Bringing you a prosperous 

future where energy is 

clean, abundant, reliable, 

and affordable

Leading by example, 

saving energy and 

taxpayer dollars 

in federal facilities

DOE/EE-0311

Internet: www.eere.energy.gov/femp/

No portion of this publication may be altered in any form without 

prior written consent from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the authoring national laboratory.

Assessment of Packaged 

PEM Fuel Cell CHP Systems

Grid-connected, packaged fuel cell systems provide clean, quiet, reliable heat and power

Introduction

Packaged fuel cell systems are technically attractive for distributed generation because they are very 

efficient, quiet, and have the potential for very low waste-stream emissions. Packaged fuel cell systems 

have been commercially available for about 10 years. Although still expensive, the cost, reliability, and 

performance of these systems have been improving steadily. This document describes the technology, 

its application niche, and what a potential user needs to consider when making procurement decisions.

Why Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Distributed Generation (DG)?

The motivations for distributed power stem from our increasing reliance on electrical devices, from the 

high costs of expanding central generation capacity and transmission and distribution (T&D) capacity, 

and from the technical barriers to using central plant waste heat effectively. By adding distributed generation instead of central plant capacity, the need to expand T&D capacity is reduced or eliminated. By 

situating DG at facilities where waste heat can be put to good economic use (the premise of CHP), the 

prohibitive costs and inefficiencies of heat transmission are avoided. In some applications, the primary 

motivation is power reliability; the redundancy inherent in grid-connected DG achieves this objective.

Technology Description

Fuel cell development for transport and DG applications has increased remarkably in the past decade. 

There are a number of fuel cell technologies that appear to be viable in one or more applications, as 

indicated in Table 1. Note that the proton exchange membrane (PEM) technology, at its current 

stage of development, has the best efficiency and power density of all the technologies that run on air 

at low temperature. High temperature, such as with the molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) and the 

solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC), and pure O2, such as with the alkaline fuel cell (AFC), are considered 

safety concerns.

The fuel cell CHP systems demonstrated at Fort McPherson in Atlanta, Georgia, and at the 4th District 

U.S. Coast Guard Station, New Orleans, Louisiana,1 are built around one main package that houses 

a fuel processor, PEM cell stack, power conditioning, recovery heat exchanger, and controls (all discussed below). An additional heat exchanger and pump may be required in the facility that will use 

the recovered heat. In most cases, an external water treatment unit is also required.

1 Fort McPherson was selected initially based on special interest by the Public Works office of U.S. Army Southeast 

Regional Public Works Office. The Coast Guard site was added because it has significant heat load. The ESCO for 

both sites, LoganEnergy, agreed to provide access to the on-line performance data.
2 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Table 1. Summary of technical characteristics by fuel cell type

Phosphoric 

Acid Fuel Cell

Alkaline 

Fuel Cell

Molten Carbonate 

Fuel Cell

Solid Oxide 

Fuel Cell

Proton Exchange 

Membrane 

(PEM)

Direct Methanol 

Fuel Cell

Tcell (°C) 200 80 650 1000 90 80

Efficiency* 42% 70% 50% 40% 45% 25%

Conducting Ion H+ OH- CO3

2- O2- H+ H+

Cathode Gas Atmospheric Pure O2 Atmospheric Atmospheric Pure O2 and 

Atmospheric Atmospheric

Catalyst Pt Pt, Ni/NiOx Ni/LiNiOx Ni/Perovskites Pt Pt

Fuel H2 H2 H2 and CH4 H2 and CH4

H2 (pure or 

reformed) CH3OH

Power Density 220 mW/cm3 4000 mW/cm3 150 mW/cm3 240 mW/cm3 300 mW/cm3 20 mW/cm3

Electro-Chemical 

Challenges

Hydrogen 

electro-catalysis, 

cathode corrosion

Hydrogen 

electro-catalysis, 

cathode corrosion

Oxygen electrode, 

cathode corrosion

Expensive component layers, high 

temperature

Oxygen electrocatalysis, water 

management

Methanol electrocatalysis, anode 

poisoning

Applications

Onsite 

cogeneration, 

transportation

Space Vehicles, 

transportation

Power generation, 

cogeneration

Power generation, 

regenerative 

fuel cell

Transportation, 

space defense, 

standby power

Transportation, 

remote power, 

standby power

*Electric only based on lower heating value of fuel, no inverter or reformer power penalties, under ideal conditions.

such as solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) 

and molten carbonate fuel cells.

