4.7 Article

Levelized costs of energy and hydrogen of wind farms and concentrated photovoltaic thermal systems. A case study in Morocco

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 45, 期 56, 页码 31632-31650

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.08.240

关键词

Wind energy; Concentrated photovoltaic thermal; Alkaline water electrolyser; Levelized costs of energy and hydrogen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work deals with the evaluation of levelized costs of energy and hydrogen of wind farms and concentrated photovoltaic thermal systems. The production of hydrogen is ensured by an alkaline water electrolyser supplied by the electric current generated by the renewable energy sources. The study is carried out on the basis of meteorological data from the Tangier region, in Morocco. Mathematical models are developed to assess the performance and efficiency of renewable sources in terms of energy and hydrogen production for different installed powers. The comparison between the current results and those of previous work shows that the discrepancy did not exceed 6% for both electrical and thermal efficiency of the concentrated photovoltaic/thermal system. The results show that the energy consumption ratios of the electrolyzer are 61 and 64 kWh.kg(-1) for wind and solar energy, respectively. Wind and solar hydrogen production efficiencies are also 66 and 62%, respectively. Results show that levelized costs of energy and hydrogen decrease with the increase in installed wind and photovoltaic capacity. The overall results also show that the Tangier region can produce energy and hydrogen at low cost using wind energy compared to concentrated photovoltaic installations. For the hybridization of the two green sources studied, this is highly recommended provided that the capacity of the electrolyzer to be installed is optimal in order to effectively improve the production of hydrogen. (C) 2020 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