Deliverable 5.2 Public Report on Test Results

Transcription

1 Fuel Cell Field Test Demonstration of Economic and Environmental Viability for Portable Generators, Backup and UPS Power System Applications Deliverable 5.2 Public Report on Test Results Version 1.3 Report submission date: 30/06/2014 Dissemination level: PU Work Package 5, Data Analysis Work Package Leader: Istanbul Bilgi University Contributors: ElectroPS, FutureE, Environment Park, LUASA, JRC, Unitov, ICHET This project is co-financed by funds from the European Commission under Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking Application Area: Early Markets Topic: Portable generators, backup and UPS power systems FCH-JU Grant Agreement Number:

2 Contact Details Project coordinator ElectroPS Ilaria Rosso Document prepared by Istanbul Bilgi Universtiy Mustafa Fazil Serincan Lucerne Applied Sciences and Arts Ulrike Trachte Environment Park Alessandro Graizzaro Joint Research Centre Alberto Pilenga FITUP D of 20 Public

3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Overview of the FITUP Project Overview of the State of the Art Technology Strategy and Work Plan Objective of WP Testing of Systems Test Sites and Specification of the Systems Manufacturing and Installation of the Systems Progress of tests On field Tests Laboratory Tests Test Results Conclusion References FITUP D of 20 Public

4 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview of the FITUP Project A total of 19 market-ready fuel cell systems from two suppliers, Electro Power Systems and Future-E, have been installed as backup power sources in selected sites across Europe. Customers from the telecommunications industry and public safety departments in Italy, Switzerland and Turkey tested these fuel cell-based systems in real life conditions, with power levels in the 3-12 kw range. The goal of the project is to demonstrate a level of technical performance (start-up time, reliability, durability, number of cycles) that qualifies them for market entry, thereby accelerating the commercialization of this technology in Europe and elsewhere. FITUP project has involved testing systems from both fuel cell suppliers at real life-conditions and laboratory benchmarking tests according to a test protocol developed in the scope of the project. The performance and availability data have been logged and analysed to draw conclusions regarding commercial viability and degree to which they meet customer requirements, as well as suggesting areas for improvement. Also, a lifecycle analysis using data from the project have been carried out to determine economic and environmental value proposition over incumbent technologies such as batteries or diesel generators. The system producers used the results of the tests to obtain valuable first hand feedback from customers and optimized their systems as needed in the course of the project. On the other hand, final users participated in the project have had the chance for first-hand experience of the use of fuel cells to be used in their applications. Another goal of the project is to develop a certification procedure, under the supervision of TÜV Süd, valid in the countries of the project where either the fuel cells systems are produced or tested. Moreover, the dissemination of project is aimed towards improving the industry awareness of the fuel cell systems and pave the way for market penetration. The consortium consists of large and small entities, which are fuel cell suppliers, end users and R&D centres (for data acquisition and analysis). The list of partners is given in Table 1. The partners are located throughout Europe covering a range of environmental conditions, such as those found in Italy, Switzerland and Turkey. Table 1: List of partners Partner Name Country Role in the project Electro Power Systems Italy Fuel cell manufacturer FutureE Fuel Cell Solutions Germany Fuel cell manufacturer Environment Park Italy R&D centre Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts Switzerland R&D centre FITUP D of 20 Public