Reformer. Two reactions convert steam 

(H2O) and natural gas (mostly CH4) into 

hydrogen and carbon-dioxide (CO2). 

The first produces some hydrogen and 

carbon-monoxide (CO) as an intermediate product:

CH4 + H2O → CO + 3H2

The second reaction converts CO and 

steam to CO2 and more hydrogen:

H2O + CO → CO2 + H2

Residual CH4 and residual CO are 

the two main perpetrators of cell stack 

poisoning.2 Therefore, they are selectively burned (CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 

2H2O and 2CO + O2 → 2CO2) at low 

temperature in the presence of a catalyst before entering the cell stack. This 

extends cell stack life.

Waste heat comes from the burning of 

residuals and from the cell stack reaction. 

With current practical implementations, the overall efficiency of natural 

gas to electrical conversion without heat 

recovery is less than 30%. Some of the 

conversion heat (e.g., inverter heat) is 

PEM cell stack. The proton exchange 

membrane (PEM) fuel cell uses a polymer electrolyte in the form of a thin 

sheet or membrane. The PEM blocks 

electrons but allows positive ions preferentially (more protons than electrons) 

to pass, as shown in Figure 1. Hydrogen is supplied at the anode and air is 

supplied to the cathode. A platinum 

catalyst promotes electrolytic reaction 

at the cathode.

The half-reaction at the anode (-) is:

2H2 → 4H+ + 4eThe half-reaction at the cathode (+) is: 

O2 + 4H+ + 4e- → 2H2O

Each cell generates 0.7V and a stack 

of 70 cells in series is used to generate 

power at about 50 volts. Because the 

polymer softens with temperature, 

the stack is limited to 80oC (175oF). 

This makes the efficiencies of PEM 

fuel cells somewhat less than those 

of higher temperature technologies, 

2 Poisoning refers to accumulations of compounds that reduce the efficiency of cathode, anode, or electrolyte.

Figure 1. PEM fuel cell.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 3

not easily recoverable. Even with heat 

recovery, the maximum overall efficiency 

for the demonstration unit (total of heat 

plus power) is about 65%.

Inverter. The inverter converts 48Vdc 

to 120/240Vac and provides the necessary grid interface (power-factor 

and frequency following control). An 

approved3 transfer switch is built in—

and two external connections, main 

power and emergency power, are provided. When main power fails, the 

inverter is disconnected from the main 

panel to prevent back feed but may 

continue to feed an emergency power 

subpanel with no interruption. Field 

installation requires only two simple 

disconnects—typically one of these, 

the emergency panel breaker—already 

exists. Some utilites may have special 

requirements for grid connected DG. 

Battery. The battery stores enough 

energy to carry the machine through 

load fluctuations encountered during 

emergency load service (grid outage) 

or in off-grid operation and to start 

the machine (cold boot) without grid 

power. The battery is not used when the 

unit is operating at a fixed (electric kW 

output) setpoint. A battery life of 5 years 

or more can therefore be expected in 

installations that run mainly in gridconnected constant-setpoint mode.

Controls and utility interface. The utility interface has two modes, on-grid and 

off-grid. In on-grid mode, the inverter 

tracks utility frequency and supplies 

current in phase with utility voltage to 

maintain a predetermined or remotely 

adjustable fuel cell power output. The 

demonstration unit develops up to 5kW 

continuous, but most units have been 

operated at 2.5kW continuous. The 

best mode of operation is site-specific 

to strike a reasonable balance between 

rate of payback (best at around 4kW) 

and stack life (decreases with increasing power level).

In off-grid mode, the inverter maintains 

voltage and frequency according to its 

internal references, and satisfies the real 

and reactive power of the aggregate 

local or emergency load by continuously adjusting the load. Time-varying 

control of capacity may be appropriate 

in off-grid installations.

