Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle report 2017

The geography and weather patterns of the Salt Lake Valley coupled with vehicle, building, and industrial emissions cause the breathable air quality to drop below safe levels multiple times per year. While street legal vehicles and industrial facilities contribute most heavily to this phenomenon, gasoline powered university fleet vehicles contribute as well.

HYDROGEN FUEL CELL VEHICLE Prepared for the Office for Campus Sustainability at the University of Utah Students Braulio Cuandon Andrew Hurlbut Chris Landes Nate Mattison Jeremy Villata Faculty Dr. Mathieu Francoeur and Dr. Amanda Smith Department of Mechanical Engineering June 27, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Intro ................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Background...................................................................................................................... 3 3. Project Requirements....................................................................................................... 4 4. Outcomes ......................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Build Summary .......................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Energy Efficiency ...................................................................................................... 7 4.3 Costs .......................................................................................................................... 8 4.4 Emission Reduction ................................................................................................... 9 5. Future Developments..................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Electrical Recommendations ................................................................................... 10 5.2 Mechanical Recommendations ................................................................................ 11 6. Outreach and Publicity .................................................................................................. 12 7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 12 8. Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... 13 9. References ..................................................................................................................... 14 10. Appendix ..................................................................................................................... 15 2 1. Intro The geography and weather patterns of the Salt Lake Valley coupled with vehicle, building, and industrial emissions cause the breathable air quality to drop below safe levels multiple times per year. While street legal vehicles and industrial facilities contribute most heavily to this phenomenon, gasoline powered university fleet vehicles contribute as well. Funding was awarded from Sustainable Campus Initiative Fund to remove a gasoline-powered fleet vehicle from operation and refit it with an electric power train and hydrogen fuel cell stack. The original gas vehicle’s emissions were classified and compared to the site and source emissions associated with fully electric counterparts and the final electric-hydrogen configuration. This project served as a campus sustainability endeavor, but also provided the required project material for the students’ Mechanical Engineering Senior project as well as served as a resource for several other technical courses. 2. Background As stated in the project proposal, PM2.5 levels in the Salt Lake Valley reach unsafe levels for all demographics multiple times per year. PM2.5 includes all particulate matter that measures 2.5 micrometers across or less. These particles are primarily formed when NOx emissions are released into the atmosphere during combustion of solid or fossil fuels. Particles of this size pose respiratory health concerns due to propensity to become lodged in lung capillaries. In addition to the NOx emissions that directly affect the “inversions” in the Salt Lake Valley, combustion processes also contribute large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 is widely regarded as a leading cause of global warming. In 2015 the University of Utah Air Quality Task Force identified the university as one of 28 “major point sources” of air quality emissions in the Salt Lake non-attainment area. Also stating that …Although the University accounts for less than 2 percent of the NOx generated by these 28 major sources, its annual pollutant load falls somewhere between a small commercial operation and a typical refinery. These emissions are attributed to fossil fuel combustion associated with daily general operations and maintenance. 