4.7 Article

Economic study of a large-scale renewable hydrogen application utilizing surplus renewable energy and natural gas pipeline transportation in China

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 1385-1398

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.11.056

关键词

Hydrogen application; Wind energy; Solar energy; Surplus electricity; Natural gas pipeline; Economic evaluation

资金

  1. Science, Technology and Innovation Commission of Shenzhen Municipality [GCZX2018020920405505]
  2. Shenzhen Clean Energy Research Institute [CERI-KY-2019-001]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [2018YFB1502200]
  4. China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) [R-2018ZBSEC002]
  5. China Nuclear Power Technology Research Institute (CNPRI) [R-2017ZBQFC011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel project solution for large-scale hydrogen application is proposed utilizing surplus wind and solar generated electricity for hydrogen generation and NG pipeline transportation for hydrogen-natural gas mixtures (called HCNG). This application can practically solve urgent issues of large-scale surplus wind and solar generated electricity and increasing NG demand in China. Economic evaluation is performed in terms of electricity and equipment capacity estimation, cost estimation, sensitivity analysis, profitability analysis and parametric study. Equipment expenses are dominant in the construction period, especially those of the electrolysers. Electricity cost and transportation cost are the main annual operating costs and greatly influence the HCNG and pure hydrogen costs. The project proves to be feasible through the profitability analysis. The main influence items are tested individually to guarantee project profitability within 22 years. The project can reduce 388.40 M Nm(3) CO2 emissions and increase 2998.52 M$ incomes for solar and wind power stations. (C) 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据