Water Supply and Discharge. The 

reformer feed-stocks mentioned above 

are methane and water. Although the 

reformer and cell stoichiometry yield 

more water than is consumed, the current design requires a separate source 

of high purity water. Plug Power’s purification unit uses a 3-step process: rust/

scale filtering, reverse osmosis (RO), 

and ion exchange. Water requirements 

vary in directly with power output. At 

2.5kW, the PEM unit requires 50 gallons per day (gpd) of pure water and 

produces about 100 gpd of waste water. 

The water plant and feed line must be 

protected from freezing.

Heat recovery. The reformer and fuel 

cell produce electricity from natural 

gas at 24% to 26% efficiency based on 

lower heating value (LHV) of the gas. 

Better overall efficiency can be obtained 

by making use of the 3.3 to 6.7 kWth

of heating produced in the reformer and 

cell stack. In most CHP installations, the 

heat byproduct is transferred to a domestic water heater or similar load, as shown 

in Figure 2. When the load is satisfied, 

tank temperature at the base of the dip 

tube will approach the fuel cell operating temperature (about 170oF). The 

heat byproduct will then have to be 

discharged via waste water and ambient air, and overall efficiency will revert 

to the machine’s efficiency as an electrical power source.

Characteristics of 

Demonstration Package

A package that integrates the reformer, 

cell stack, heat recovery, battery, and 

inverter has been deployed at federal 

sites as part of a demonstration program. 

The product specifications of the package are documented in Appendix A. 

Figure 2. High-level CHP schematic. Heat transport design is site-specific; a system with 

one pump and no heat exchanger is shown.

Natural Gas

Pump

Pure Water

Cold Water In Hot Water Out

CCF

Inverter and 

Battery

LEGEND:

CCF = gas meter

kW = electric meter Water 

Heater

Reformer and 

Fuel Cell

Disconnect

kW

Grid 

Power

House

Panel

Critical 

Load

3 Canadian Standards Association listing, which is recognized in the United States.
4 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The performance data are summarized 

in Table 2, and the PEM fuel cell 

in-place at Fort McPherson is pictured in Figure 3.

Over twenty package fuel cell units 

of this type have been installed in 

the demonstration program as of 

January 1, 2005. Most of the demonstration sites produce heat as well as 

power. For the two demonstration sites 

reported here, the thermal output is used 

to heat domestic water and an intermediate loop carries ethylene glycol for 

freeze protection. A heat exchanger at 

the water heater transfers heat from the 

glycol loop to the potable water loop 

whenever heat is needed (potable water 

performance observed at two of the sites 

are described below.

O&M. The complexity of this technology could be said to lie between that of 

unitary HVAC equipment and that of 

an automobile. However, because the 

technology is less mature, the maintenance expectations are correspondingly 

higher. Although considerable design 

attention is devoted to ongoing improvements to reliability and simplicity of 

O&M, the user should be aware of 

the current basic maintenance needs.

Batteries. Batteries require no periodic 

maintenance. However, battery life 

is finite, depending largely on load 

magnitude and frequency of large 

load variations during off-grid operation. Replacement at roughly 5-year 

intervals can be expected at a cost of 

roughly $500.

Air Filters. Cathode air filters require 

replacement , typically every 12 months.

Radiator. Coolant flush and replacement service intervals are typically 

longer (>5 years) than for an automobile. Air side surfaces should be cleaned 

yearly or more often under dusty conditions (i.e., less often than for the outdoor unit of an air conditioner).

Periodic stack replacement. The fuel 

cell stack must be replaced every 7,000 

to 10,000 operating hours. The cost of 

stack replacement is roughly $10,000 

and is covered under the typical maintenance contract.

Water supply. The current design’s 

requirement for very pure de-ionized 

(DI) water defines the most laborintensive elements of site maintenance. 

In hard water locations, a water softener, 

with its attendant maintenance requirements, is needed. All installations require 

an RO filter and a resin bead cartridge 

for ion-exchange. Service intervals for 

these items range from 1 to 4 months.

below 140°F) and available (fuel cell 

operating such that glycol loop temperature is greater than potable water 

temperature). In addition to a heat 

exchanger approved for potable water 

use, a differential temperature controller and two pumps are required to 

implement this heat recovery scheme. 