5 UNIDO-ICHET (left the project) Turkey R&D centre Joint Research Centre Netherlands R&D centre TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Germany Certification body Swisscom (Schweiz) AG Switzerland End user Wind Italy End user Betriebskommission Polycom Nidwalden (BKPNW) Switzerland End user Università di Roma Tor Vergata Italy R&D centre Istanbul Bilgi University Turkey R&D centre 1.2 Overview of the State of the Art Technology Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that convert chemical energy in fuels into electrical energy directly, with high efficiency and low environmental impact. Since there is no combustion process, there are none of the pollutants commonly produced by boilers and furnaces. For systems using hydrogen directly, the only by-products are water and heat. There is a wide range of potential applications for fuel cells including transportation, onsite residential power generation, auxiliary power systems and material handling. Figure 1 show the total number of units installed worldwide for different application areas. Fuel cells are very promising technology for automotive applications when concerned with high range and fast refuelling requirements of the alternative technology replacing internal combustion engines. On the other hand, the commercialization of fuel cell vehicles can take up some more time due to lack of fuelling infrastructure and high costs associated with the very small scale of manufacturing. However, even with the current state of the technology, fuel cells have become commercially viable solutions for some applications such as material handling and backup power. This is mainly due to the attenuated operating costs of fuel cell systems when compared to competing battery and fossil-fuel technologies. Backup power technologies currently include batteries and generators operating on diesel, propane, or gasoline where the former has advantages of zero emissions operation standing out for indoor applications. Fuel cells also being emissions free become another alternative when environmental impacts are concerned. Moreover, compared to batteries, fuel cells offer longer continuous runtime and greater durability in harsh outdoor environments under a wide range of temperature conditions. With fewer moving parts, they require less maintenance than both generators and batteries. FITUP D of 20 Public

6 Figure 1: Overall deployment of fuel cell systems in the world 1. Also lifetime of the fuel cell systems is higher than battery systems, significantly reducing the maintenance costs associated with replacement batteries. Several studies have pointed out the economic benefits of fuel cells over these other 2,3. In a study for the U.S. Department of Energy, Battelle Memorial Institute analysed lifecycle costs of emergency response radio towers, comparing fuel cells with a 2 kw battery-only backup (8 hours autonomy) and a 5 kw battery-diesel generator backup (52 hours, 72 hours, and 176 hours backup duration). PEM fuel cells can provide service at substantially lower total cost than current technologies (the higher cost for the fuel cell system for the 176-hour backup results from the cost of hydrogen storage tank rental). The main components of the fuel cell UPS systems as seen in Figure 2 are the following: PEM fuel cell(s) fuel cell auxiliary equipment (air blower, water pump, power electronics, ) start-up batteries (or ultracapacitors) electrolyser (only for models with autonomous hydrogen production). The systems without electrolysers produce electric power using pure hydrogen as energy source; therefore, they are connected to external hydrogen tanks. Systems equipped with the electrolyser need tri-phase electric power as an input to produce hydrogen, stored in a hydrogen reservoir. During the last few years, backup power sources based on fuel cell technology have experienced a significant surge in interest, due to the fact that they can offer economic advantages to potential users, as well as technical and environmental benefits. These potential benefits may be briefly summarised as follows: autonomy - fuel cells are able to operate as long as there is available fuel, and therefore can have longer autonomy when compared to a battery. This is due to the FITUP D of 20 Public

7 Figure 2: General layout of a fuel cell UPS system inherent nature of hydrogen fuel cells, which separate the energy and power sources, as opposed to batteries remote monitoring - fuel cells can be fully monitored from one central location, alerting the operator when the system is in use and how much time it can run before refuelling is required, to ensure no downtime footprint - the space required for the same period of runtime is considerably less for fuel cells than for battery banks fuels - the majority of these systems operate on hydrogen (in this instance the only emission is water), which can be generated from renewable sources (electrolysis) or fossil fuel reforming cost - over its lifetime these units can offer cost savings over existing technologies (taking into account maintenance, repairs, transport and disposal) reliability - in many cases, fuel cells are able to offer higher reliability and MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures), and there is low degradation of voltage over time; failures tend to be less critical and easily dealt with environmental - fuel cells using hydrogen produce only water vapour, presenting a clear advantage over diesel generators which generate pollutants and significant CO2 emissions; batteries present instead the issue of their recycling, especially with the large presence of lead, which requires special measures maintenance - fuel cells have very few moving parts which reduces the need for regular maintenance lifetime - longer lifetimes than batteries, in UPS systems requiring hours of annual use fuel cells can meet years of lifetime with present status of technology; batteries must be replaced approximately every 3-5 years due to self discharge regardless of their hours of real use. FITUP D of 20 Public

