Comparative analysis among three solar energy-based systems with hydrogen and electrical battery storage in single houses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates and compares the economic analysis of renewable energy-based systems incorporating photovoltaic (PV) panels, electrolyzer, fuel cell (FC), and a hydrogen tank for single houses in North America. Three systems consisting of PV/battery bank, PV/hydrogen, and PV/battery bank/hydrogen are simulated and optimized using the software HOMER. In this study, the electrolyzer produces green hydrogen using to the power obtained by the PV array; the generated hydrogen is stored in a hydrogen tank and powers the FC. Based on the results, the integration of 12 kW PV panels, 2.50 kW FC, 10 kW electrolyzer, 50 kg hydrogen tank, 2 kW converter, and 24 kWh of batteries is found to be the best configuration in Toronto, as it leads to the minimum net present cost (NPC) and levelized cost of energy (COE). Results show that while the battery bank can be used instead of the electrolyzer, FC, and hydrogen tank, the large batteries resulted in the highest NPC due to their high investment cost. Finally, the study is extended to Miami and Washington in the U.S., to check the validity of the conclusions with higher average annual solar radiation and to find their costeffective configurations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".