Excess heat is rejected to the waste 

water stream and to ambient air when 

the domestic water heating load is satisfied. Most of the demonstration units 

feed power to the grid during normal 

operation and keep emergency loads 

in operation when grid power fails. The 

characteristics of the products deployed 

in the demonstration program and the 

Table 2. Performance specifications for federal demonstration package

kWe set point 2.5 4 5

Generation Efficiency (kWe/LHVkW)

Overall Efficiency ((kWe+kWth)/LHVkW)

Fuel Use (LHV kBtu/hr)

Water Use (gallon/hr)

26

60

31.6

3.33

25

65

54.6

5.67

23.5

55

73

7.33

Figure 3. Demonstration PEM fuel-cell-based CHP unit (left) at Fort McPherson.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 5

Assessment Checklist. Before investing 

in fuel cell technology, a buyer should 

carefully evaluate the costs and benefits. 

A representative cost analysis is presented in Appendix B. In addition, 

the following technical issues should 

be considered.

Load characteristics should correspond 

to DG/CHP capabilities:

 Peak electrical load and load factor 

 Thermal load and load factor; thermal storage requirement, cost, space

Logistical support:

 O&M – understand required 

capability, commitment, and cost

 Training – buyer’s technician must 

attend manufacturer’s two-week 

training program

 Source of DI water – site must 

provide for warm water discharge

 Freeze protection – heat recovery 

loop and water supply must 

be protected.

Life-cycle cost – In remote and critical 

power applications, there are often several options or combinations of options 

for satisfying peak- and base-load load 

requirements. For each option, one must 

evaluate the following cost elements:

 Annual cost of fuel(s) 

and delivery thereof

 Annual cost of maintenance 

including cell stack renewal

 Annual value of displaced existing 

electrical and thermal source energy

 Amortized costs (equipment, 

installation, design, administration, 

commissioning)

Acceptance Tests. Before taking ownership of the CHP system, it is important 

that the owner confirm proper operation and performance. This activity is 

a good step in familiarizing local maintenance person(s) with the new technology and the monitoring equipment. 

The monitoring equipment is essential 

to ongoing tracking of its operating condition and diagnosis of problems, should 

they occur. A basic acceptance protocol should include the following:

Controls: check responsiveness and 

calibration of sensors and actuators

Capacity: measure peak capacity 

for 1 hour

Noise: check fan noise and vibration

Emissions: check for NOx and CO

Start-stop cycle: demonstrate start-stop 

cycle and 8 hours continuous operation

Leak check: reformer, cell stack, water, 

heat rejection; all feed and discharge lines

Efficiency: measure gas input and 

kWh and Btu output for 8-hour 

run at planned capacity.

Demonstration Results

A large number of residential-scale PEM 

fuel cell installations have been made 

for the DOD Fuel Cell Demonstration 

Program (Binder, Taylor and Holcomb 

2001). Two representative sites are at 

Fort McPherson, Atlanta, Georgia, and 

the 4th District Coast Guard Station 

(CGS), New Orleans, Louisiana.

The demonstration sites were provided 

with basic performance verification 

metering consisting of residential-type 

gas and electric meters, as shown for 

Fort McPherson in Figure 4.

Heat recovery was measured at Fort 

McPherson using volumetric flow rate 

and temperature sensors. A programmable logic control system was configured to monitor and communicate the 

data to a server that provides web access 

to all stakeholders.

The Fort McPherson and CGS sites 

are both configured to provide constant electric power with any difference between the power set-point and 

local load being absorbed or supplied 

by the grid.

Figure 5 shows that the electric power 

output at Fort McPherson in July 2004 

was 2.5 ± 0.1kW about 98% of the 

time. In grid independent mode, the 

fuel cell output is modulated to track 

the local emergency load. However, 

there were no grid outages to show 

Figure 4. Residential-type meters to record gas input and electrical output.

Electric Meter

Gas Meter
6 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

during the July test period. Heat generated by the fuel cell and reformer is 

determined by the unit’s electrical power 

output, not by the local thermal load. 

