## 3 Results & Discussion  
The overall performance of the system, defined as the percentage ratio of the produced electricity \(\text{W}_{\text{el}}\) (= \(17.8\times 10^{6}\) J) over the sum of energy at the input of the apparatus (E1 + E2 + E3), was found to be as high as 65.96%, while the thermal wastes of the fuel cell and of the burner were calculated to be 12.84% and to 21.78%, respectively. In compliance with the notation introduced by Figure 1, the following Table 1 depicts the temperatures, the mass fluxes, and the energy at any branch of the system. For the purpose of the present research study, three different simulated scenarios were chosen for an everyday transportation in an urban area: (a) use of a conventional, ICE technology vehicle, (b) use of an EV charged by grid, and (c) use of an EV charged by the innovative FC-based power station as Figure 1 presents. The comparison of the above scenarios is performed in terms of NPC after a period of 5 years of use. In all the above scenarios, the vehicle is of the same performance and is assumed to be used in the same way. We have chosen here the new Peugeot 208 as reference vehicle due to the fact that it is a chassis in the automotive industry that can be sold either as AEV (all-electric vehicle) or with a traditional petrol engine technology, as Table 2 shows. Both electric and conventional vehicles are identical; thus, a direct comparison can be feasible for safe results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Branch** & **Temperature (K)** & **Mass Flux (Kg/s)** & **Energy (\(\times 10^{6}\) J)** \\ \hline
1 & 298 & 0.64 & 2.89 \\
2 & 298 & 10.11 & 0.00 \\
3 & 298 & 1.80 & 24.2 \\
4 & 680 & 0.64 & 1.11 \\
5 & 675 & 2.44 & 2.82 \\
6 & 780 & 1.80 & 2.00 \\
7 & 675 & 12.50 & 6.86 \\
8 & 800 & 12.50 & 9.38 \\
9 & 704 & 12.50 & 7.38 \\
10 & 649 & 12.50 & 6.27 \\
11 & 415 & 12.50 & 1.98 \\
12 & 675 & 10.11 & 4.29 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Typical results for the optimized system. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Performance Specs** & **Peugeot e208** & **Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)** **Peugeot 208** \\ \hline Maximum power output (kW) & 100 & 97 \\ Gearbox & Continuous transmission & 8-speed automatic \\ * Fuel consumption & 5.44 (km/kWh) & 7 (lt/100 km) \\ * Emissions (gr CO2/km) & - & 130 \\ Salvage Value (SAL) (\%) & 70 & 50 \\ ** CAPC (€) & 35,000 & 22,000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* According to the Protocol WLTP (Worldwide Harmonized Vehicle Test Procedure), ** Under the same gadget equipment; CAPC is the Capital Cost of Each Project.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Vehicle specifications and costs. Moreover, it is important to mention here that after a 5-year period, the salvage value (SAL) of an AEV is higher than that of an ICE vehicle due to the durable construction of the electric motor and the absence of moving parts in the transmission. On top of the above-presented costs resulting from the ownership of each vehicle, there are several more annual operational and maintenance costs arising from an everyday use for each simulated scenario, as Table 3 reveals. Also, the appropriate annual mileage was designated at 20,000 km, a value that is the annual average in Greece, in order to calculate the fuel and the electric load costs of the traditional vehicle and the AEV, accordingly. Finally, for the purpose of this research work, the emission costs of the simulated grid-connected AEV and the ICE car will be embodied in the financial study because these will play a crucial role in the final calculation of the NPC, which will reveal the viability of such a project. Nowadays, regarding the investment cost of the FC-based project, it seems that the global market has already reached the estimated cost target for 2020 [32] of 500 \(\upepsilon\)/kW for a small scale SOFC-stack for domestic use, such as those by Elcogen, the world's most advanced manufacturer of ceramic anode-supported SO (solid oxide) cells and stacks.