Energy cost analysis of a solar-hydrogen hybrid energy system for stand-alone applications

Transcription

1 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY33 (28) Available at journal homepage: Energy cost analysis of a solar-hydrogen hybrid energy system for stand-alone applications Jérémy Lagorse a,, Marcelo G. Simões b, Abdellatif Miraoui a, Philippe Costerg c a GESC, UTBM, Rue Thierry Mieg, 9 Belfort, France b Power Electronics Laboratory, Department of Engineering, CSM, Golden, CO 84, USA c Total, 2 place de la Coupole, La Défense 6, 9278 Paris La Défense Cedex, France article info Article history: Received 2 January 28 Received in revised form 2 March 28 Accepted 2 March 28 Available online 2 May 28 Keywords: Fuel cells Photovoltaic power systems Solar energy abstract Three configurations of fuel cell and photovoltaic hybrid systems were evaluated in this paper based on economic constraints. In order to estimate the energy cost of each configuration, sources were sized with an analytical approach. An energy based modelling has been developed with Matlab/Simulink to observe evolution of the system during the period of one year. The simulation results were used for optimizing the configuration costs in order to obtain the most cost effective system. An appropriate system sizing based on the proposed optimization solution, showed that a system composed with a photovoltaic generator, a fuel cell, an electrolizer and a battery can deliver energy in a stand-alone installation with an acceptable cost. & 28 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.. Introduction In order to produce electricity for a domestic stand-alone system, the classical solution associating photovoltaic () cells and batteries presents limits when required to feed a system throughout one year cycle. Indeed, the battery and the solar generator have to be over-sized to respond to the critical periods when the solar insolation delivers a very small amount of energy. Currently, most of the systems avoid over-sizing by adding a diesel generator which supplies the load during critical periods []. A possible solution consists in adding a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEM FC) [2]. This kind of fuel cell (FC) has the advantage to produce electricity without greenhouse emissions when the fuel is hydrogen. However, when the fuel is methane, for example, CO 2 emissions are produced. Therefore, we consider only hydrogen as fuel in this study. Fig. (a) (c) show the three configurations considered in this paper. The configuration in Fig. (a) consists of a generator, a battery and a FC fed by hydrogen (H 2 ) from an external source to supply the system during critical periods (i.e. winter in north hemisphere). A second configuration is shown in Fig. (b) that does not use batteries to store energy but only an electrolizer supplied by producing H 2 from water by electrolysis. The water is collected from the rain; and the H 2 produced is then stored in a tank and feeds the FC [3,4]. The last configuration shown in Fig. (c) mixes the storage system of the two previous configurations using both a battery and an electrolizer to store the energy [5]. In this paper, a methodology to design each configuration analytically is proposed. The simulation modelling approach is presented in the next section. The results are discussed and an optimization based on a cost function is introduced. For final sizing of each system the energy cost (kwh cost) is evaluated to discuss and to compare the economic feasibility of each of those systems. Corresponding author. address: jeremy.lagorse@utbm.fr (J. Lagorse) /$ - see front matter & 28 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:.6/j.ijhydene

2 2872 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY 33 (28) H 2 PEM FC Load Power (W) Time (hours) Electrical Converter Load Fig. 2 Load profile on a 24 h period. Electrolyzer H 2 BAT PEM FC Electrical Converter Load Daily average insulation on m 2 (Wh) Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Fig. 3 Daily average insolation on the Odeillo site. Electrolyzer H 2 2. System sizing 2.. Sizing hypothesis PEM FC Electrical Converter BAT Load Fig. Configurations layouts. (a) Configuration :, battery, FC is fed by an external hydrogen tank; (b) configuration 2:, FC, electrolizer and hydrogen tank and (c) configuration 3:, battery, FC, electrolizer and hydrogen tank Consumption estimation The first step to size the sources and the other devices is to evaluate the load profile. The chosen profile is presented in Fig. 2; the load average power is 5 W which represents an annual energy consumption of 438 kwh. This consumption evolution is based on a domestic consumption in countries of North Africa, like for instance Morocco. Two consumption peaks are represented in the morning and in the evening. The night consumption corresponds to devices in sleep mode Solar power availability Obviously, the solar power is linked to the weather conditions, and hence is unpredictable, especially on the insolation received on a specified area. Based on a real case near Perpignan (French Pyrenees), the solar radiation data come from the year 999, which appears as a typical year. Indeed, the radiation data among the seasons belong to the average values of the site. On this site, the total annual solar energy received on m 2 is about.6 MWh. Assuming that a generator with polycrystalline