Any shortfall in heat output by the fuel 

cell unit is provided by auxiliary heat 

plant (domestic water heater) and any 

excess heat is dissipated to ambient via 

the waste water stream and/or the unit’s 

cooling fan.

The thermal load at Fort McPherson 

turned out to be much smaller than 

the CHP capacity at even the lowest 

fuel cell operating point (11.2 kBtuh 

at the 2.5 kW setpoint). Figure 5 

shows the average load to be about 

1 kBtuh with a diurnal cycle that 

exhibits morning and evening peaks 

of 2 to 5 kBtuh. The average electric 

production efficiency (LHV basis 

including all parasitic loads) in July 

2004 was 28.5% and the CHP efficiency was 43%.

In the case of the CGS, thermal loads 

are substantial but still have a diurnal 

variation, as shown for July 2004 in 

Figure 6. Figure 6 illustrates a base 

load of about 8 kBtuh, which is well 

matched to the 11 kBtuh available 

with a fuel cell operating point of 

2.5 kWe. The diurnal fluctuations in 

thermal load are small—typically less 

than 2 kBtuh. In short, this is an ideal 

thermal load for this DG/CHP application. The dropouts on July 27 to 

29, 2004, represent fuel cell downtime 

rather than the absence of thermal load. 

Electric and CHP efficiency cannot be 

calculated for CGS because the electric 

meter is reading only the emergency 

panel portion of electricity production.

Future Developments

Package DG/CHP fuel cell technology 

is evolving rapidly. In addition to understanding the current state of the technology, a potential user should consider 

technology advances that may be in 

the pipeline. A few possibilities, some 

of which are slated to appear by the 4th

quarter of 2005, are outlined below.

Control. In many cases, it makes sense 

to configure the plant either to satisfy 

a dedicated load (load tracking) or to 

maintain a constant output of power, 

Figure 5. Heat and electric power output by Fort McPherson demonstration unit, July 2004. Power (kW), Heat (kBtu/h) 30-Jun 01-Jul 02-Jul 03-Jul 04-Jul 05-Jul 06-Jul 07-Jul 08-Jul 09-Jul 10-Jul 11-Jul 12-Jul 13-Jul 14-Jul 15-Jul

16-Jul17-Jul18-Jul19-Jul20-Jul21-Jul

Power (kW)

Pri.ht.rate kBtuh

Heat Load (kBtu/h)

30-Jun

01-Jul02-Jul03-Jul04-Jul05-Jul06-Jul07-Jul08-Jul09-Jul10-Jul11-Jul12-Jul13-Jul14-Jul15-Jul16-Jul17-Jul18-Jul19-Jul20-Jul21-Jul22-Jul23-Jul24-Jul25-Jul26-Jul27-Jul28-Jul29-Jul30-Jul31-Jul

Figure 6. Heat output by the CGS demonstration unit, July 2004.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 7

part of which may feed a critical load 

while the balance sold to the grid. However, in other cases, there can be significant benefits to a more sophisticated 

control strategy. Such cases may involve 

control based on time of use rates, realtime rates, or response to a utility curtailment program. In some cases, optimal 

or mission-critical operation may require 

load tracking of the thermal load or 

real-time switching between electrical 

and thermal load tracking.

Site approval. The demonstration 

unit satisfies California Air Resource 

Board (CARB) standards for small, 

low-emission DG and DG/CHP 

plants, as indicated in Appendix C. 

However, until installations become 

commonplace and familiar to building inspectors and other regulators, 

the site approval process is likely to 

present challenges for some sites. 

Some possible issues are water supply, 

hot waste water, utility interface, and 

emergency access (paved driveway).

High water use. The next-generation 

package is expected to have zero net 

water use. This would eliminate much 

of the expected maintenance as well as 

some of the potential site approval 

hurdles involving backflow prevention 

and hot water emissions. With balanced water management, hot water 

emission would be approximately 

halved and cold water emission would 

be zero.

High cost. Product cost is certainly one 

of the important drivers but second to 

maintenance. Currently, there is enough 

of a market in remote and critical power 

to justify the high cost, low volume 

production. This can be expected to 

gradually improve as competition and 

market volume increase.

