4.7 Article

Performance evaluation of a polygeneration system based on fuel cell technology and solar photovoltaic and use of waste heat

期刊

SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY
卷 72, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103055

关键词

Polygeneration energy system; Fuel cell technology; Solar photovoltaic field; Stirling engine; Waste heat

资金

  1. Social Science Planning Project Fund of Sichuan Province [SC19C058]
  2. Southwest Petroleum University [2018RW007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents and evaluates a new energy process based on alkaline fuel cell (AFC) and solar photovoltaic (PV) field, which can generate up to 3.4 kW of electricity with an overall efficiency of 77.57%. The research also identified a loss of 77.44 kW of exergy in the process.
Today, the use of alternative energy sources such as solar energy to overcome the obstacles caused by the consumption of fossil fuels is inevitable. However, solar energy faces natural issues such as intermittency, instability and uncertainty. Meanwhile, integration of clean energy sources can be a key solution. On the other hand, fuel cells are conversion devices that have advantages, e.g., high reliability, low emissions, and high efficiency. The aim of this study is to present and evaluate the operation of a new energy process based on alkaline fuel cell (AFC) and solar photovoltaic (PV) field. AFC produces electrical and thermal power. In downstream cycles, additional electricity and cooling are generated by the Stirling engine and the absorption chiller, respectively. The solar field provides the power of an electrolyzer to supply fuel and oxidant to the fuel cell. Results showed that the cycle can produce up to 3.4 kW of electricity. The share of AFC, Stirling engine and solar PV field in electricity generation is 29.3, 21.4 and 49.3 %, respectively. It was also found that the electrical and overall efficiencies of the cycle are 64.36 and 77.57 %, respectively. In addition, 77.44 kW of exergy is destroyed.

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