4.7 Article

Techno economic analysis tool for the sizing and optimization of an off-grid hydrogen hub

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.est.2023.108787

关键词

Green hydrogen; Techno-economic analysis; Optimization; Sizing; Levelized cost of hydrogen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzes a techno-economic optimization tool for evaluating off-grid green hydrogen production costs. The tool determines the optimal renewable energy power plants, electrolyzer and storage capacities, and hydrogen transport form to minimize the levelized cost of hydrogen. It considers a wide range of inputs, such as economic incentives, technology limitations, and contractual characteristics.
This study focuses on analyzing the characteristics of a techno-economic optimization tool to evaluate off-grid green hydrogen production costs. The tool determines the renewable energy power plants, electrolyzer and storage capacities and hydrogen transport form that minimizes the levelized cost of hydrogen, for a fixed hydrogen demand. The tool estimates the energy cost based on the renewable energy resource of the specific geographic coordinates and techno-economic parameters. To this end, the tool considers a wide set of inputs, which include possible economic incentives, taxes and financing structure, scale economies and technology cost projections. Additionally, the tool can consider hydrogen contractual characteristics such as compromised hydrogen volume, time frame, penalties for not supplied hydrogen and transport distance. Technical restrictions such as generation, electrolyzer and/or storage capacity limits can also be considered. Finally, a location in Argentina was selected as study case in order to describe the processing logic and review the model obtained results. The minimum achievable hydrogen production cost varies between 3.2 and 4.0 USD/MWh, while total cost including conversion/processing transportation and storage varies between 3.6 and 5.6 USD/MWh.

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