3 3. Project Requirements The project was awarded the full amount proposed of $20,000. This capital was used to purchase an existing gas powered golf cart used by the University’s Fleet Services for use in the retrofit. Stock electric golf cart components were also purchased to ensure ease of maintenance. The majority of the proposal sum was contained in the purchase cost of a 3 kW fuel cell stack that the initial design centered around. Price breaks were included in the original proposal for designs that incorporated smaller fuel cells in the case that funding was not awarded. Ultimately it was found after critical function prototype testing that a 500-Watt fuel cell stack would power an optimal configuration. This reduced the cost requirements of the project significantly resulting in only roughly $14,000 being spent. This optimal design configuration and performance is discussed below. The table below shows the final design schedule the hydrogen fuel cell golf cart team followed. The details of the final design and any deviation from the original proposition will be explained later in this section. 4 Table 3.1: Project Schedule Milestone Advisor Endorsement SCIF EOI SCIF Proposal SCIF Allocations Pitch Design Design objectives, Constraints, Metrics Design Concepts Design Concept Evaluation Proof of Concept Testing Detailed Project Planning Final Detailed Design Manufacturing Electric Conversion Hydrogen Tank Mounting Installation of HFC Charging Circuitry Charging Code Safety Inspections Test Emissions Test Data Documentation Student Project Proposal 4000 Technical Report 4010 Technical Report SCIF Technical Report HFCV Manual Date Initiated Completion 10/05/15 01/11/16 02/05/16 11/06/15 02/05/16 02/16/16 01/18/16 1/25/16 01/25/16 02/01/16 02/08/16 02/29/16 03/07/16 02/01/16 02/08/16 02/29/16 03/07/16 04/11/16 07/04/16 07/29/16 08/17/16 09/02/16 09/15/16 11/29/16 06/15/16 07/29/16 08/17/16 09/02/16 09/15/16 11/25/16 11/30/16 12/01/16 09/07/17 01/22/16 11/30/16 05/14/16 11/15/16 10/02/15 04/28/16 12/08/16 7/01/17 8/01/17 5 Figure 3.1: Final Key Features 4. Outcomes The primary deliverables for this project were quantified emission data for the standard gasoline powered golf vehicle and a viability analysis of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell powered alternative. Both site and source emissions were analyzed for the gasoline model, the HFC model, and the standard electric golf vehicle for comparison. Performance of the HFC model was also compared to the standard gasoline and electric model vehicles. 4.1 Build Summary The final build design of the HFC vehicle consisted of a 500-Watt hydrogen fuel cell stack producing electricity at high amperage and relatively low voltage for the leadacid batteries typically used on vehicles of this size. This ratio of amperage to voltage would not have adequately powered an electric motor required to propel the vehicle. The 3 kW stack that was initially proposed was found to supply adequate power for the motor but was wildly inefficient in its hydrogen consumption in comparison to the load the motor would draw. The solution was to incorporate a standard electric vehicle battery bank of four 12V lead-acid batteries to act as power ballasts between the electric motor and the fuel cell stack. A boost converter circuit was incorporated to convert the high current/lowvoltage power of the stack to the low current/high-voltage required by the batteries. This not only shielded the stack from power fluctuations from the motor but also optimized the hydrogen-electricity conversion rate resulting in less hydrogen wasted. During the retrofit the team acquired an electric drive train already incorporated into a chassis and frame for a much lower cost than the individual components amounted 6 to. In order to save time and money the gasoline vehicle obtained from fleet services was recycled and the electric chassis was used as the base for the fuel cell components. This was inline with project deliverables and objectives. 