4.7 Article

Cost of long-distance energy transmission by different carriers

期刊

ISCIENCE
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103495

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [DE-EE0007602]
  2. Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
  3. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-AC36-08GO28308]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fuel Cell Technologies Office
  5. Science and Technology Policy Fellowships
  6. DOE [DE-AC05-06OR23100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper compares the relative cost of long-distance, large-scale energy transmission by electricity, gaseous, and liquid carriers. The higher cost of electrical transmission is primarily due to lower carrying capacity of electrical transmission lines compared to pipelines for gaseous and liquid fuels. The differences in transmission cost are important but often unrecognized, and should be considered in analysis of various renewable energy production, distribution, and utilization scenarios.
This paper compares the relative cost of long-distance, large-scale energy transmission by electricity, gaseous, and liquid carriers (e-fuels). The results indicate that the cost of electrical transmission per delivered MWh can be up to eight times higher than for hydrogen pipelines, about eleven times higher than for natural gas pipelines, and twenty to fifty times higher than for liquid fuels pipelines. These differences generally hold for shorter distances as well. The higher cost of electrical transmission is primarily because of lower carrying capacity (MW per line) of electrical transmission lines compared to the energy carrying capacity of the pipelines for gaseous and liquid fuels. The differences in the cost of transmission are important but often unrecognized and should be considered as a significant cost component in the analysis of various renewable energy production, distribution, and utilization scenarios.

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