8 Sales and installations of backup power systems in the US have been increased recently with the federal grants and tax incentives. Latest reports show that there have been 5023 fuel cell backup power units deployed in the US of these systems are government funded which presumably led to 4116 industry funded installations. Industry installations itself jumped from 3593 to 4116, about 15% in the last one year. Total amount of government funding for these systems are reported to be $18.5 million. These funding are utilized in the sites of US telecom operators such as AT&T, Sprint, utilities company PG&E and military sites of Warner Robins Air Force Base and Fort Irwin. These kind of incentives definitely has helped fuel cell industry in the US with companies like ReliOn Inc reporting more than 3.9 MW of installed capacity in more than 1350 customer sites, Altergy Systems reaching more than 5 million hours of operation in the telecommunications applications 5 and stack manufacturer Plug Power deploying more than 4500 stacks for various applications accumulating over 20 million hours of runtime 6. Developing countries also increasingly used fuel cells for back-up and remote power. Wireless TT Info Services in India purchasing 200 Plug Power systems. IdaTech continued its focus on Indonesia, receiving an order for 154 ElectraGen H2 fuel cell systems, adding to the more than 100 IdaTech fuel cell systems already installed across Indonesia for telecommunications backup power 7. In 2012, Idea Celullar of India ordered 30 systems from Ballard following the regulations of the Indian government which required 50% of the rural base stations and 33% of the urban ones using hybrid power sources including fuel cells 8. Indonesian company Cascadiant ordered 102 Ballard systems to be used in their networks reaching 500 units cumulative. Moreover, Ballard reported shipment of 300 units to Inala Technologies in S. Africa, 350 units to NSN in Japan and 170 units to Azure Hydrogen in China 9. In the EU, the manufacturers have made inroads into the marketplace, but could still greatly benefit from a project such as FITUP. So far, the level of sales in EU countries by EU suppliers appears to have been somewhat limited, although they have been increasing. The fuel cell suppliers participating in the FITUP project are ramping up production of their units. At the same time, widespread knowledge of this technology is still an objective to be achieved in order for potential users from a number of industries to consider using fuel cells, alongside batteries or diesel generators. Because the number of demonstrations of fuel cell-based backup power applications has been limited, there is a lack of data for users to access. Without references, many potential users are understandably reticent to try a new technology that provides reliability for their networks, e.g. in the case of the telecommunications industry. Furthermore, the set of criteria for commercialization that are included in the call regarding reliability, durability, cost, cyclability and response times, have not, as a whole, been proven with a representative set of units. FITUP project s aim is to overcome these problems, carrying on an extensive test campaign that will supply data about the systems and spread technology knowledge. 1.3 Strategy and Work Plan The strategy of the work plan is laid out in three separate major steps. First, the systems were produced and installed prior to testing the systems, second, testing of all systems took place at sites selected by final users, third, the data from the field tests have been gathered and evaluated; conclusions on lessons learned, suggestions for improvement and a full lifecycle analysis have been carried out enabling assessment of FITUP D of 20 Public

9 Table 2: List of work packages WP No Work package title WP leader Start month End month 1 Project management ElectroPS Production of the Fuel Cell Systems ICHET Installation Lucerne UASA Testing EP Data analysis IBU Certification ElectroPS Dissemination and Exploitation IBU 1 36 environmental, technical and economic feasibility of the use of this technology. The list of the work packages is given in Table 2. During the first phase, before the systems are tested, a number of steps were taken. These include: Produce and install fuel cell systems Install hydrogen infrastructure that meet applicable legislation and customer requirements Determine and install testing equipment and monitoring protocol to be implemented Develop test architecture and protocol Following the development of the test protocol and installations of the systems, the testing phase started and continued throughout the rest of the project. This phase comprises benchmarking procedures as well as field demonstrations. The benchmarking activities provide a reference against which the results from field trials can be compared. Testing activities have been accompanied and supported with the data analysis in WP5. Testing algorithms are indeed modified in order to efficiently deal with the collected data. In this work package the collected data will be interpreted to assess the fuel cell systems within the scope of project outcomes. There are three other tasks that are ancillary, yet vitally important to the success of the project. WP s 1, 6 and 7 complement the work outlined. WP1 deals with management and coordination. In WP6 a certification procedure suitable for these systems across the EU will be proposed. In WP7 dissemination activities will be carried out, including website management and organisation and attendance at seminars or workshops. 1.4 Objective of WP 5 Data collected from field tests have been used to evaluate whether the stated objectives of lifetime and cycle times have been achieved. Data analysis have been implemented with respect to the guidelines developed by the work package partners in order to sustain highest level of harmony possible. Activities in this work package can be grouped as analysis of the data of the laboratory tests, analysis of the data of on-field tests and life cycle analysis. FITUP D of 20 Public

