Multi-criteria evaluation of hydrogen and natural gas fuelled power plant technologies

Department of Engineering and Management of Energy Resources, University of Western Macedonia, 50100 Kozani, Greece; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Technico, Lisbon, Portugal
Applied Thermal Engineering (Impact Factor: 2.62). 08/2009; DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.11.014

ABSTRACT This paper evaluates nine types of electrical energy generation options with regard to seven criteria. The options use natural gas or hydrogen as a fuel. The Analytic Hierarchy Process was used to perform the evaluation, which allows decision-making when single or multiple criteria are considered.The options that were evaluated are the hydrogen combustion turbine, the hydrogen internal combustion engine, the hydrogen fuelled phosphoric acid fuel cell, the hydrogen fuelled solid oxide fuel cell, the natural gas fuelled phosphoric acid fuel cell, the natural gas fuelled solid oxide fuel cell, the natural gas turbine, the natural gas combined cycle and the natural gas internal combustion engine.The criteria used for the evaluation are CO2 emissions, NOX emissions, efficiency, capital cost, operation and maintenance costs, service life and produced electricity cost.A total of 19 scenarios were studied. In 15 of these scenarios, the hydrogen turbine ranked first and proved to be the most preferred electricity production technology. However since the hydrogen combustion turbine is still under research, the most preferred power generation technology which is available nowadays proved to be the natural gas combined cycle which ranked first in five scenarios and second in eight. The last in ranking electricity production technology proved to be the natural gas fuelled phosphoric acid fuel cell, which ranked in the last position in 13 scenarios.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the energy crisis has been slightly abated in the recent times, the possibility of a crisis caused by extremely high oil prices is still imminent. Simultaneously, the environmental crisis represented by climate change is further the major concern which requires an immediate solution. Hence, in this research, economical and environmental assessment of utilizing renewable energies in comparison with natural gas have been investigated which resulted to choose the best economically–environmentally alternative for power generation.Equivalent uniform annual value and scaling‐weighting check list with experts' comments through analytical hierarchy process have been applied for economical and environmental assessment, respectively. Afterward, the results of normalized economical and environmental assessment have been coalesced to gain a combined economical–environmental perspective.As economical surveys, four scenarios have been considered. The results reveal that the best choices are conventional steam cycle, combined cycle, and biogas if power is sold to consumer (other technologies have negative net present value in this scenario), respectively, without considering the social costs and the emission reduction. If power is sold to government, biogas, conventional steam cycle, combined cycle, and wind are technological priorities.In case of considering social costs and emission reduction incomes, the best choices are biogas, combined cycle, and conventional steam cycle, respectively, if power is sold to consumers. If not, the priorities are biogas and wind.Furthermore, environmental surveys have indicated that wind is the most applicable environmentally friendly energy to produce electricity with negative impact magnitude (NIM) of 1.3 (out of 10). In addition, photovoltaic, biogas, and hydropower remain at the next levels with NIM of 1.6, 1.7, and 3.2 (out of 10), respectively. While conventional steam cycle has 6.2 of NIM.Eventually, the combination of economical and environmental evaluation reveals that wind farms and biogas plants with normalized weight of 3.10 (310%) and 2.34 (234%) are the best choices of electricity generation method, respectively. Moreover, the least applicable one is conventional steam cycle with normalized weight of 0.63 (63%).To sum it up, wind farms and biogas plants are about five and four times more economical–environmental beneficial than conventional steam cycle power generation. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    International Journal of Energy Research 10/2013; 37(12). · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Renewable energy is considered as a solution for mitigating climate change and environmental pollution; however, an important problem of the application of renewable energy systems (RESs) is that the evaluation of the sustainability of these systems is extremely complex. In order to assess the sustainability of renewable energy systems comprehensively, the use of sustainability indicators (SIs) is often necessary. Since sustainability indicators are necessary to reflect various aspects of sustainability, the development of a general sustainability indicator (GSI) including many basic sustainability indicators (BSIs) becomes critical. In this paper, the methods of selection, quantification, evaluation and weighting of the basic indicators as well as the methods of GSI aggregation are reviewed. The advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed. Based on these discussion and the analysis of the uncertainties of sustainability assessment, an effective framework and its procedures of the development of GSI for renewable energy systems is presented. This GSI is not only able to evaluate all the sustainability criteria of RESs, but also can provide numerical results of sustainability assessment for different objective systems. The proposed framework in this study can be used as a guidance of the development of sustainability indicator for various renewable energy systems.
    Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 03/2014; 31:611-621. · 5.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Graphical abstract Figure optionsDownload full-size imageDownload as PowerPoint slide
    Energy Conversion and Management 10/2014; 86:653–663. · 3.59 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 28, 2014