4.2 Energy Efficiency Experimental data was gathered from the original boost converter with the original depleted batteries as well as with the combination of the boost and a fresh set of batteries. Differences in voltage level and current draw between the old battery bank and the fresh battery bank was minimal and it was determined that the batteries were not the limiting factor in the charge scenario. The boost converter was rated for a maximum of 15 amps at an input voltage between 12 and 24 volts. At a rated efficiency of 85% it was expected to supply roughly 3.6 amps at the 54 volts needed to charge the batteries. Unfortunately the duty cycle required to achieve this voltage could not be achieved internally and the voltage was not able to increase much over 52 volts with 3 amps of current. Figure 4.1 shows the roughly 150-Watt input accepted by the boost converter and the approximately 125-Watts being supplied to the batteries. Power In and Out of Boost Converter Power (Watts) 200 150 100 Power In 50 Power Out 0 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Seconds) Figure 4.1: Power In vs Power Out of Boost Converter A consequence of this hardware shortcoming was that no experimental efficiencies for the total vehicle could be determined for comparison to the gasoline vehicle. A theoretical system efficiency of approximately 25% was calculated for the hydrogen vehicle. This system efficiency accounts for efficiencies of the fuel cell, charging circuit, and electric motor. This represents an improvement in overall system efficiency from the gasoline cart, which was experimentally determined to have an overall efficiency of 7.5%. Due to the stack’s operational controls, the rate of hydrogen consumption was not entirely linear with respect to the applied load. Due to this non-linearity it was not possible to experimentally determine hydrogen consumption during nominal operation with the data acquired. Theoretical values were calculated for hydrogen consumption and are detailed below in Table 4.1. 7 Table 4.1: H2 Consumption 0.112 Kg per kWh 0.005 Kg per kilometer 7.8 Kg per year 4.3 Costs Operational and implementation costs were computed for the HFC prototype configuration and juxtaposed to that of equivalent gasoline and base electric models. The hydrogen gas required for this fuel cell was listed as Research Grade 99.999% pure hydrogen gas. This inflated the price of the hydrogen gas well above the cost of similar amounts of energy obtained from the internal combustion of gasoline, or from electricity acquired from the grid. Table 4.2 shows the relative costs per kWh and per kilometer of travel for each form of energy. Table 4.2: Operating Cost Comparison H2 Operating Cost $/kWh $/km 17.298 0.761 <-- At 28$/tank Gasoline Operating Cost 0.937 0.036 <-- At 2.50$/gallon Electric Operating Cost 0.111 0.043 <-- At 0.1$/kWh Unfortunately, the initial costs of installing an HFC stack are approximately twice the current models on the market. This fact coupled with the higher cost to operate indicates that the current version of the HFC vehicle will never recoup the cost of implementation. An itemized cost assessment for this particular prototype project is included in the appendix. 8 Table 4.3: Initial Vehicle Costs Gasoline $ 3,200 Base Electric $ 3,400 Base HFC $ 3,400 $ 3,500 $ 1,000 $ 7,900 Base Stack Additional Components Total 4.4 Emission Reduction Emissions can be classified in terms of either site or source emissions. Site emissions denote any emissions that occur on location while source emissions encompass all incurred emissions involved in delivering any type of power. Examples of site emissions include, gasoline powered vehicles and natural-gas boilers. Source emissions include the emissions from diesel or coal fired electric power plants that power the grid, or emissions associated with hydrogen gas production or transmission. Site emissions for the gasoline vehicle were computed from data experimentally obtained from the original gasoline golf cart that was removed from service for this project. Neither the electric nor hydrogen carts produced any site emissions of note. These values are depicted below in Table 4.4. Table 4.4: Yearly Site Emissions [kg] CO2 NOx Gasoline Cart 155.232 155.952 Electric Cart - Hydrogen Cart - Source emissions were calculated for charging for the electric