10 Field test data at different sites have been analyzed and the performance of the systems have been evaluated when exposed to a variety of different ambient conditions. Additionally, life cycle analysis considering the entire lifecycle of the units, including issues related to hydrogen supply has addressed economic and environmental viability of this technology when compared to conventional solutions commercially available today. These tasks have been carried out within WP5. FITUP D of 20 Public

11 2. Testing of Systems A total of 13 fuel cell UPS systems have been installed and tested under real world operating conditions at end user sites and 6 systems have been tested in the laboratory conditions. 2.1 Test Sites and Specification of the Systems A total of 19 system have been tested in this project with 13 market ready systems installed at real world sites of telecommunications and police communications stations across Europe and 6 systems installed at the R&D centres for benchmark tests. Main system specifications are listed in Table 3. Table 3: Specifications of on-field installations Analysis Power ID Location End-user App. Man. Voltage by kw 1 CH-Lucerne Swisscom Telecom EPS LUASA 6-48 VDC 2 CH-Lucerne Swisscom Telecom FE LUASA 6-48 VDC 3 CH-Zisers Swisscom Telecom EPS LUASA 6-48 VDC 4 CH-Davos Swisscom Telecom FE LUASA 6-48 VDC 5 CH-Chur Swisscom Telecom EPS LUASA 6-48 VDC 6 CH-Nidwalden BKPNW Polycom FE LUASA 4-48 VDC, 230 VAC 7 CH-Nidwalden BKPNW Polycom EPS LUASA 3-48 VDC, 230 VAC 8 CH-Nidwalden BKPNW Polycom FE LUASA 4-48 VDC, 230 VAC 9 I- S. Milanese WIND Telecom EPS EP 12 + elec. 380 VAC 10 I-Milano WIND Telecom EPS EP 6 + elec. 380 VAC 11 I-Pavia WIND Telecom EPS EP 6 + elec. 380 VAC 12 TR-Bursa Turkcell Telecom EPS IBU 6 + elec. -48 VDC 13 TR-Bursa Turkcell Telecom FE IBU 4 + elec. -48 VDC 14 NL-Petten JRC Benchmark EPS JRC 6-48 VDC 15 NL-Petten JRC Benchmark FE JRC 6-48 VDC 16 NL-Petten JRC Climate EPS JRC 6-48 VDC 17 NL-Petten JRC Climate FE JRC 6-48 VDC 18 I-Torino EnviPark Benchmark EPS EP 6-48 VDC 19 D-Stuttgart FutureE Benchmark FE LUASA 6-48 VDC FITUP D of 20 Public

12 Five of the eight sites in Switzerland are telecom base stations of Swisscom and the other 3 are the security network stations of BKPNW. There are 3 systems installed in Italy and 2 systems in Turkey both in the sites of local telecom operators. Specifications were determined after site visits and interviews with the end-users. System specifications vary with respect to the end user such that systems for Polycom applications provide both DC and AC current and systems in Italy and Turkey are all equipped with electrolyzers. On the other hand, there are 4 systems, two from each manufacturer, installed at R&D centres tested for long-term durability of the systems. Moreover there were two more laboratory systems that were tested in the climate chamber found at JRC. All of the benchmark systems have 6 kw rated output power. 2.2 Manufacturing and Installation of the Systems Systems are manufactured with respect to the specifications required by the endusers following the site surveys and also taking into account of the main specifications prescribed in the project s Description of Work. No specific issue with manufacturing were reported by either supplier. Details of the manufacturing activities have been reported in deliverables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. After the shipment of the manufactured units, sites were prepared for the installation. Installations at the sites in Turkey were delayed due to the external partner Turkcell participated in the project as an end user long after the project started. Timeline of the installations for the systems can be seen in Table 3. Details of the activities related to installation have been reported in deliverables 3.1 and 3.2. Table 4: Overall results of on-field installations Cycles Cycles Hours Hours Location target done target done OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF Lab Lab Lab Lab FITUP D of 20 Public

