用于氢气烹饪的铅酸电池:与撒哈拉以南非洲电烹饪的比较

IF 4.4 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENERGY & FUELS Energy for Sustainable Development Pub Date : 2024-06-14 DOI:10.1016/j.esd.2024.101491
Timothy Hutty , Joseph Hammond , Diarmid Roberts , John Barton , Jonathan Wilson , Dani Strickland , Solomon Brown
{"title":"用于氢气烹饪的铅酸电池:与撒哈拉以南非洲电烹饪的比较","authors":"Timothy Hutty ,&nbsp;Joseph Hammond ,&nbsp;Diarmid Roberts ,&nbsp;John Barton ,&nbsp;Jonathan Wilson ,&nbsp;Dani Strickland ,&nbsp;Solomon Brown","doi":"10.1016/j.esd.2024.101491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A battolyser combines the function of battery and electrolyser in one device, i.e. it provides both electrical energy storage and a means to produce hydrogen. A battolyser with lead-acid chemistry has recently been proposed, and this has potential as a particularly low-cost solution. Here, the battolyser is considered for the production of hydrogen as a cooking fuel (“hCooking”) in sub-Saharan Africa, a region where cooking typically employs polluting fuels (firewood and charcoal). The more conventional approach for decarbonisation of cooking is the introduction of electric cookers (e.g. hotplate, induction hob, pressure cooker) which can be powered by PV and possibly battery storage; accordingly these electric cooking (“eCooking”) systems are considered as the competing decarbonised technology. Multi-objective optimisation is used to design both battolyser and eCooking systems for a notional off-grid community, with solar PV as the main energy source. Objectives are the minimisation of net present cost and lifetime greenhouse gas emissions, and Pareto frontiers are produced to show the play-off between these. Results show that a battolyser system could eliminate 95.6 % of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions when compared with a baseline using charcoal, at an annualised cost of $507 per household, over a system lifetime of 20 years. However, eCooking systems appear superior to the battolyser, with the cleanest battery + eCook system achieving 95.8 % emissions reduction at annualised cost $422/household. More generally, hCooking systems are nearly always Pareto dominated by eCooking systems, even under a realistic range of sensitivity scenarios. This result is due to the inherently higher energy intensity of cooking over a flame compared to the eCooking options. Priorities to make the battolyser a more viable solution include extending its lifetime as far as possible, cheaper PV systems, and improved hydrogen burner efficiencies. We also show that eCooking together with some continued use of charcoal may be the cheapest possible cooking solution, whilst simultaneously curtailing 60 % of lifetime greenhouse gas emissions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49209,"journal":{"name":"Energy for Sustainable Development","volume":"81 ","pages":"Article 101491"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lead-acid battolysers for hydrogen cooking: A comparison with electric cooking for sub-Saharan Africa\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Hutty ,&nbsp;Joseph Hammond ,&nbsp;Diarmid Roberts ,&nbsp;John Barton ,&nbsp;Jonathan Wilson ,&nbsp;Dani Strickland ,&nbsp;Solomon Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.esd.2024.101491\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>A battolyser combines the function of battery and electrolyser in one device, i.e. it provides both electrical energy storage and a means to produce hydrogen. A battolyser with lead-acid chemistry has recently been proposed, and this has potential as a particularly low-cost solution. Here, the battolyser is considered for the production of hydrogen as a cooking fuel (“hCooking”) in sub-Saharan Africa, a region where cooking typically employs polluting fuels (firewood and charcoal). The more conventional approach for decarbonisation of cooking is the introduction of electric cookers (e.g. hotplate, induction hob, pressure cooker) which can be powered by PV and possibly battery storage; accordingly these electric cooking (“eCooking”) systems are considered as the competing decarbonised technology. Multi-objective optimisation is used to design both battolyser and eCooking systems for a notional off-grid community, with solar PV as the main energy source. Objectives are the minimisation of net present cost and lifetime greenhouse gas emissions, and Pareto frontiers are produced to show the play-off between these. Results show that a battolyser system could eliminate 95.6 % of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions when compared with a baseline using charcoal, at an annualised cost of $507 per household, over a system lifetime of 20 years. However, eCooking systems appear superior to the battolyser, with the cleanest battery + eCook system achieving 95.8 % emissions reduction at annualised cost $422/household. More generally, hCooking systems are nearly always Pareto dominated by eCooking systems, even under a realistic range of sensitivity scenarios. This result is due to the inherently higher energy intensity of cooking over a flame compared to the eCooking options. Priorities to make the battolyser a more viable solution include extending its lifetime as far as possible, cheaper PV systems, and improved hydrogen burner efficiencies. We also show that eCooking together with some continued use of charcoal may be the cheapest possible cooking solution, whilst simultaneously curtailing 60 % of lifetime greenhouse gas emissions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy for Sustainable Development\",\"volume\":\"81 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101491\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy for Sustainable Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082624001170\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy for Sustainable Development","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082624001170","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