cart from the grid, and for producing hydrogen for the hydrogen cart. No source emissions were calculated for gasoline. Electricity source emissions were calculated using a source conversion factor coupled with the amount of electrical energy required from the grid to charge the battery bank with the stock electric charger. Hydrogen gas source emissions were based off the CO2 emissions associated with producing hydrogen through steam reformation, as this is the most common method of hydrogen production. These CO2 emissions vary based on the methods of production, feedstocks, plant operations, et cetera. As a result it is difficult to exactly quantify the emissions, but a reasonable ratio was found to be 1 ton of H2 produced for every 9-12 9 tons of CO2 produced in the process. No data was included for NOX products, as these vary vastly depending on the plant processes, fuel sources, and equipment used. These values are depicted below in Table 4.5. Table 4.5: Yearly Source Emissions [kg] CO2 NOx Gasoline Cart - Electric Cart 114.4 0.162 Hydrogen Cart 85.8 unknown It can be seen from Tables 4.4 and 4.5 that the total CO2 emissions for the hydrogen powered vehicle are approximately 55% less than the gasoline vehicle and 25% lower than even the electric vehicle. 5. Future Developments A list of recommendations have been compiled that highlight areas in need of improvement and continuing development. The most critical of these recommendations focus on the electrical system, but further refinement could be made in hydrogen storage, hydrogen delivery, and general system refinement. A project continuation will be able to address these recommendations. 5.1 Electrical Recommendations The first recommendation is that the system’s boost converter and regulator be custom designed for this application. As mentioned in the main report, the boost converters utilized in the vehicle were not quite up to the task at hand. While they were technically rated for the power and amperage developed by the fuel cell stack, they proved to be unable to meet metrics set. It is believed this was the result of poor quality boost design. Custom options were sought to be commissioned, but the power developed by the stack, and the quantity needed proved too low for any company to accept the offer. Because of the inadequacy of consumer grade products and the lack of incentive for most companies it is recommended that an electrical engineering student from the University of Utah design a new boost converter and charging voltage regulator for the vehicle. Said student would be able to make use of this opportunity for their senior project. Second, the microcontroller and accompanying accessories were found to be sensitive to interference from the stack’s operation. The group was unable to pinpoint what was causing this interference, but an electrical engineering student may have a better intuition of how to go about diagnosing this problem. The group’s current recommendations include insulating power and sensor wiring separately with 10 electromagnetic interference (EMI) cable shielding. Another possibility would be to employ a more rugged microcontroller such as a Ruggeduino. Collaboration between electrical engineering and computer engineering students may be beneficial in this case. Next, basic automotive relays were used for controlling energy transfer through the system. They had proved functional but failures occurred. These relays might be replaced with solid-state relays for added robustness. Some redesign may be required for adequate component installation. The final electrical recommendation would be to investigate the possibility of eliminating batteries as an energy storage method. The use of batteries in this project was effective for proof of concept but was not an ideal solution. Having the fuel cell power the vehicle’s electric motor directly would likely allow for greater efficiency, simpler design, and increased available space for components, storage, and passengers. 