13 2.3 Progress of tests Status of the testing activities of the project can be seen in Table 4 in comparison to the expected numbers found in the project s Description of Work. Test cycles have been implemented in each site according to a specific test procedure developed for different type of applications. Italian and Turkish installations use the specific test procedure developed for systems with electrolyzer whereas some of the Swiss installations use the test procedure developed for systems that require hydrogen delivery in high-pressure cylinders. On the other hand since security networks require higher system reliability due to more stringent regulations, policom installations in Switzerland employ a particular test procedure. Moreover for the benchmark a separate test procedure is developed to conduct 1000 cycles and 1500 hours of laboratory tests. Each test procedure is made of a number of different types of cycles. Each cycle is defined by a waiting period followed by a working period of the system which are called as System OFF and ON times corresponding to Grid ON and OFF respectively. These cycles are given in Table 5. Testing procedures and cycles have been elaborated in deliverable 4.1: Development of Test Protocol. Here C1 and C2 are reserved only for the benchmark tests On field Tests In Switzerland a total of 8 systems were installed in the field, whereof 5 systems were tested at Swiss telecom operator Swisscom and three systems at POLYCOM sites for the national security network. For all systems hydrogen were supplied in 200 bar pressure cylinders with a volume of 50 liter. At the end of the on-field testing the target was completely fulfilled with a total of 4082 cycles and 1054 grid-off hours. About 1.9 MWh of energy were produced during grid failure simulations at real life installations in the field. The tests were performed in accordance with the developed testing procedures. One system for the security network was tested for nearly 72 hours to meet the requirements of the end user. In Italy a total of three systems were installed and tested in the on-field site of telecom operator WIND. The 3 systems installed in Italy are equipped with an electrolyser and a booster for hydrogen compression up to 150 bar. During the on-field test 590 hour of testing was completed for a total of 1645 cycles consisting three different type of cycles: A1, A2 and B2. Table 5: Different cycles employed in the test procedures Cycle System OFF duration System ON duration A A B B C C FITUP D of 20 Public

14 Table 6: Cycle Distribution of test sites in on-field locations A1 A2 B2 Cycles Hours Cycles Hours Cycles Hours OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF Total There were two systems tested in Turkey. Both of the systems are installed at the telecom operator Turkcell s sites in Bursa. Total of 625 cycles corresponding to 298 hours of tests. Turkcell joined the project after it started as an external partner. Previously tests in Turkey would take place in some residential building. Both systems in Turkey were equipped with electrolyzers one with 150 bar and the other 30 bar of hydrogen storage depending on the manufacturer Laboratory Tests Progress of the tests is represented using a combined history chart. History charts are drawn for the number of tests and the number of test hours. Additional information on the energy produced by the system was added. A the end of the testing period more than 4600 hours of test were completed, with over 4000 cycles and a production of 16 MWh of electric energy. Number of start-up cycles affects the life of the systems. For this reason, two targets were defined: 1000 Start-up / Shut-down cycles 1500 hours of operation A target number of start-up shut-down cycles was defined at the beginning of the project and reached in all the installations. The target number of 1500 hours of operation was not reached in all the sites. FITUP D of 20 Public

15 4045 Cycles kwh 4632 Hours JRC has received the systems from the manufacturers and prepared the test setup according to the agreed testing protocol. Here below some pictures of the installations: System of both manufacturers at JRC environmental chamber JRC laboratories are capable of running test with no interruption and climatic chamber test as shown in the above picture. For this reason the C Type long time interruption tests were done by JRC. The C Type interruption consists of a 3 days interruption test. Table 7: Cycle Distribution of benchmark tests A1+A2 B1+B2 C1+C2 Cycles Hours Cycles Hours Cycles Hours Lab Lab Lab Lab FITUP D of 20 Public

