Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Available at www.sciencedirect.com
article info
abstract
Article history:
In this paper, seven common hydrogen production processes are evaluated using the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in respect to five criteria. The processes to be evaluated
are steam methane reforming (SMR), partial oxidation of hydrocarbons (POX), coal gasifi-
8 April 2009
cation (CG), biomass gasification (BG), the combination of photovoltaics and electrolysis
(PVEL), the combination of wind power and electrolysis (WEL) and the combination of
hydropower and electrolysis (HEL). The selected criteria that were used in the evaluation,
Keywords:
maintenance costs, capital cost, feedstock cost and hydrogen production cost. According to
Hydrogen production
the evaluation, the processes that combine renewable energy sources with electrolysis (PV
EL, WEL and HEL) rank higher in classification than conventional processes (SMR, POX,
Single-criterion analysis
CG and BG).
Multicriteria analysis
2009 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
for each of the seven hydrogen production processes are CO2 emissions, operation and
reserved.
1.
Introduction
5295
(AHP) was used, this being a common tool for single- and
multi-objective decision-making problems. This process has
the ability to simplify complex problems. In the past, the AHP
has been used in several studies such as the emissions from
power plants [10] and the impact on the living standard from
power plants [11,12], the hydrogen fuelling systems for
transportations [13], the evaluation of liquid biofuels [14] and
the hydrogen energy technology [15].
Even though AHP is a very good decision-making methodology, it is not the only one. There are other useful tools in
decision-making such as the Analysis and Synthesis of Parameters under Information Deficiency (ASPID). According to this
decision-making method [16], non-numerical, inexact and
incomplete information can generate useful results. The ASPID
has been used in many studies such as for the evaluation of CHP
systems [17] and the evaluation of natural gas supply options for
south, east and central Europe [18]. Apart from the abovementioned multicriteria decision-making methods, several
others exist such as the Preference Ranking Organisation
Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) with wide
application such as waste management [19] and ranking of
chemical emissions from motor vehicles [20] as well as the
Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality (ELECTRE) method.
The ELECTRE method constitutes of two main parts, the
construction of one or several outranking relations and an
exploitation procedure that elaborates on the recommendations
obtained from the first phase. As with the previous methods,
ELECTRE is widely utilized for decision-making problems [21,22].
2.
2.1.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
This hydrogen production system is constituted of a photovoltaic unit and a monopolar alkaline electrolysis unit. The
electricity required for hydrogen production via the electrolysis unit is provided from the photovoltaic unit [26].
2.6.
2.2.
5296
3.
Salaries
(US$/(kg H2/
day))
Equipment
(US$/(kg H2/
day))
7.72
18.36
27.70
5.26
13.74
21.50
O&M costs
(US$/(kg H2/
day))
12.98
32.10
49.20
52.56
15.71
15.71
30.51
(1989)
(1989)
(1989)
(1993)
(1993)
(1993)
(1993)
Hydrogen production
process
[29]
[29]
[29]
[23]
[23]
[23]
[23]
Selection of criteria
The criteria selected for the evaluation of hydrogen production processes are the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, the capital cost, the
feedstock cost and the hydrogen production cost.
3.1.
SMR
POX
CG
BG
PVEL
WEL
HEL
3.2.
(1)
where Present Salary is for the year that the updating needs
to be performed (1993), Initial Salary is for the year the data
where Present Equipment Cost is for the year that the updating needs to be performed (1993), Initial Equipment Cost is for
the year the data were collected, Present IM&S is the Marshall
& Swift Indicator [31] for the year that the updating needs to be
done and Initial IM&S is the Marshall & Swift Indicator [31] for
the year the data were collected.
As a result, O&M costs are presented in Table 3 in US$ per
kg of H2 per day, for year 1993.
Equipment
Operation &
Salaries
(US$/(kg H2/ (US$/(kg H2/ maintenance
day))
day))
costs (US$/(kg
H2/day)) (1993)
8.85
21.04
31.74
5.67
14.8
23.16
14.51
35.84
54.90
52.56
15.71
15.71
30.51
5297
32.75
12.55
22.37
23.78
16.00
36.75
1.25
(2007)
(1999)
(2007)
(2007)
(2004)
(2007)
(2004)
[25]
[37]
[25]
[25]
[38]
[25]
[39]
3.4.
SMR
POX
CG
BG
PVEL
WEL
HEL
3.3.
Feedstock cost
32.75
16.07
22.37
23.78
17.36
36.75
1.40
3.5.
Capital cost
Ca1 Ca 1 IRa
(4)
4.
SMR
POX
CG
BG
PVEL
WEL
HEL
Criteria
CO2 emissions
(kg CO2/kg H2)
(2006)
Feedstock cost
(US$/(kg H2/day))
(1989)
H2 production cost
(US$/kg H2)
(2007)
7.33
12.35
29.33
5.89
0
0
0
14.51
35.84
54.9
52.56
15.71
15.71
30.51
284.77
1058.17
1637.19
104.82
10448.56
3170.86
4927.05
154.32
136.61
120.15
194.88
0
0
0
32.75
16.07
22.37
23.78
17.36
36.75
1.4
5298
CO2 Emissions
SMR
O&M Cost
POX
CG
Feedstock
Cost
Capital Cost
BG
PV-EL
W-EL
H2 Production
Cost
H-EL
Fig. 1 Hierarchy tree structure for the evaluation of seven hydrogen production processes using AHP.