Maintenance burden. Package designs 

are evolving steadily based on manufacturing and field experience. The 

two main maintenance costs are cell 

stack replacement and water supply 

(improved design and reliability).

On-line data. The demonstration unit 

has an embedded data acquisition system used by the manufacturer to gain 

valuable performance and diagnostic 

data. However, key M&V data are not 

collected. It would be more attractive 

to many end-users if internal meters 

for cumulative gas input, inverter output, and heat recovery output were 

offered as factory options than to 

have this equipment installed externally on-site, as is current practice. 

The power meter option is a particular 

need because one meter between the 

inverter output and internal transfer 

switch can handle both the main and 

emergency panel loads; two meters, or 

a meter that can accommodate the two 

load feeds (e.g., through the eye of a 

current transformer) are required to 

properly measure the power externally.

Benefits

Fuel cells have been shown to be capable 

of unattended operation in combined 

heat and critical power applications 

selected for the DOD fuel cell demonstration program. Although it has not 

been explicitly demonstrated in the 

program, the technical potential for 

DG to serve as a peak-shaving resource 

certainly exists. What has been demonstrated is the ability for fuel-cell based 

DG to provide “hot” back-up for mission-essential loads in commercial and 

residential applications. CHP addresses 

the common wasteful practice of producing of low-grade heat by direct 

burning of fossil fuel. Currently, the 

reliability and availability statistics are 

in need of improvement. In the long 

term, fuel cell technology could become 

one of the cornerstones of distributed 

generation, wherein low-energy buildings approach zero net electricity use 

by producing most of their own power 

needs from photovoltaic collectors, 

natural gas, or hydrogen.
8 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Contacts

LOGANEnergy Corp.

Mr. Sam Logan

1080 Holcomb Bridge Rd.

Building 100, Suite 175

Roswell, GA 30076

Phone: (770) 650-6388 Fax: (770) 650-7317

E-mail: samlogan@loganenergy.com

PlugPower

Mr. Richard Romer 

 and Mr. Vincent Cassala

968 Albany-Shaker Road

Latham, NY 12110

Phone: (518) 782-7700 ext. 1984 Fax: (518) 782-9060

E-mail: richard_romer@plugpower.com

vincent_cassala@plugpower.com

Connected Energy Corp.

Mr. Kevin Hann

Phone: (585) 697-3802

E-mail: kevin.hann@connectedenergy.com

Heliodyne, Inc.

4910 Seaport Ave.

Richmond, CA 94804

Phone: (510) 237-9614 Fax: (510) 237-7018

Internet: www.heliodyne.com

U.S. Army, Fort McPherson

Luke Wyland

Fort McPherson, Atlanta, GA

Phone: (404) 469-3563

E-mail: Luke.Wyland@forscom.army.mil

U.S. Coast Guard Station

George Dunn

New Orleans, LA

Phone: (504) 846-6179

E-mail: GDUNN@staneworleans.uscg.mil

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Mr. Greg Sullivan

Phone: (509) 372-6212

E-mail: gp.sullivan@pnl.gov

Additional Sources of Information

Binder MJ, WR Taylor and FH Holcomb. 2001. Experience with the DOD fleet of 30 fuel cell generators, 2001 Int’l Gas 

Research Conf., Amsterdam Nov 5-8, 2001. 

Connected Energy Corporation, Internet site for monitoring Logan Energy U.S. Fuel Cell Sites, https://enerview.com/

EnerView/login.asp (log in with user name “logan.user” and password “guest”) 

DOD Fuel Cell ERDC/CERL Projects. Internet site for the DOD fuel cell demonstration program. www.dodfuelcell.com

Fuel Cells 2000. www.fuelcells.org

Hadley, S.W., et al. 2002. Analysis of CHP Potential at Federal Sites. ORNL/TM-2001/280. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. www.ornl.gov/sci/femp/pdfs/chp_market_analysis.pdf

LoganEnergy. 2003. Initial Report FY’01 CERL PEM Demonstration Program: Ft. McPherson PEM Project, Atlanta, GA. 