technology presents an efficiency of %, 6 kwh are annually obtained using m 2 array. The solar radiation data are sampled every 6 min, Fig. 3 shows the variation of daily average insolation over the year [6]. Because of Sun Earth geometry, the variations decrease near the equatorial regions, and increase towards the polar regions [7] Technology choice In order to obtain a precise energy cost, the technologies of each device have to be understood. For the FC, a PEM (proton exchange membrane) cell is considered. This kind of FC operates with hydrogen as fuel under normal temperature conditions (from 3 to 2 C and can work with a pressure of atm. Moreover, this technology becomes commercialized with stack electrical efficiency about 4%. The chosen battery is a regular lead-acid battery. This technology has a good efficiency, low cost and low

3 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY 33 (28) self-discharge (less than 5% per month). The main drawback for this battery is its weight, but in a stationary system, that is not important. The polycrystalline cells are currently the best choice in terms of quality and price. They present an efficiency lower than the monocrystalline technology (respectively, about 3% compared to 5 22%) but they are cheaper. That is why this technology is commonly used in most of systems. The last element considered is the electrolizer. At this moment, two technologies working under normal temperature are available: alkaline and PEM. PEM is a new technology and is twice as expensive as alkaline technology (3 h=w against 5 h=w [8]). Furthermore, alkaline technology has been used for a long time in industry and its lifetime reaches about 2 years Element sizing The last step of the sizing is to find the power or capacity of each device. It depends on the considered configuration. Several solutions are available and an optimization is needed. The following section details a first approach, without using optimization but only the analytical relations First sizing First configuration First, for the configuration number as in Fig. (a), the FC power is fixed. FC net power can be equal to the load average power (5 W). The load surplus is generated by another device ( if available or battery). Considering that the FC auxiliary systems need about 2% of the net power (for cooling and air pressurization), it is necessary to use a 6 W FC gross power. Then, the hydrogen consumption and the battery capacity have to be fixed. These two variables are linked but there is no analytical relation between them. Thanks to an estimation given by a simulation model which is detailed in the next section, the evolution of hydrogen volume consumed according to battery capacity can be observed. The simulation model is run with several battery capacities and the corresponding hydrogen consumption is plotted in Fig. 4. With a low battery capacity, the hydrogen consumption is high because the FC is often activated. On the contrary when the battery capacity is bigger, the FC is less activated and so, few hydrogen is consumed. Over a certain battery capacity, the hydrogen consumption remains quite constant. This is because the power is constant and so, even if the battery is larger, it will not be fully charged and the autonomy is not improved. Then, to decrease the hydrogen consumption, the and the battery has to be enlarged. This problem of optimization is presented in Section 3.3. Fig. 4 shows that the hydrogen consumption does not change much when the battery capacity is over 2 kwh. Below this limit, the capacity decrease involves a sharp hydrogen consumption increase. So a battery of 2.4 kwh is chosen, which represents 2 days of autonomy for the system. With such battery capacity, the yearly hydrogen consumption is less than 7 m 3 (normal) (normal cubic meter with normal conditions: pressure of 3.25 hpa and temperature of C). Using hydrogen compressed at 2 bar, a 35 L tank is sufficient to stock the hydrogen during one year. Finally, the surface can be easily calculated assuming that solar generator delivers the whole energy consumed. E consumed on year S ¼ ¼ 438 E produced on year with m 2 6 2:75 m2 () This surface represents a 275 W peak panel Second configuration As in the first configuration, FC power has to be determined first. In this configuration shown in Fig. (b), the FC must be able to supply the load all by itself. So, the FC net power is W (load maximum power) and considering auxiliary systems consuming 2% of this power, the gross power is 2 W. Then, it is necessary to estimate the hydrogen tank capacity. In an initial approach, it is considered that the hydrogen energy storage system (electrolizer, compressor, tank and FC) has % efficiency. Based on this assumption and through simulation results, the evolution of stored energy during a year (876 h) can be observed in Fig. 5. The stored energy ranges between and about 8 kwh, so on this initial approach, the tank has to store this difference of energy. It is a seasonal storage system: energy produced during summer period is consumed during winter periods. H 2 Volume (m 3 ) Battery Capacity (kwh) Fig. 4 Volume of consumed hydrogen per year against battery capacity for a fixed photovoltaic power. Stored Energy (kwh) Time (hours) Fig. 5 Amount of stored energy during one year. It is assumed that a certain energy quantity is present at the beginning of the year coming from the previous year.

