4.7 Article

Optimization and evaluation of CCHP systems considering incentive policies under different operation strategies

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 162, Issue -, Pages 825-840

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.083

Keywords

operation strategy; Incentive feed-in tariff policy; Incentive carbon emissions trading policy; CCHP system

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  2. China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) [CUG170691]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71573236]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes two incentive policies consisting of the feed-in tariff and carbon emission trading. The effects of the policies on the performance (economic, energy, and environmental) of CCHP systems running in office and residential buildings under five different operation strategies (following the electric load (FEL), following the thermal load (FTL), two types of following the hybrid electric-thermal load (FHL1 and FHL2), and following the maximum efficiency of power generation unit) were compared and analyzed. The results showed that the best operation strategies were changed before and after the above two incentive policies carrying out. When the policies are not carried out, the FEL and FHL1 strategies are most suitable for the CCHP system in office and residential buildings. Since the policies implement, the FHL2 and FTL. strategies are the best. Incentive policies have a greater positive impact on the CCHP system in residential building than that in office. For promoting the development of the CCHP system in residential buildings, the incentive coefficient can be set higher than that in office buildings. Finally, sensitivity analysis was conducted for CCHP systems and the results were presented in terms of feed-in tariff, incentive coefficient, and gas price. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available