs) | 10,000 | 30,000 | 50,000 | 75,000 | 100,000 |
6 | Electrical efficiency | % LHV | 30-60 | 33-60 | 35-60 | 37-63 | 39-65 |
7 | Thermal efficiency | % LHV | 25-55 | 25-55 | 30-55 | 30-55 | 30-55 |
8 | Maintenance costs | EUR Ct/kWh | 40 | 20 | 5 | 3.5 | 2.5 |
9 | Tolerated H2 content in NG | % (Volume) | 5% | 5% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
10 | Installation volume/unit | l/kW | 330 | 240 | 230 | 225 | 220 |
Notes:
1. Cost of manufacturing (labour, materials, utilities) of the m-CHP unit at current production levels (exclude monetary costs, e.g. overheads, profits, rebates, grants, VAT, insurances, taxes, land).
2. Lifetime (years) that the m-CHP unit, with its major components/parts being replaced, e.g stack, is able to operate until the End-of-Life.
3. Ratio of the time that the FC module was able to operate minus downtime divided by the time that was expected to operate. Downtime is the time that the FC is not able to operate-includes time for (un)scheduled maintenance, repairs, overhaul etc
4. Time that a maintained fuel cell stack is able to operate until End-of-Life criterion - as specified by the OEM.
5. Mean time between failure of the FC that render the system inoperable without maintenance or average time between successive failures leading to downtime: time that the FC is not able to operate includes (un)scheduled maintenance, repairs, overhaul etc
6. Electrical efficiency at rated capacity for the FC module as % of electrical output vs energetic content of fuel - Low Heating Value (LHV).
7. Thermal efficiency at rated capacity for the FC module as % of electrical output vs energetic content of fuel - LHV.
8. Operation and maintenance costs per kWh of electricity produced - Including running, overhaul, repair, maintenance labour costs and costs of stack replacement; excluding: fuel cost, insurances, taxes, etc.
9. Percent amount of hydrogen that can blended into the hydrocarbon feed (usually natural gas) allowing normal functioning of the fuel cell module.
10.Volume of fuel cell module as is available for installation in its basic configuration, in l/kWe.
Mid-sized installations for commercial and larger buildings (5 - 400 kW)
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art |
FCH 2 JU target
| |||
2012 |
2017 |
2020 |
2024 |
2030 | |||
1 | CAPEX | EUR/kW | 6,000 - 10,000 | 5,000 - 8,500 | 4,500 – 7,500 | 3,500 - 6,500 | 1,500 - 4,000 |
2 | Lifetime | years of plant operation | 2 - 20 | 6 - 20 | 8 - 20 | 8 - 20 | 15-20 |
3 | Availability | % of the plant | 97 | 97 | 97 | 97 | 98 |
4 | Durability of key component (stack) | khrs | 25 | 30x | 50 | 60 | 80 |
5 | Reliability | MTBF (hrs) | 10,000 | 20,000 | 30,000 | 50,000 | 80,000 |
6 | Electrical efficiency | % LHV | 40-45 | 41-55 | 42-60 | 42-62 | 50-65 |
7 | Thermal efficiency | % LHV | 24-40 | 24-41 | 24-42 | 24-42 | 30-50 |
8 | Maintenance costs | EUR Ct/kWh | 8.6 | 7.6 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 1.2 |
9 | Tolerated H2 content in NG | % (Volume) | 50% | 50% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
10 | Land use/ footprint | m2/kW | 0.25 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 |
Notes:
From 1 to 9 please refer to the definitions of the previous table
10. Base surface (width x depth) occupied by the stationary fuel cell module per unit of rated electrical capacity.
Large scale FC installations, converting hydrogen and renewable methane into power in various applications (0.4 - 30 MW)
No. | Parameter | Unit | State of the art | FCH 2 JU target | |||
2012 | 2017 | 2020 | 2024 | 2030 | |||
1 | CAPEX | EUR/kW | 3,000 - 4,000 | 3,000 - 3,500 | 2,000 - 3,000 | 1,500- 2,500 | 1,200 - 1,750 |
2 | Lifetime | years of plant operation | n/a | 15 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
3 | Availability | % of the plant | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 |
4 | Durability of key component (stack) | khrs | 15 | 20-60 | 20-60 | 20-60 | 25-60 |
5 | Reliability | MTBF (hrs) | n/a | n/a* | 25,000 | 30,000 | 75,000 |
6 | Electrical efficiency | % LHV | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 50 |
7 | Thermal efficiency | % LHV | 20 | 20-40 | 22-40 | 22-40 | 22-40 |
8 | Maintenance costs | EUR Ct/kWh | n/a | 2.8-5 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
9 | Start/Stop characteristics | - | - | 4 hrs 0100% | - | 100%/1 min | - |
Notes:
* insufficient number of units installed to get statistically supported figure
From 1 to 8 please refer to the definitions of the previous table
9. Time required to reach the nominal fuel cell rated output when starting the system from shut-down mode (at ambient temperature).