4.7 Article

Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen refueling station: A case study in Croatia

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 47, 期 57, 页码 24155-24168

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.05.278

关键词

Hydrogen refueling station; PEM electrolyzer; Stochastic load profile; Green hydrogen; Levelized cost of hydrogen; Multiple configurations and; capacities

资金

  1. Hrvatska elektroprivreda (HEP) [B72-22/20]
  2. project STIM-REI - European Union through the European Regional Development Fund-the Operational Programme Competitiveness and Cohesion 2014-2020 [KK.01.1.1.01.0003, KK.01.1.1.01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the capacity and location of hydrogen refueling stations in Croatia, considering various configurations in the absence of hydrogen users. The evaluation includes different options for hydrogen production and charging stations, as well as transportation methods, with a focus on cost and benefits.
Hydrogen refueling station (HRS) capacity and location depend on the users, which makes it difficult to select the most favorable option before potential users are actually identified. As in Croatia, at least for now, there are no hydrogen users, this study considers a wide range of HRS capacities and their different configurations. These include hydrogen pro-duction and charging station within one existing wind farm in Croatia or both nearby the users, the hydrogen production within the wind farm and the charging station nearby the users, while hydrogen is delivered to the station with a tube trailer, and configuration of hydrogen production within the wind farm with a mobile charging station in case of several users in different locations. Each HRS configuration is evaluated by the obtained levelized cost of hydrogen depending on the capital, and operation and maintenance costs within the HRS techno-economic analysis provided. (c) 2022 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