5299
5.
5.1.
5.2.
CO2 emissions: 20%, O&M cost: 20%, Capital cost: 20%, Feedstock cost: 20%, H2 production cost: 20%.
Base case
5300
5.3.
5.3.1.
5.3.3.
Case 4
CO2 emissions: 0%, O&M costs: 0%, Capital cost: 100%, Feedstock cost: 0%, H2 production: 0%.
In case 4, steam methane reforming (SMR) has the highest
ranking while photovoltaics system in combination with an
electrolytic unit (PVEL) receives the last position. This result
Case 2
CO2 emissions: 100%, O&M costs: 0%, Capital cost: 0%, Feedstock cost: 0%, H2 production cost: 0%.
As can be seen from Fig. 4, the best options are the systems,
which combine renewable energy with an electrolytic unit
(PVEL, HEL, WEL). Coal gasification (CG) ranks last, given
the fact that it has high emissions of CO2.
5.3.2.
Case 3
CO2 emissions: 0%, O&M costs: 100%, Capital cost: 0%, Feedstock cost: 0%, H2 production cost: 0%.
Fig. 5 gives the overall ranking of hydrogen production
processes when full emphasis is given to O&M costs. Steam
5301
5.4.1.
Case 7
5.4.2.
5.3.4.
Case 5
CO2 emissions: 0%, O&M costs: 0%, Capital cost: 0%, Feedstock
cost: 100%, H2 production: 0%.
Since the combination of renewable energy systems with
an electrolytic unit (PVEL, WEL, HEL) requires no feedstock,
these processes receive the first position in ranking while
biomass gasification (BG) receives the last position. Fig. 7
shows the overall evaluation.
5.3.5.
5.4.3.
Case 9
Case 6
5.4.4.
CO2 emissions: 0%, O&M costs: 0%, Capital cost: 0%, Feedstock
cost: 0%, H2 production: 100%.
In the last case of the single criteria assessment, where full
emphasis is given to H2 production cost, hydropower with an
electrolytic unit (HEL) is considered to be the optimum solution,
as can be seen in Fig. 8, while wind turbines with an electrolytic
unit (WEL) receive the last position on the overall ranking.
Case 10
5.4.5.
5.4.
Case 8
Case 11
CO2
emissions
O&M cost
Capital cost
Feedstock
cost
H2
production
cost
Case
1
Case
2
Case
3
Case
4
Case
5
Case
6
41.1
20
100
8
19.1
8.1
20
20
20
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
23.7
20
100
Case
7
Case
8
Case
9
Case
10
Case
11
Case
12
Case
13
Case
14
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
35
35
10
7.5
7.5
7.5
70
7.5
7.5
7.5
70
7.5
7.5
7.5
70
7.5
7.5
7.5
10
35
10
10
10
10
10
35
10
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
10
35
35
70
70
5302
Table 11 Overall evaluation and ranking of hydrogen production process for each case.
Hydrogen production
process
Base case
21.16
14.1
16.30
13.23
7.27
14.26
13.07
HEL
WEL
PVEL
BG
CG
POX
SMR
5.4.6.
Case 2
Case 7
1
4
2
5
7
3
6
20.76
16.64
17.43
9.85
8.09
13.63
13.60
Case 8
1
3
2
6
7
4
5
19.50
19.50
19.50
15.60
0
11.28
14.62
Case 9
19.97
18.43
18.73
13.43
3.03
12.16
14.25
1
3
2
5
7
6
4
17.05
21.12
21.42
4.58
3.04
12.35
20.44
4
2
1
6
7
5
3
14.48
15.08
6.54
16.24
13.72
16.50
17.44
5
4
7
3
6
2
1
Case 12
Case 13
Case 14
6.
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
14.82
23.81
23.81
1.43
0
11.58
24.55
3
2
2
5
6
4
1
10.72
14.13
0
20.08
17.10
18.23
19.47
Case 11
6
5
7
1
4
3
2
25.70
25.70
25.70
0
9.86
7.68
5.36
Case 12
1
1
1
5
2
3
4
33.05
0
18.15
12.15
13.50
19.35
3.80
Case 13
1
7
3
5
4
2
6
Case 14
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
5.4.8.
1
1
1
2
5
4
3
Case 10
5.4.7.
Case 3
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
HEL
WEL
PVEL
BG
CG
POX
SMR
Hydrogen production
process
Case 1
Conclusions
23.85
22.30
22.60
3.70
9.19
9.91
8.45
1
3
2
7
5
4
6
28.44
6.27
17.88
11.28
11.45
17.21
7.47
1
7
2
5
4
3
6
17.93
16.73
13.59
13.84
8.32
14.20
15.39
1
2
6
5
7
4
3
23.52
13.21
18.13
11.86
7.41
14.47
11.40
1
4
2
5
7
3
6
21.32
11.86
13.25
12.98
11.70
16.21
12.68
1
6
3
4
7
2
5
references
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
5303