Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing of a SOFC system for distributed power generation

被引:59
|
作者
Strazza, Carlo [1 ]
Del Borghi, Adriana [1 ]
Costamagna, Paola [1 ]
Gallo, Michela [1 ]
Brignole, Emma [1 ]
Girdinio, Paola [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Genoa, Polytech Sch, Dept Civil Chem & Environm Engn DICCA, Via Opera Pia 75, I-16145 Genoa, Italy
[2] Univ Genoa, Polytech Sch, Dept Elect Elect & Telecommun Engn & Naval Archit, I-16145 Genoa, Italy
关键词
Life Cycle Assessment; Life Cycle Costing; Solid Oxide Fuel Cell; Natural Gas; Biogas; Microturbine; OXIDE FUEL-CELL; ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE; ENERGY; OPTIMIZATION; TECHNOLOGY; DESIGN; HYBRID; LCA; BUILDINGS; EMISSIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.enconman.2015.04.068
中图分类号
O414.1 [热力学];
学科分类号
摘要
Through the combination of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) in a dedicated tool-box, the aim of this paper is to evaluate both potential environmental impacts and potential costs of the operation of a 230 kW Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) system. LCA and LCC methodologies have been here applied for a comparison with a conventional technology, i.e. Micro Gas Turbine (MGT) for distributed power generation applications. A contribution analysis for the SOFC system fuelled with natural gas, reveals that the fuel supply is responsible of a relevant share of the environmental impact. The same system, fed with biogas, shows environmental benefits on global and regional impact categories, depending on the power energy mix used during the digestion process. For both SOFC and MGT systems, the life cycle hotspots are identifiable in the operation stage for the global warming category, and in the fuel supply stage for all the remaining impact categories. The LCA-LCC comparison between SOFC and MGT systems, based on a toolbox embedding a set of 8 sustainability indicators for decision making, shows that the SOFC system presents environmental and economic benefits in a life cycle perspective, particularly for household application. However, cost results to be the most sensitive bottle-neck for benchmarking with traditional energy systems. Therefore, the SOFC system is preferable to the conventional MGT technology when the sustainability of investment cost is demonstrated, whilst a wide advantage in environmental performance along the life cycle has been proved. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:64 / 77
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Life Cycle Costing for Engineers
    Gransberg, Douglas
    [J]. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS, 2010, 28 (10) : 1113 - 1114
  • [32] LIFE CYCLE COSTING.
    Wilkinson, John
    [J]. Process Engineering (London), 1986, 67 (02):
  • [33] Risk assessment methods for life cycle costing in buildings
    [J]. Oduyemi, Olufolahan (o.oduyemi@derby.ac.uk), 2016, EDP Sciences (01):
  • [34] LIFE-CYCLE COSTING
    OCONNELL, LE
    [J]. CME-CHARTERED MECHANICAL ENGINEER, 1983, 30 (09): : 14 - 14
  • [35] LIFE-CYCLE COSTING
    PAUL, BO
    [J]. CHEMICAL PROCESSING, 1994, 57 (12): : 79 - &
  • [36] Life Cycle Assessment of a Co-Firing Power Generation System in China
    Wu, Jinzhuo
    Kong, Linlin
    Wang, Lihai
    Sun, Yaqi
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BIOBASED MATERIALS AND BIOENERGY, 2016, 10 (02) : 129 - 136
  • [37] Fundamental requirements of life cycle costing: Projecting life cycle costs for electronic system modernization
    Chafee, SS
    [J]. NORTHCON/96 - IEEE TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS CONFERENCE, CONFERENCE RECORD, 1996, : 41 - 46
  • [38] Life cycle costing for a design life standard
    Bennett, AF
    Page, IC
    Bourke, K
    Tucker, SN
    Nireki, T
    [J]. DURABILITY OF BUILDING MATERIALS AND COMPONENTS 8, VOLS 1-4, PROCEEDINGS, 1999, : 1509 - 1517
  • [39] Integrating Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Model for Selection of Centralized Chilled Water Generation - Review Paper
    Akbar, Ali
    Mokhtar, Ainul Akmar Binti
    [J]. UTP-UMP SYMPOSIUM ON ENERGY SYSTEMS 2017 (SES 2017), 2017, 131
  • [40] New life for life-cycle costing
    Knox, PJ
    [J]. CHEMICAL PROCESSING, 1999, 62 (11): : 7 - 7