4 2874 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY 33 (28) Table First sizing results Device st configuration 2nd configuration 3rd configuration (determined by optimization) 2:75 m 2 3 m 2 Optimization needed Battery capacity 2.4 kwh Optimization needed FC 6 W 2 W 6 W H 2 consumption 8 m 3 (normal) Optimization needed H 2 storage volume 6 m 3 (normal) 6 m 3 (normal) Optimization needed Electrolizer power.3 kw Optimization needed But, taking into account the FC efficiency, around 4%, it becomes E H2 ¼ MAXðE storedþ MINðE stored Þ ¼ 82 ¼ 2 kwh (2) Z FC :4 Considering the hydrogen higher heating value (42 MJ/kg or 39.4 kwh/kg), the amount of energy to store on chemical form represents a volume of about 6 m 3 (normal). Such an amount of hydrogen must be reduced using a compressor and an electrolizer working under pressure. A pressure of 2 bar would enable to store the hydrogen in a 3 L tank. It should be noticed that this quantity of hydrogen is not the quantity consumed, but the quantity to be stored. That is why this value is less than the one presented in the first configuration. To size the power, it is necessary to evaluate the part of energy directly consumed from ðpart directly from Þ and the part consumed from the energy storage system ðpart from storage Þ. An estimation, confirmed later with the simulation model, considers that 3% of energy consumed comes directly from the with an efficiency of % neglecting the electrical conversion components efficiency. The remaining 7% comes from the hydrogen storage. The hydrogen storage efficiency can be estimated using the following relation: Z H2 storage ¼ Z electrolizer Z FC ¼ :4 :4 ¼ 6% (3) The compression efficiency is neglected in comparison to others efficiencies. Indeed, the compression efficiency is about 95% []. The quantity of energy to produce in one year can be expressed by Eq. (4).! Part directly from E produced ¼ E consumed þ Part from storage Z H2 storage E produced ¼ 438 :3 þ :7 248 kwh (4) :6 To produce such an energy amount, a array of 2:8m 2 is required, which represents about.3 kwh. The last element to define is the electrolizer. In this approach, the electrolizer power is equal to the maximum power to convert all the surplus of power in hydrogen. Hence the electrolizer power is about.3 kw Third configuration The third configuration showed in Fig. (c), based on the two previous configurations, consists of several elements:, FC, electrolizer and battery. It is impossible to size each element analytically because the characteristics of the different devices are linked together. For example, the battery capacity should increase if the electrolizer power or power decreases. Therefore, this sizing comes from a computer optimization based on the simulation model further presented. Only FC power is sized like in the first configuration: its net power is equal to the load average power First sizing overview Table presents the results of the first sizing method for the three configurations, to compare them easily. 3. System cost optimization 3.. Simulation model The goal of this model is to observe the system on the energy point of view. Three models have been developed using Matlab/Simulink, one for each configuration. As the model of the third configuration is the most complete one, combining other two configurations, only this model is described in the paper (Fig. 6) model The insolation data (expressed in W=m 2 ) is required to compute the produced power using only a constant coefficient depending on surface ðs Þ and efficiency ðz Þ [9]. P ¼ Insolation Z S (5) Battery model The battery input power can be positive or negative depending on the charge or discharge mode of operation. The battery power is obtained from Eq. (6). P BAT ¼ P þ P FC P LOAD (6) The state of charge (SOC) is deduced from the battery power and efficiency: Z SOC BAT ¼ ðp BAT CHARGING Z BAT P BAT DISCHARGING Þ dt (7) When the battery SOC is lower than a threshold value the FC is activated. On the contrary, when SOC is higher to a threshold value, FC is stopped and the electrolizer starts up: the battery power given in Eq. (6) becomes the electrolizer

