This work studies the technical and economic feasibility of the introduction of a SOFC-based cogeneration system to supply non-residential buildings with electricity and heat. The techno-economic evaluation is performed for the hotel and hospital sectors, by introducing real hourly load profiles (electrical and thermal) for the buildings. The analysis considers different countries in terms of energy intensity (and load profiles), cost of energy and regulations/incentives. Results are achieved by comparing the SOFC scenario with a benchmark one where electricity is supplied by the grid and heat by a natural gas fed boiler and evaluating the relative payback time between the two solutions.

The analysis showed that, despite the current high investment cost of the SOFC system, in countries such as Germany, Italy and UK (where electricity prices are among the highest in Europe), the option is yet advisable if supported by effective subsidies (already existing for cogeneration systems), and it could offer a competitive alternative to traditional systems, especially in the hospital sector, where the relative payback time is achieved in the 10th year for UK, and in the 14th year for Germany and Italy. A cost reduction scenario has also been analyzed: results show that the SOFC is the best option in most of the locations, both economically and in terms of environmental impact (pollutants emissions reduction).

这项工作研究了引入基于SOFC的热电联产系统为非住宅建筑物供电和供热的技术和经济可行性。通过引入建筑物的实际每小时负荷分布（电和热），对旅馆和医院部门进行技术经济评估。该分析从能源强度（和负荷曲线），能源成本以及法规/激励措施的角度考虑了不同的国家。通过将SOFC方案与基准方案进行比较，可以得出结果，在基准方案中，电网提供电力，天然气锅炉提供热量，并评估两种解决方案之间的相对投资回收期。

分析表明，尽管当前SOFC系统的投资成本很高，但在德国，意大利和英国（电价位居欧洲最高）之类的国家中，如果得到有效补贴的支持，该方案仍然是明智的选择（已经存在） （对于热电联产系统），它可以提供传统系统的竞争替代品，尤其是在医院领域，在英国，相对回报时间在第10年，在德国和意大利则是第14年。还分析了降低成本的方案：结果表明，就经济和环境影响（减少污染物排放）而言，SOFC是大多数地区的最佳选择。