巴特溶解器集电池和电解器的功能于一体,即既能储存电能,又能产生氢气。最近有人提出了一种使用铅酸化学成分的巴特溶解器,作为一种成本特别低廉的解决方案,它具有很大的潜力。在撒哈拉以南非洲地区,烹饪通常使用污染性燃料(木柴和木炭),这里考虑使用巴特溶解器生产氢气作为烹饪燃料("hCooking")。更传统的烹饪脱碳方法是采用电饭锅(如电炉、电磁炉、高压锅),这些电饭锅可由光伏发电或电池储能供电;因此,这些电烹饪("eCooking")系统被视为竞争性脱碳技术。我们采用多目标优化方法,为一个以太阳能光伏为主要能源的假想离网社区设计battolyser和eCooking系统。目标包括净现值成本最小化和终生温室气体排放量最小化,并生成帕累托前沿来显示这两个目标之间的权衡。结果表明,与使用木炭的基线相比,battolyser 系统可减少 95.6% 的二氧化碳排放量,每户年化成本为 507 美元,系统寿命为 20 年。然而,电子烹饪系统似乎优于巴特溶解器,最清洁的电池+电子烹饪系统可实现 95.8% 的减排,年化成本为每户 422 美元。更广泛地说,即使在一系列现实的敏感性情景下,hCooking 系统也几乎总是被 eCooking 系统的帕累托优势所取代。造成这一结果的原因是,与电子烹饪相比,明火烹饪本身具有更高的能源强度。要使巴特溶解器成为更可行的解决方案,优先考虑的事项包括尽可能延长其使用寿命、采用更便宜的光伏系统以及提高氢气燃烧器的效率。我们还表明,电子烹饪和继续使用木炭可能是最便宜的烹饪解决方案,同时还能减少 60% 的温室气体排放量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Lead-acid battolysers for hydrogen cooking: A comparison with electric cooking for sub-Saharan Africa

A battolyser combines the function of battery and electrolyser in one device, i.e. it provides both electrical energy storage and a means to produce hydrogen. A battolyser with lead-acid chemistry has recently been proposed, and this has potential as a particularly low-cost solution. Here, the battolyser is considered for the production of hydrogen as a cooking fuel (“hCooking”) in sub-Saharan Africa, a region where cooking typically employs polluting fuels (firewood and charcoal). The more conventional approach for decarbonisation of cooking is the introduction of electric cookers (e.g. hotplate, induction hob, pressure cooker) which can be powered by PV and possibly battery storage; accordingly these electric cooking (“eCooking”) systems are considered as the competing decarbonised technology. Multi-objective optimisation is used to design both battolyser and eCooking systems for a notional off-grid community, with solar PV as the main energy source. Objectives are the minimisation of net present cost and lifetime greenhouse gas emissions, and Pareto frontiers are produced to show the play-off between these. Results show that a battolyser system could eliminate 95.6 % of CO2 emissions when compared with a baseline using charcoal, at an annualised cost of $507 per household, over a system lifetime of 20 years. However, eCooking systems appear superior to the battolyser, with the cleanest battery + eCook system achieving 95.8 % emissions reduction at annualised cost $422/household. More generally, hCooking systems are nearly always Pareto dominated by eCooking systems, even under a realistic range of sensitivity scenarios. This result is due to the inherently higher energy intensity of cooking over a flame compared to the eCooking options. Priorities to make the battolyser a more viable solution include extending its lifetime as far as possible, cheaper PV systems, and improved hydrogen burner efficiencies. We also show that eCooking together with some continued use of charcoal may be the cheapest possible cooking solution, whilst simultaneously curtailing 60 % of lifetime greenhouse gas emissions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Energy for Sustainable Development
Energy for Sustainable Development ENERGY & FUELS-ENERGY & FUELS
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
187
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the International Energy Initiative, Energy for Sustainable Development is the journal for decision makers, managers, consultants, policy makers, planners and researchers in both government and non-government organizations. It publishes original research and reviews about energy in developing countries, sustainable development, energy resources, technologies, policies and interactions.
期刊最新文献
Technical sizing of renewable energy capacity for large-scale green hydrogen production GHG emissions intensity analysis. Case study: Bioethanol plant with cogeneration and partial CO2 recovery Comparative Economic Analysis of Bifacial Roof-top PV Systems Development of a comprehensive Rooftop Solar PV Index using DVF framework of Design Thinking Long-range energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions analysis using the LEAP Model: A case study of building ceramic industrial park
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1