5 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY 33 (28) Fig. 6 Third configuration model: storage with hydrogen and lead acid-battery, photovoltaic source and load are also present. power (see Eq. (8)). P ELEC ¼ P P LOAD (8) Electrolizer model The electrolizer is simply considered as a constant gain corresponding to the electrolizer efficiency and an integrator to determine the amount of produced hydrogen. The amount of hydrogen consumed by the FC is also determined. The difference between both gives the amount of available stored hydrogen, following Eq. (9). Z SOC ELEC ¼ ðp ELECTROLIZER Z ELECTROLIZER Þ dt Z P FC dt (9) Z FC FC model This model permits to calculate hydrogen consumption according to the delivered power. Indeed FC efficiency ðz FC Þ, appearing in Eq. (9), is not constant. The difficulty is to consider that the FC efficiency only depends on the power delivered. The ratio of energy consumed in hydrogen form and the electrical energy produced is called global efficiency ðz global Þ. As shown in Eq. (), it can be expressed as function of other efficiencies. Z global ¼ Z total Z matter Z system () where Z system takes into account the auxiliary consumptions. Eq. () defines it as the ratio between the net and the gross power: Z system ¼ P net () P gross Efficiency Z matter takes into account the hydrogen losses. In fact, all the fuel is not consumed and the efficiency depends on the FC hydrogen supply mode. The case considered here is the closed mode where the matter efficiency is estimated between 2% and 5% due to frequents purges of hydrogen circuit. Efficiency Z total is the ratio between the real voltage ðv ðjþ Þ and the theoretical voltage ðe fictive Þ if the system would transform the entire chemical energy (contained in hydrogen) in electrical energy. V ðjþ Z total ¼ Z E F (2) fictive Efficiency Z F is called faradic efficiency and is assumed to be %. Eq. (3) links FC voltage V with the current density j [,]. V ðjþ ¼ E DV act DV ohm DV conc (3) In Eq. (3), E represents the open cell voltage, DV act represents the activation overpotential, DV ohm represents the ohmic overpotential and DV conc represents the concentration overpotential. It can also be expressed as in Eq. (4) with the detailed expression of the overpotentials (DV s). V ðjþ ¼ E A ac ln j rj m expðn jþ (4) b In this empirical equation, A ac represents the Tafel slope, b the activation coefficient, r the ohmic resistance coefficient, m and n are the concentration coefficients. Considering a Ballard Mark V FC where the parameters are given in Table 2, the gross power and voltage FC against current density is plotted (Fig. 7) [2]. A maximal power working point ðp MAX Þ of 622 wm=cm 2 exists for a current density of 2 ma=cm 2. An operational point over this value is not of any interest, because it would increase losses for a lower power. Considering unitary gross power ðp Unitary Þ defined in Eq. (5), a correspondence between voltage and gross power is obtained. Then the total efficiency and the gross power can also be linked (Fig. 8). P Unitary ¼ V ðjþ j (5) P MAX

6 2876 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY 33 (28) Table 2 Ballard Mark V fuel cell parameters Parameter Value Unit A ac 2:89 2 V b.4 ma=cm 2 r 2:4 4 A=cm 2 m :4 5 V n 8 3 cm 2 =ma Cell Voltage (V) Voltage Power Current density (A/cm 2 ) Fig. 7 Fuel cell voltage and power evolutions against current density Gross Power (mw) Finally, based on Eqs. () and (5), it is possible to obtain a relation between global efficiency and the unitary gross power. The FC model developed with Simulink is shown Fig. 9. The signal Start FC controls the FC start and stop Simulation results and discussions When the FC does not work because the battery SOC is high enough (see Fig. (a)) and the solar power is too weak, the load is supplied by the battery. When the solar power rises during the day, load is directly supplied by and battery is in charging mode. When the battery SOC reaches its nominal value, battery charging is stopped and electrolizer is activated (see Fig. (b)). When the FC is working (see Fig. ), it supplies the load up to 5 W. Over