5.2 Mechanical Recommendations Moving on to mechanical items the next recommendation would be the replacement of hydrogen fuel lines between the regulator and the stack. Simple silicone lines were used and were effective at transferring the hydrogen to the stack. They fell short when the vehicle was shut off and stored. Due to the extremely low density of hydrogen gas it has a tendency to diffuse through most materials. The result of this diffusion was that the remaining hydrogen gas slowly diffused through the fuel lines when not in operation. This resulted in lost hydrogen and the inability to leave the hydrogen supply on when not in use. Because of this it is required for the vehicle operator to activate the hydrogen supply before charging could begin. If appropriate steel lines were installed it might be possible to leave the hydrogen supply on which would allow a more autonomous cart operation. In addition to improvements in hydrogen delivery, it would be desirable to improve hydrogen storage. The current design makes use of a standard size tank of hydrogen provided by the gas company Airgas. While it is functional and reliable, it is not an ideal shape or material for hydrogen storage on this platform. If a composite material tank were designed and manufactured for this vehicle it would be possible to store a greater amount of hydrogen gas in a smaller space. This would allow for greater range with less compromise on utility or passenger space. Continuation of this project, and ones like it, might be possible through continued student projects. Professors in Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, and Electrical Engineering have all expressed interest in the possibility of collaborative student senior design projects. There are difficulties with this level of collaboration as most departments within the engineering college have different timetables for their students’ senior design projects. Organizing these projects would take continued guidance, assistance, and pressure from staff and/or faculty within the College of Engineering. 11 6. Outreach and Publicity Progress on the project’s outreach and general publicity have proved limited thus far. The main public event took the form of the Mechanical Engineering Department’s Design Day in December 2016. At this event, the vehicle was showcased for students of the Engineering College, students of the university as a whole, and the public. Given the level of traffic through the Design Day area, it is estimated that a few thousand people observed the project. The group was actively engaged in discussing the project with observers all day. These observers included students of technical and non-technical backgrounds, and also the public in attendance. A reporter for Desert News was in attendance and engaged with the group as well. Further efforts were made to extend the reach of the project and project it to the campus community. Attempts were made to engage with students and faculty from other departments and colleges, but most leads resulted in dead ends. No responses were received from outside the engineering college. Greater cooperation was received from within the engineering college, but mostly low-level advice on specific points. The greatest observation was the interest in project collaboration between the college departments, but general lack of enthusiasm to spear head the effort. 7. Conclusion This project’s overall outcome was one of limited success. All goals stated at the outset of this project were met in some capacity, though not all goals were met fully. Points that were fully accomplished include the removal of a gasoline vehicle from the University fleet, introduction of a replacement vehicle with an electric drivetrain, quantification of emissions, evaluation of project viability and repeatability, and involved student education. The one point of limited success comes from the retrofitted hydrogen vehicle’s charging system. While the charging system is capable of charging the vehicle’s batteries it is unable to do so as intended. For this reason, it is considered to be partially functional. With further development as stated in the list of recommendations there is no reason this vehicle could not be made fully functional as intended. In final summary of the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle project, a gasoline powered vehicle was removed from the University fleet, an electric vehicle with on board electricity generation from a hydrogen fuel cell stack was introduced to the University’s fleet, campus site emissions were lowered, emissions for gasoline, electric, and hydrogen-electric vehicles were quantified, and the groundwork laid for possible improvement and continuation of this and similar projects. 