4.7 Article

Performance assessment of cogeneration and trigeneration systems for small scale applications

期刊

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
卷 125, 期 -, 页码 194-208

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.03.092

关键词

Performance assessment; Cogeneration systems; Trigeneration systems; Indices; Methodologies; Sensitivity analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cogeneration and trigeneration systems can contribute to the reduction of primary energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in residential and tertiary sectors, by reducing fossil fuels demand and grid losses with respect to conventional systems. To evaluate the performance of these systems, several indices and assessment methodologies can be used, due to the high complexity of such systems, which can consist of several energy conversion devices and can perform bidirectional interactions with external electric and thermal grids. In this paper, a review of the available indices and methodologies to assess the performances of polygeneration systems is provided. An index (TSStri) aimed to assess the economic feasibility of a trigeneration system is also introduced and discussed. This activity started in the framework of the International Energy Agency Annex 54 project (Integration of Micro-Generation and Related Energy Technologies in Buildings), where research groups shared their expertise about methods applied in each Country to evaluate the performance of polygeneration systems. It was concluded that a thermoeconomic analysis comparing the performance of a polygeneration system with those of a reference benchmark scenario, is a very suitable assessment method. Some of the reviewed methodologies are then applied to small scale commercial cogenerators. The sensitivity analysis is performed considering different reference average values of electric efficiency, unitary natural gas and electricity prices, and emission factors for some European Countries. (C) 2016 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