December 31, 2003. http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/res/InitialReport_FtMcPherson.pdf. 

LoganEnergy, 2003. Initial Report FY’01 CERL PEM Demonstration Program: U.S. Coast Guard Station PEM Project, New 

Orleans, LA. January 3, 2003. http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/res/InitialReport_CoastGuardNO.pdf

National Fuel Cell Research Center. www.nfcrc.uci.edu/educational_index.htm

Plugpower. 2004. Proposal for Natural Gas PEM Fuel Cell Demonstration, Generic Proposal (60 Hertz NG). Unpublished 

but available from Plug Power, Latham, NY.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 9

Appendix A

Manufacture’s Specification for the DG/CHP fuel cell package demonstrated at Fort McPherson.

Specifications

Physical Size (L X W X H): 84 1/2” X 32” X 681/4”

Performance Power rating: 5kW continuous

Power set points: 2.5kW, 4kW, 5kW

Voltage: 120/240 VAC @ 60Hz 

Power Quality: IEEE 519

Emissions: NOX < 5ppm

SOX<1ppm

Noise < 70 dBa @ 1meter

Operating Conditions Temperature: 0°F to 104°F

Elevation: 0 to 750 feet

Installation: Outdoor/CHP

Electrical Connection: GC/GI

Fuel: Natural Gas

Certifications Power Generation: CSA International

Power Conditioning: UL

Electromagnetic Compliance: FCC Class B

Dimensions

Length ................................................................84 inches

Width ................................................................32 inches

Height ................................................................68 1/4 inches

Operating Requirements

Fuel Type ................................................................Natural Gas

Temperature ................................................................0°F to 104°F

Outputs

Power Output ................................................................5kW

Voltage ................................................................120/240 VAC @ 60Hz

Noise ................................................................< 70 dBA@ 1 meter

Certifications

CSA International ................................................................Fuel Cell System

UL ................................................................Power Conditioning Module
10 — FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Appendix B

Initial life-cycle cost estimates for the Fort McPherson PEM fuel cell demonstration are contained in the Initial Project Description 

Report available on the DOD Fuel Cell web site at http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/res/InitialReport_FtMcPherson.pdf. More 

up-to-date performance information is available at http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/res/site_summary_statistics.php4?site_id=15. 

Assuming the fuel cell operates at an average 2.5 kW capacity with an average availability of 90%, the following life-cycle cost 

analysis results from using BLCC version 5.1.

NIST BLCC 5.1-02: Comparative Analysis

Consistent with Federal Life Cycle Cost Methodology and Procedures, 10 CFR, Part 436, Subpart A

Base Case: Baseline

Alternative: PEM Fuel Cell

General Information

File Name: C:\My Documents\McPherson Fuel Cell Analysis.xml

Date of Study: 2004

Project Name: Fort McPherson Fuel Cell Assessment

Project Location: Georgia

Analysis Type: MILCON Analysis, Energy Project

Analyst: J. Doe

Base Date: April 1, 2004

Beneficial Occupancy Date: April 1, 2004

Study Period: 10 years 0 months (April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2014)

Discount Rate: 3.2%

Discounting Convention: Mid-Year

Comparison of Present-Value Costs

PV Life-Cycle Cost Base Case Alternative Savings from Alternative Initial Investment Costs:

 Capital Requirements as of Base Date $0 $83,825 -$83,825

Future Costs:

 Energy Consumption Costs $13,663 $11,737 $1,926

 Energy Demand Charges $0 $0 $0

 Energy Utility Rebates $0 $0 $0

 Water Costs $0 $71 -$71

 Routine Recurring and Non-Recurring OM&R Costs $0 $128,672 -$128,672

 Major Repair and Replacements $0 $0 $0

 Residual Value at End of Study Period $0 $0 $0 ------------ ------------ ------------ Subtotal (for Future Cost Items) $13,663 $140,480 -$126,817 ------------ ------------ ------------

Total PV Life-Cycle Cost $13,663 $224,305 -$210,642

Net Savings from Alternative Compared with Base Case

PV of Non-Investment Savings -$126,817

- Increased Total Investment $83,825

------------ Net Savings -$210,642

Note: Meaningful SIR, AIRR and Payback can not be computed unless incremental savings and total savings are both positive.