16 Following the shutdown of ICHET and rearrangement of the consortium and work plan accordingly, two systems that had been tested at ICHET were sent to FutureE and Environment Park. EP has received and tested the EPS system in the Turin laboratory facility. The FutureE System was sent to FutureE in order to perform the benchmark tests. 2.4 Test Results Project objectives were determined as to prove: Reliability greater than 95% Response time less than 5 ms 1500 hours and 1000 cycle of durability tests performed in laboratory conditions The reliability of the systems is the fundamental requirement of the end users for backup solutions. The fuel cell systems and the gas supply infrastructure were stressed with the numerous testing cycles. The objective in the project was to show a reliability of more than 95% for the fuel cell units. Response time is defined as the time it takes for the system to recover from beyond the voltage range specified in ETSI standards for telecommunication applications. The acceptable voltage range is between V DC and -57 V DC. Figure 3 demonstrates how to calculate response time. On the other hand, if the system voltage stays in this range, response time is defined zero. Figure 3: Definition of response time Finally another important objective of the project is to prove fuel cell systems having lifetime more than 1500 hours and 1000 cycles. This objective was expected to be validated in benchmark tests. Since targets of the long term tests are not expected with the on-field systems, it will be justified in the on-field installations as whether the systems provide the or not. Test results are given in Table 8. As it can be seen from the reliability results onfield systems have a varying reliability between 96.6% and 100%. These values are greater than project target of 95%. A total of 6070 cycles have been tested in these 13 systems corresponding to 1941 hours of testing. The systems responded to 6023 of these grid failure simulations FITUP D of 20 Public

17 successfully making the average reliability of 99.2% which is well above the project goals. Individual system reliability has differed from 97.0% to 100%, which assures each of tested systems has surpassed the projected goals individually. Response time of all the on-field and laboratory systems are proven to be practically 0 which obviously satisfy the project targets. All the on-field systems and benchmark systems responded immediately to a grid failure simulation thanks to the start-up batteries installed. Long term durability tests show that 3 of the benchmark systems surpassed 1000 cycle target and two of them surpassed 1500 hour target. The other system was tested for 952 hours and 765 cycles. In the on-field installations, it is observed that all the systems are able to provide the of the testing period. Table 8: Overall results of on-field installations System Reliability Time Response Performance Target Result Target Result Target Result OF 1 95% 100% 5ms 0 OF 2 95% 99.0% 5ms 0 OF 3 95% 99.8% 5ms 0 OF 4 95% 99.2% 5ms 0 OF 5 95% 98.8% 5ms 0 OF 6 95% 98.5% 5ms 0 OF 7 95% 99.8% 5ms 0 OF 8 95% 99.8% 5ms 0 OF 9 95% 98.3% 5ms 0 OF 10 95% 99.7% 5ms 0 OF 11 95% 100% 5ms 0 OF 12 95% 100% 5ms 0 OF 13 95% 97.0% 5ms 0 Lab 1 95% 99.7% 5ms 0 Lab 2 95% 99.8% 5ms 0 Lab 3 95% 99.7% 5ms 0 Lab 4 95% 97.5% 5ms hours 1000 cycles 1500 hours 1000 cycles 1500 hours 1000 cycles 1500 hours 1000 cycles 590 hours 1106 cycles 1543 hours 1087 cycles 1547 hours 1087 cycles 952 hours 765 cycles FITUP D of 20 Public