12 8. Acknowledgments The Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle group would like to express their appreciation for the cooperation and support received during this project. This project would not have been possible without the support and commitment of project advisors Dr. Mathieu Francoeur and Dr. Amanda Smith, Department Chair of Mechanical Engineering Dr. Tim Ameel, Motor Pool Manger David Rees, professor of Electrical Engineering Dr. Arn Stolp, and Environmental Health and Safety specialist David Sumens. Special thanks is expressed to the Sustainable Campus Initiative Fund for the opportunity and means to pursue this project, Swarm Product Design Studio for their design and fabrication assistance, to Stephen Goldsmith of the Capstone Initiative Fund for his outreach efforts, to Queen of Wraps for their aesthetic assistance, the Institute for Clean and Secure Energy for vehicle storage and manufacturing space, Horizon Fuel Cells for education assistance, and Marjan Esmaeili for account management and purchasing. 13 9. References Emission Data for Utah https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/utah/ Salt Lake County Current Conditions http://airnow.gov AirData US Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data U.S Department of State Air Quality Monitoring Program http://stateair.net/web/historical/1/1.html Air Quality Task Force- University of Utah Sustainability Office https://sustainability.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2016/12/June-2015-1514746Air-Quality-Task-Force-w-APPENIX.pdf Horizon Fuel Cell http://www.horizonfuelcell.com/h-series-stacks Trojan Batteries http://www.trojanbattery.com/pdf/datasheets/T1275_Trojan_Data_Sheets.pdf Hydrogen Production via Steam Reforming with CO2 Capture https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4bce/0493c6937d4a8e5a844e75e51d5471182a04.pdf A Study of Lead-Acid Battery Efficiency Near Top-of-Charge and the Impact of PV System Design http://www.otherpower.com/images/scimages/7427/Lead_Acid_Battery_Efficiency.pdf Charging Lead-Acid Batteries http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_the_lead_acid_battery 14 10. Appendix Incurred Cost AMOUNT ITEM UNIT COST ($) TOTAL COST ($) 1 Horizon Mini PEM Reversible Fuel Cell 47.99 47.99 3 MQ-8 Sensor 6.35 19.05 1 YDRE Electric Golf Cart - Yamaha 1,799.00 1,799.00 1 Horizon HFC Stack (H500) 3,575.88 3,575.88 1 DROK® Waterproof DC-DC 3060V 36V/48V 40.79 40.79 1 DROK® Numerical Control Voltage Regulator 29.85 29.85 3 SainSmart 4-Channel Relay Module 8.79 25.37 3 Arduino Mega 2560 18.90 56.70 4 APC Back-UPS ES 550VA Replacement Battery (B001NIFI28) 16.55 66.20 1 SOLOOP Spade Connectors Yellow (B013G4OP7A) 7.49 7.49 1 Ancor Primary Wire 10 AWG 100ft (B000NV2CTS) 42.99 42.99 2 Wrisky Thermal Sensor (B01KYXVXI0) 3.76 7.52 4 Sea Dog 426710-1 Line Buss Bar Terminal (B002MBUBTA) 11.41 45.64 1 TMS LED-XT-18W30D-K 18W 1260LM (B00EA0ZB7I) 14.99 14.99 1 Iztor DC12V 24V 4 Way Fuse Box (B01FQTMKB6) 11.88 11.88 1 Glarks 360pcs Crimp Connectors Kit (B01E4RNV14) 16.96 16.96 1 Electronix Express - Wire Kit (B00B4ZQ3L0) 19.95 19.95 1 Gikfun Protoshield for Arduino Mega (B00Q9YBQ04) 9.98 9.98 1 IZTOSS Automotive Relay Harness (B01JUN8GGM) 12.99 12.99 1 Absolute 30/40A 12 VCD Automotive Relay (B00C0SATK6) 6.20 6.20 15 1 DROK 10A/50W Voltage Regulator (B00CEP3A0Q) 15.49 15.49 1 Alpinetech White 12V LED (B00FO3B3WC) 5.95 5.95 1 Alpinetech Green 12V LED (B00FO3B232) 5.95 5.95 2 Ancor Marine Grade Electrical Rocker Switch (B000QD5K3S) 14.35 28.70 1 Two Stage Regulator (0-25psi) (Y12244A350) 488.00 488.00 1 Regulator to hose coupler (RAD64003963) 2.95 2.95 1 Hose Nut (RAD64003901) 0.73 0.73 1 Hose Nipple (RAD64003904) 0.73 0.73 1 1/4" NPT - 1/4" NPT (Female) (RAD64003961 3.31 3.31 3 80 CF UHP Hydrogen 28.28 84.84 1 Flash Arrestor RAD64003942 70.66 70.66 1 Resistor Kit - 1/4W - (COM-10969) 7.95 7.95 4 Resistor, ceramic. 