4.7 Article

Multi-criteria evaluation of solid oxide fuel cell based combined cooling heating and power (SOFC-CCHP) applications for public buildings in China

期刊

ENERGY
卷 141, 期 -, 页码 273-289

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.111

关键词

Combined cooling heating and power; Solid oxide fuel cell; Public buildings of China; Multi-criteria evaluation; Levelized cost of energy; Sensitivity analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51206137]
  2. Fundamental Research Fund for the Central Universities [20720150111]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of solid oxide fuel cell based combined cooling heating and power (SOFC-CCHP) applications in public buildings of China from different perspectives. Operations of the natural gas fueled SOFC-CCHP systems for 20 years' have been simulated for five categories of public buildings in five locations of China. Parallel simulations of combustion based CCHP systems and conventional system have been conducted for comparison. By single criterion assessment, SOFC-CCHP systems demonstrate outstanding performance on energy efficiency as well as reducing carbon emission, air pollution and human health damage cost. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) turns out to be competitive with commercial electricity price, but a long payback period (SPP) has also been identified. To further assess the overall performance of SOFC-CCHP systems, a multi-criteria assessment model has been developed by combining the gray relational analysis (GRA) approach and the entropy-weighting method. The result indicates that hospital, hotel, and supermarket achieve more benefits than office and school; warmer regions rank slightly higher than colder regions. In addition, sensitivity analysis has been performed on SPP and LCOE. Overall, this paper provides theoretical guidance and evaluation approach for SOFC-CCHP demonstrations in China. (C) 2017 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