Energy Savings Summary

Energy Savings Summary (in stated units)

Energy -------- Average Annual Consumption --------- Life-Cycle

Type Base Case Alternative Savings Savings

Electricity 19,710.0 kWh 0.0 kWh 19,710.0 kWh 197,019.1 kWh

Natural Gas 62.0 MBtu 258.9 MBtu -196.9 MBtu -1,967.8 MBtu

Energy Savings Summary (in MBtu)

Energy -------- Average Annual Consumption --------- Life-Cycle

Type Base Case Alternative Savings Savings

Electricity 67.3 MBtu 0.0 MBtu 67.3 MBtu 672.3 MBtu

Natural Gas 62.0 MBtu 258.9 MBtu -196.9 MBtu -1,967.8 MBtu
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — 11

Appendix C

California Air Resource Board Certified Technologies

Once an Executive Order of DG Certification is issued to a manufacturer, it is posted on the CARB website: http://www.arb.

ca.gov/energy/dg/dg.htm. Below are Executive Orders for DG Certification issued as of January 2005.

Company Name Technology Standard Executive 

Order

Expiration 

Date

United Technologies Corporation Fuel Cells 200 kW, Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell 2007 DG-001 29-Jan-07

Capstone Turbine Corporation 60 kW, C60 MicroTurbine 2003 DG-002 31-Dec-06

FuelCell Energy, Inc. FuelCell Energy, Inc. 250 kW, DFC300A 2007 DG-003 7-May-07

Ingersoll-Rand Energy Systems 70 kW, 70LM Microturbine, version C 2003 DG-004-A 31-Dec-06

Ingersoll-Rand Energy Systems 70 kW, 70LM Microturbine, version WD (CHP) 2003 DG-005 31-Dec-06

Plug Power Inc. 5 kW, GenSysTM 5C Fuel Cell 2007 DG-006 16-Jul-08

FuelCell Energy, Inc. 1 MW, DFC1500 Fuel Cell 2007 DG-007 13-Sep-08
FEMP Help Desk: (800) 363-3732

International callers please use (703) 287-8391

Web Site: www.eere.energy.gov/femp

Produced for the U.S. Department 

of Energy, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, by the Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory

DOE/EE-0311

July 2005

A Strong Energy Portfolio 

for a Strong America 

Energy efficiency and clean, renewable 

energy will mean a stronger economy, 

cleaner environment, and greater 

energy independence for America. 

Working with a wide array of state, 

community, industry, and university 

partners, the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy invests in a diverse 

portfolio of energy technologies.

For More Information

EERE Information Center

1-877-EERE-INF or 

1-877-337-3463

www.eere.energy.gov/femp

General Program Contacts

Ted Collins

New Technology Demonstration 

 Program Manager

Federal Energy Management 

 Program

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., SW, EE-92

Washington, D.C. 20585

Phone: (202) 586-8017 

Fax: (202) 586-3000 

theodore.collins@ee.doe.gov

Steven A. Parker

Pacific Northwest National 

 Laboratory

P.O. Box 999, MSIN: K5-08 

Richland, WA 99352

Phone: (509) 375-6366

Fax: (509) 375-3614

steven.parker@pnl.gov

Technical Contacts and Authors

Peter Armstrong 

Phone: (509) 372-6963

peter.armstrong@pnl.gov

Disclaimer

This report was sponsored by the United States Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Federal Energy Management Program. Neither the United States Government 

nor any agency or contractor thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express 

or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its 

use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial 

product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not 

necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United 

States Government or any agency or contractor thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or 

any agency or contractor thereof.

Log on to FEMP’s Web site for information 

about New Technology Demonstrations

www.eere.energy.gov/femp/

You will find links to

• A New Technology Demonstration Overview

• Information on technology demonstrations

• Downloadable versions of publications in Adobe Portable 

Document Format (pdf)

• A list of new technology projects under way

• Electronic access to a regular mailing list for new products 

when they become available

• How Federal agencies may submit requests to us to assess 

new and emerging technologies