2 Ohm 125W (RWR125W2) 13.00 52.00 2 Solid Rod End (606K67) 5.88 11.76 1 Multipurpose 6061 Aluminum (1ft) (8974K28) 3.08 3.08 8 T-Slot Extrusion (47065&831) 5.60 44.80 2 Knurled Thumb Nuts (95150A170) 4.29 8.58 4 6061 Aluminum Bar (6" x 10") (AF6061/126) 17.29 69.17 1 3M Aerosol Adhesive, #77, (7610A11) 17.27 17.27 1 Neoprene Rubber Strip, 1/2" W, 1/8" T, 10' L (90125K56) 9.60 9.60 1 6063 U-Channel, 4' Long (9001K55) 19.35 19.35 3 1/4" Plexiglass Sheet (12" x 12") (2423 RED) 8.50 25.20 4 Junction Block Stud 1/4" - 20, Black (47217) 3.13 12.52 4 Junction Block Stud 1/4" - 20, Red (47215) 3.13 12.52 1 30Pcs Screw Terminal Block Connector (B011QFLS0S) 7.70 7.70 16 1 9V Snap Connector to DC Power Adapter (B01KXV6QPS) 2.82 2.82 2 Tekpower TP8268 Multimeter (B0113FPXRK) 30.95 61.90 2 VINCA DCLA-0605 6" Digital Caliper (B017KUC6XQ) 16.18 32.36 1 Energizer 357/303 Batteries, 10 Pack (B000RB05LG) 10.50 10.50 1 DROK 50A Small Digital Multimeter (B017BCXQO6) 16.89 16.89 1 DROK Battery Capacity Monitor (B01LQ7MT4K) 13.85 13.85 1 DROK Numerical Control Voltage Regulator (B01GFVI6R6) 29.85 29.85 1 Scott Shop Towels, Blue (B00NO7BWJE) 7.95 7.95 2 Loctite Blue 242(B000I1RSNS) 5.56 11.12 1 Simple Green Cleaner/Degreaser (B000ULR4EO) 13.01 13.01 1 6+8+12 Combo Pack, Zip Ties (B00L2LGMO4) 8.99 8.99 1 Ancor Primary Wire 10 AWG 100ft, Black (B000NUX93M) 42.48 42.48 1 3M Electrical Tape Pack (B001B19FDK) 7.74 7.74 1 Heat Shrink Tubing (B00OZSL8UE) 10.19 10.19 Crystal Clear Cell Cast Plexiglass Sheet : 2 1/4"x12"x11” 7.00 14.00 1 1/4"x19.75"x11” 13.50 13.50 1 1/16"x19.75"x12” 2.70 2.70 1 90 Degree, 1/4" Thick, 3" x 6" Legs, 1' Long L Bracket (8982K81) 24.51 24.51 1 Unthreaded Spacers, 1/2" OD, 1" Long (94729A260) 8.36 8.36 1 Button-Head Screw, M5, 10 mm, .8 mm Pitch (91239A224) 7.93 7.93 1 Button-Head Screw, M5, 14 mm, .8 mm Pitch (91239A230) 11.77 11.77 1 Button-Head Screw, M5, 20 mm, .8 mm Pitch (91239A233) 10.09 10.09 1 Button-Head Screw, M5, 30 mm, .8 mm Pitch (91239A236) 12.38 12.38 17 1 M5 Split Lock Washer, Zinc-Plated (91202A230) 1.72 1.72 1 M5 Steel Washer, Zinc-Plated (91166A240) 2.19 2.19 2 Serrated Flange M5 x 0.8mm Locknut (94920A300) 7.89 15.78 1 Neoprene Sheet, 12"x12", 3/32",50A (1292N12) 24.89 24.89 1 Starting Tap, M5 X 0.8 (8305A16) 6.67 6.67 1 Bottom Tap, M5 X 0.8 (8305A56) 6.67 6.67 1 T-Handle Tap (2546A23) 17.88 17.88 2 4.2mm HSS Jobber Drill Bit (30565A263) 2.02 4.04 2 5.3mm HSS Jobber Drill Bit (30565A275) 2.78 5.56 2 5.5mm HSS Jobber Drill Bit (30565A277) 2.83 5.66 1 Tap Magic Lubricant, 4oz Squeeze Bottle (1413K31) 3.57 3.57 1 82Deg Size 2 Solid-Carbide Countersink (2925A54) 23.21 23.21 1 90 Degree 3/8", 3 Flute, Countersink (3013A112) 10.37 10.37 5 Ball-End Hex Key, 4mm (7813A46) 1.20 6.00 1 0.250" 6061 Aluminum Plate, 9" x 12" 34.02 34.02 1 0.250" 6061 Aluminum Plate, 28.5" x 19.25 34.02 34.02 1 0.250" 6061 Aluminum Plate, 10" x 10" 34.02 34.02 2 Aluminum Extrusion - 5 series, Base 20 ( KNF S5-2020-4000) 22.80 45.60 1 Aluminum Extrusion - 5 series, Base 20 (KNF S5-2020-1000) 6.41 6.41 4 Corner Bracket Set, R Type (HBLCR5-B) 5.63 22.52 88 Reversal Brackets with Tab (HBLFSN5) 0.75 66.00 4 Sheet Metals – for HFS5 Series - Triangle- (HPTCUL5) 9.00 36.00 120 Pre-Assembly Insertion Short Nuts (HNTT5-5) 0.46 51.60 18 60 Post-Assembly Insertion Short Nuts (HNTAJ5-5) 0.46 27.60 1 Aluminum Extrusion - 5 series, Base 20 (KNF S5-2040-1000) 10.80 10.80 1 DROK Multimeter DC 6.5-100V 50A (200140) 16.89 16.89 1 Gikfun DS18B20 Temperature Sensor (B00Q9YBIJI) 9.96 9.96 1 4 Way Circuit Standard ATO Blade Fuse Box (B012CQEPN2) 6.99 6.99 1 9v Battery Clip (B01AXIEDX8) 5.99 5.99 2 SainSmart 20x4 LCD for Arduino (B0080DYTZQ) 13.99 27.98 1 Honbay 120pcs Multicolored Breadboard Wire (B017NEGTXC) 7.97 7.97 1 Holdding DS3231 AT24C32 Real Time Clock (B00LZCTMJM) 5.89 5.89 1 Panasonic Cr2032 Battery (B00K63J6R4) 4.60 4.60 1 Uxcell 25Pcs Double Sided Protoboard (B0166GCD42) 11.61 11.61 1 TRANSDUCER 1-5V 2500# PRES (M3041-000005-2K5PG-ND) 72.30 72.30 1 TRANSDUCER 1-5VDC 50PSI (223-1733-ND) 92.24 92.24 1 M3 Starting Tap (8305A12) 8.09 8.09 1 M6 Socket Cap Screw, 16mm (91239A321) 11.46 11.46 1 M6 Split Lock Washer (92148A180) 3.56 3.56 1 M6 Steel Washer (93475A250) 4.86 4.86 1 M6 Starting Tap (8305A17) 7.04 7.04 1 1/4" NPT 90 Degree Elbow (4452K472) 8.14 8.14 1 Reducing Barbed Fitting, 1/4" to 1/8" (5670K16) 3.31 3.31 2 1/4" NPT, FFM Tee (48805K571) 33.16 66.32 4 Ball-End L-Key, 3mm (7813A45) 1.11 4.44 1 5/8" Easy-Bend Aluminum Tubing, 25ft. (5177K73) 42.73 42.73 1 1/4" ID, Silicone Rubber Tubing, 2ft. (5157K43) 14.90 14.90 1 Zinc-Plated Loop Clamp (3225T5) 6.91 6.91 19 1 4 1 1 1 4 2 1 4 4 1 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 M6 Serrated Flange Locknut (94920A400) M5 Socket Cap Screw, 40mm (91239A240) 