this value, either supplies the additional load or the battery supplies it when solar radiation does not exist. During the day, the charges the battery and when battery reaches its nominal SOC, the FC is stopped. Many other energy management techniques could be implemented but a simple energy approach has been preferred to support the economic stand-point Cost optimization A cost optimization is realizable based on the third and the first configuration but not for the second one. Indeed, the Total efficiency Unitary Gross Power Global efficiency (%) Unitary Gross Power Fig. 8 Fuel cell efficiencies against unitary gross power. (a) Total efficiency against unitary gross power and (b) global efficiency against unitary gross power. Start FC 2 Power Saturation Paux Add Multiply + + -K- -C- -K- 3 5 Gross Power H2 Power Unitary Gross Power --> Add Efficiency 4 Net Power 6 Auxiliary Power + + Divide Fig. 9 Simulink FC model. s Integrator / Tenth of Hour Wh->m3 H2 Energy in Wh 2 H2 Quantity in m3 at 5 C and atm

7 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY 33 (28) Bat Table 3 Costs of the elements Device Value Unit Lifetime Power (W) Poly-crystalline 5 h=w peak 2 years Lead-acid battery 9 h=kwh 5 years Alkaline electrolizer 5 h=w 2 years PEM fuel cell 8 h=w 5 h Hydrogen.39 h=m 3 (normal) Power (W) Time (hours) Pbat Pelec Time (Hours) Ebat Fig. Powers and energies evolutions during 24 h when FC does not work. (a) and BAT powers and (b) battery and electrolizer powers and stored energy in the battery. Power (W) Time (hours) Bat FC Fig. Powers evolution during 24 h when FC works. second configuration is fully determined with the first sizing presented in Section and, consequently, it does not need an optimization. The function to optimize is the system cost. The system cost function is defined as a sum of cost, battery cost, hydrogen cost and FC cost. C system ¼ C þ C BAT þ C H2 þ C FC (6) The cost is proportional to the power (or surface) and the battery cost is proportional to the battery capacity. Energy (Wh) This hypothesis is verified for low-power systems. Table 3 details the unitary cost of the elements [8]. The hydrogen cost applies only for the first configuration and this cost takes into account the production from a large plant by electrolysis and the transportation. The details of the hydrogen cost are available in [3]. Based on those unitary costs, the system total cost is defined, but the amount of consumed hydrogen remains to be determined. This information comes directly from the simulation. The simulation model is run for several combinations of power and battery capacity and the hydrogen consumption and the FC working rate is obtained. After that, these results are used to calculate the total cost of the system, assuming the system lifetime is 2 years (equal to the lifetime). Fig. 2 shows the optimal combination of power and battery capacity. In the configuration, the minimum system cost is obtained for the following combination of power and battery capacity: P ¼ 54 W; Cap BAT ¼ 2kWh This leads to a cost of 4544h for 2 years of operation. 4. Comparison of configurations 4.. Configurations costs With the optimization of configurations and 3, the costs are estimated and presented in Table 4. The kwh price based on a 2 years lifetime is also presented (see Eq. (7)). The kwh price can be compared to the average price proposed by EDF (Electricity of France, French company producing electricity) which is about :2 h=kwh, without taking into account the price of distribution extension in case of isolated site. C system P kwh ¼ 2 years R (7) P load The second configuration is times more costly than the other systems because it uses only the hydrogen storage system. Indeed, the efficiency of the hydrogen storage system is very low and therefore the has to be larger to produce more energy. Furthermore, the FC has also to be more powerful to supply the maximum load power. Consequently, based on the current cost of FCs and the efficiency of a hydrogen storage system, a configuration relying only on a hydrogen storage system is much more expensive than a solution implying a battery.