18 3. Conclusion On-field tests of thirteen fuel cell UPS systems have been implemented at the real world application sites of telecom companies and public security organizations in Switzerland, Italy and Turkey. On the other hand benchmark tests of six fuel cell UPS systems have been implemented at the research centres to validate the lifetime of the systems. Grid failures are imposed in these sites according to the test protocol developed for each application. Test protocol provides a tool to check whether the systems satisfy end-user backup power requirements at different levels of grid quality. Three distinct goal of the project has been focused in the test results and compared: Reliability greater than 95% Response time less than 5 ms 1500 hours and 1000 cycles of system lifetime in benchmark tests and no considerable performance deterioration for the on-field systems. The reliability of the systems is the fundamental requirement of the end users for backup solutions. The fuel cell systems and the gas supply infrastructure were stressed hardly with the numerous testing cycles. The objective in the project was to show a reliability of more than 95% for the fuel cell units. A total of 6352 cycles have been tested in these 13 systems corresponding to 1941 hours of testing. The systems responded to 6310 of these grid failure simulations successfully making the average reliability of 99.3%, which is well above the project goals. Individual system reliability has differed from 97% to 100%, which assures each of tested systems has surpassed the projected goals individually. In the benchmark tests 4045 cycles corresponding to 4632 hours of tests have been completed for four systems. All the systems reported 23 failures over 4045 power interruptions for an average reliability value of 99.4% which is very close to the average reliability of on-field tests. Combining all the tests in the project, a total of 10,397 cycles have been tested. Systems responded to 10,332 of these cycles successfully to provide 6573 hours of backup power without interruption. The average reliability of all 17 systems tested in the project reaches 99.4%. The total energy production during the tests has surpassed 18.7 MWh with an average power output of 2.85 kw for the 17 systems tested. When the failures are analyzed for each system, it is found that many of the failures are due to minor parts in the system like pressure regulator or valves. These can be avoided easily by using alternative products and optimizing the products. Indeed some parts in some systems have been replaced with new items as part of the manufacturers optimizing their product line in the course of the project with the insights acquired from the test results. Failures in the Italian and Turkish installations are mainly concentrated around hydrogen generation equipment, which can be avoided again by upgrading the available products with the feedback from the project. It should be also noted that electrolyzer was not included in the original project proposal. On-field installations in Switzerland with compressed hydrogen cylinders reached with more than 4000 cycles and over 1000 hours of operation time the fully target of testing. Average reliability of the systems tested in Swiss sites has been found to be FITUP D of 20 Public

19 99.4% which is higher than systems in Italy and Turkey that are equipped with electrolyzers. However, it was understood that there is not a single best solution that applies all. System architecture should be optimized with respect to the demands of the customer. At some sites systems with H2 generation may be preferred while in some cases hydrogen delivery may make more sense. With one test period of nearly 72 hours the system was tested according to the end user requirement for the security network. The fuel cell delivered the demanded power without any problems during this time and without maintenance personnel on site. This is a significant benefit of fuel cells in comparison with other backup solutions and shows the viability of the systems. Although test results agree well with the project goals, there may be stricter goals such that some end users of telecom and security network demand a reliability of more than 99.9%. The project showed that the quality of the peripheral parts is crucial for the reliability of the fuel cell systems and these goals can be reached by the optimization of the products. The response time for all systems was 0 ms due to the fact that the start-up batteries were always attached to the bus bar. In case of a grid failure they are able to deliver the demanded power without interruption until the fuel cell starts up. With this system architecture the objective of the project to show a response time less than 5 ms is completely achieved. Long term durability tests prove that for two systems expected lifetime has been reached both in terms of cycles and operating hours whereas in one system only number of cycles have been reached to keep up with the project timeline. The fourth system was tested for 952 hours and 765 cycles, which fell below project targets. Moreover, climatic chamber tests have proven the systems can safely start-up in cold conditions and operate in tropical environment. Finally all the systems are proven to provide the same of the tests, which hints that there is not a considerable deterioration in the system performance. FITUP D of 20 Public

20 References 1 Fuel Cell Today Industry Review 2013, Johnson Mathew PLC, DOE Hydrogen Program - Early Markets: Fuel Cells for Backup Power, APCO Annual Conference and Expo: Fuel Cells for Critical Communications Backup Power, DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Record # Fuel Cell Technologies 2011 Market Report: 6 Plug Power Announces 2014 First Quarter Results, June 18, 2014: 14/PLUG_POWER_ANNOUNCES_2014_FIRST_QUARTER_RESULTS.aspx Fuel Cell Technologies Market Report, US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE/GO , June Fuel Cell Technologies Market Report, U.S. Department of Energy s Fuel Cell Technologies Office within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, October Progress in FCH Deployment in Europe and the World, Ballard Company Presentation by John Sheridan, FCH JU 6th Stakeholder General Assembly, FITUP D of 20 Public