1kOhm Variable Output Switch (7436K31) Tygon PVC Tubing, 3mm ID, 25ft. (5186T12) 3/8" Pipe Sealant Tape for Stainless Steel (7346A16) Corner Bracket Set, R Type (HBLCR5-B) Gravity 50A Current Sensor (AC/DC) ( RB-Dfr-149) Neoprene, 1/2" Wide, 1/4" Thick, 10 ft. Length (90125K53) Hex Standoff, 3/8" Hex Size, 3" Length, 10-32 (91780A082) Aluminum Extrusion Hinge (5537T858) 10-32 Screw, 1-5/8" (92949A828) 1/4" OD, 3/8" Length Polypropylene Spacers (94729A115) M3x0.5mm, 20mm Long Screws (91502A109) 5/32" x 1" Quick-Release Pin (98404A103) 304 Stainless Bracket, 2" Long (1394A62) 7lb Magnetic Latch (1676A11) Black Anodized Pull Handle, 4-1/4" (11665A11) 5/16"-18 Rotating Flange Nut, Black-Oxide (90477A030) 3/8" ID, 5/8" OD, Weather-Resistant Tubing, 25ft (9776T11) Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher, 1A:10-B:C UL (6487T72) 1/8"x9/32"x10' Rubber Edge Trim (8507K13) Hose Clamps, 5/16"x7/32"-5/8" (5321K14) 1.312" ID, 2.75" OD Steel Washer (90107A040) M5x10mm Black-Oxide Hex Drive Screw (91239A224) Rosin Flux-Core Solder, 0.032" Diameter, 1 lb. (7744A6) 0.156" Snap-Plug Terminal, Female, 22-18AWG (7835K55) 0.156" Snap-Plug Terminal, Male, 22-18AWG (7835K53) 7.61 7.61 4.92 19.68 11.39 11.39 41.75 41.75 7.12 7.12 5.63 22.52 16.50 37.00 10.70 10.70 2.20 8.80 7.04 28.16 10.32 10.32 7.04 21.12 6.85 6.85 1.80 5.40 0.57 1.71 2.46 4.92 11.97 11.97 3.94 7.88 38.75 38.75 49.59 49.59 12.20 12.20 7.20 7.20 3.58 7.16 7.93 7.93 40.92 40.92 10.12 10.12 8.23 8.23 20 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dremel Plastic Blade, 1-316", 0.007" (4301A27) 120 Grit, 1/2" ID Sanding Sleeve (4756A312) Expandable Sleeving, FrayResistant, 1/4"x10' (2837K12) Expandable Sleeving, FrayResistant, 1/2"x10' (2837K14) DYMO LabelManager 280 (B009NVTE5E) uxcell Cable Tie Mounts (B00AUB81DC) Zeny Soldering Iron Station (B00W1AG0FG) Aven Circuit Board Holder (B00Q2TTQEE) Hakko Solder Tip Cleaner (B00FZPGDLA) Aven Desoldering Wick (B003E48ERU) Capri Tools Wire Stripper (B01018CVM0) 29.53 29.53 12.32 12.32 3.66 7.32 6.32 12.64 24.50 24.50 6.56 6.56 52.99 52.99 12.43 12.43 9.14 9.14 3.28 3.28 18.71 18.71 1 500Ω .18A Rheostat 5.00 5.00 1 10" CGA350 Pigtail 127.30 127.30 3 SWARM Consultation (1 month) 700.00 2,100.00 4 Trojan T-1275 Batteries 157.00 628.00 9.00 9.00 6.25 6.25 10.59 10.59 23.59 36.58 15.96 15.96 5.99 5.99 39.99 79.98 9.95 9.95 239.95 239.95 25.24 25.24 28.99 86.97 35.00 105.00 15.17 15.17 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 No Smoking Logo Warning Stickers (B01ASS5KLW) DYMO Standard D1 45013 Labeling Tape (B00002NDS2) DEWALT DWHT11004L Utility Blades, 75-Pack (B0051QIEMY) Elenco Solid Hook-Up Wire (B008L3QJAS) Glarks Connectors Assortment Kit (B01E4RNV14) Glarks Terminal Connectors (B01EDKB8JE) 1500W 30A DC Boost Converter (B01N528JFH) Hydrometer (B019VDATLG) TekPower TP3030E Power Supply (B00PWSDH8C) Crescent AC6NKWMP Wrench 6Inch (B008FV4O9Y) Yeeco Numerical Control DC Boost Converter (B01E3RXBV0) SMAKN 1200W 20A DC Boost Converter (B013UG46RS) MULTICOMP MBR1060CT DIODE (B011NIR4OC) 21 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 5 uxcell Rectifier Diodes (B009IN1KB8) Electronics-Salon Terminal Block Shield Board (B00UT13YXA) Stanley GS20DT 4-Inch Glue Sticks (B0006HVUSS) 4.20 4.20 21.99 43.98 4.24 4.24 Stanley Glue Gun (B0006HVUSI) 11.74 11.74 9.88 19.76 7.53 7.53 18.50 18.50 21.95 43.90 7.99 15.98 15.99 31.98 895.00 895.00 33.25 33.25 2.84 14.20 Gikfun Temperature Sensor (B00Q9YBIJI) Absolute Automotive Relay 5 - Pack (B00C0SATK6) 3/4" Tinned Copper Sleeving - 10FT (B01BIBQ9TA) Arduino Mega (B00JTBMD7E) SainSmart 4-Channel Relay Module (B0057OC5O8) SainSmart 20x4 LCD (B0080DYTZQ) Queen of Wraps Graphic Design Clear 1/8" X 24" X 48" Polycarbonate Sheet (PCCLR0.125AM24X48) Automotive Fuses 40A Orange (142.6185.5402) 1 1/4" 6061 Aluminum Plate 26" x 20" 94.42 94.42 2 Gravity 50A Current Sensor (AC/DC) ( RB-Dfr-149) 16.50 37.00 1 18" CGA350 Pigtail 242.94 242.94 5.85 5.85 2.00 2.00 3.10 6.20 22.61 45.22 1 1 2 2 Metric 18-8 Stainless Steel Hex Head Screws (91287A903) Flammable Gas, DOT Vehicle Sign (59125T223) Nylon Ribbed Shank Rivets (Black) (90221A412) Multipurpose Neoprene 1/8" x 12" x 24" 50A (1370N55) Shipping & Miscellaneous Fees 469.31 Total: 14,378.65 22 Mounting Hardware Model Drawings Figure A1: Cell Stack Fixture Figure A2: Tank Fixture 23 Figure A3: Fume Canopy 24