8 2878 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY 33 (28) Total Cost ( ) Battery Capacity (Wh) surface (m 2 ) 2 Fig. 2 Cost optimization of the first configuration. Table 4 Configuration cost during 2 years working Cost ðhþ The global configuration efficiency ðz Global Configuration Þ is the ratio between the energy consumed by the load ðe Consumed Þ and the energy produced by the ðe from Þ plus the energy consumed under hydrogen form ðe from H2 Þ as expressed in Eq. (8) (E from H2 applies only for the first configuration). The global configuration efficiency allows to estimate the waste of energy between the production and the consumption. This waste is due to the FC efficiency and the battery efficiency. Consequently, it should be remarked that the global configuration efficiency can be higher than the FC efficiency. E Consumed Z Global Configuration ¼ (8) E from þ E from H Best configuration choice kwh price ðh=kwhþ Global configuration efficiency (%) Configuration About 5 Configuration 2 43,3 4:943 22:4 Configuration About 5 Regarding the cost, the configuration 2 is not currently feasible. However, according to the DOE, the target cost for FC in 25 is about :3 h=w [4,5]. Furthermore, the improvements for FC should also concern the electrolizer. In this way, the cost of the second configuration could be less than :5 h=kwh and so, the configuration 2 remains a promising solution for the future. The two other configurations are feasible in term of cost; the cost is about 5 times higher than the tariffs of EDF. However, configuration 3 proposes a completely stand-alone solution, producing hydrogen on site. On the other hand it is more expensive and configuration could be preferred. Configuration is a real alternative to the classical system coupling, battery and diesel generator. 5. Conclusion This paper developed the economic study of three different systems associating photovoltaic sources and fuel cells. Three major ways to gather two sources have been covered: battery storage, hydrogen storage and the use of both. A dimensioning procedure for the systems has been presented. In order to check the validity of this procedure, a simulation model has been made for each configuration. The simulation, based on a realistic photovoltaic production over one year, has allowed to observe the energy flow. The models and results of the dimensioning have been used to find the optimal sizing of the configurations. An optimal sizing of each configuration allowed to fairly compare the three possibilities of mixing the two sources of energy. It was concluded that the solution relying on the only use of hydrogen storage is currently not feasible. However, this solution could be preferred in near future when electrolizers and fuel cells become more affordable. The two other configurations are similar on the cost point of view. The choice among them mainly relies on the use of the system. If the system s site can be reached to bring hydrogen, the configuration relying on battery storage and fuel cell supplied by an external tank is the best. For a fullyautonomous system, the configuration featuring both hydrogen and battery storage is preferred. Acknowledgment The authors thank Total to have originated this project and for their interest on this work. R E F E R E N C E S [] Anne L, Michel V. Energie solaire photovoltaique. Paris: Dunod; 26.

9 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY 33 (28) [2] Kroposki B, Levene J, Harrison K, Sen PK, Novachek F. Electrolysis: opportunities for electric power utilities in a hydrogen economy. 38th North American power symposium; 26. p [3] Nelson DB, Nehrir MH, Wang C. Unit sizing of stand-alone hybrid wind//fuel cell power generation systems. IEEE Power Eng Soc General Meeting 25;3: [4] Padro CEG, Lau F. Advances in hydrogen energy. New York: Plenum Publishing; 2. [5] Iannone F, Leva S, Zaninelli D. Hybrid photovoltaic and hybrid photovoltaic-fuel cell system: economic and environmental analysis. IEEE Power Eng Soc General Meeting 25;2:53 9. [6] CNRS, Weather data hhttp:// shtmli. [7] Tiwari GN. Solar energy: fundamentals, design, modelling and applications. Alpha Science; 22. [8] Busquet S. Etude d un système autonome de production d énergie couplant un champ photovoltaïque, un électrolyseur et une pile à combustible: réalisation d un banc d essai et modélisation. Dept. Energétique, Ecole des Mines de Paris, 23. [9] Chedid R, Akiki H, Rahman S. A decision support technique for the design of hybrid solar-wind power systems. IEEE Trans Energy Conversion 998;3(): [] Larminie J, Dicks A. Fuel cell systems explained. New York: Wiley; 2. [] Blunier B, Miraoui A. Piles a combustible, Principe, modelisation et applications. Technosup; 27 [in French]. [2] Laurencelle F, Chahine R, Hamelin J. Characterization of a Ballard MK5-E proton exchange membrane fuel cell stack. Fuel Cells 2():66 7. [3] hwww.afh2.orgi, Etude technico-économique prospective sur le coût de l hydrogène. Mémento de l Hydrogène, Fiche, 26, available online: hhttp:// [4] DOE hydrogen, fuel cells and infrastructure technologies program, multi-year research, development and demonstration plan. U.S. Department of Energy, May 27, available online: hwww.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/i. [5] Blunier B, Miraoui A. Air management in PEM fuel cell: stateof-the-art and prospectives. IEEE-PES-MSC, ACEMP 7, Electromotion, 27, p