MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414050490 · doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2025.136680

Comparative techno-economic assessment of solid oxide fuel cells versus hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines for institutional energy management

2025· article· en· W4414050490 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFuel · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Generation Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesFusion Energy SciencesUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsCost of electricity by sourceSolid oxide fuel cellCombustionHydrogen fuelCapital costEnergy managementInternal combustion engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen fuelled CHPs for institutional sector. • Comparative study of solid oxide fuel cell versus hydrogen fuelled combustion engine CHPs. • Incorporating real-word heat, electricity, and temperature data for accurate feasibility studies. • Evaluating the impact of future advancements in capital cost and lifespan on solid oxide fuel cell feasibility. Hydrogen is globally recognized as a transformative energy carrier, offering a pathway to a sustainable and low-carbon future. Its integration into energy systems, particularly through combined heat and power (CHP) technologies, provides an efficient and reliable solution for institutional energy management while supporting global decarbonization efforts. This study examines the potential of hydrogen-based CHPs in decarbonizing the energy management of the University of Alberta (UofA) in Canada, aligned with the objectives outlined in the university’s master energy plan. A comparative analysis using real operational data evaluates two hydrogen-based CHP technologies: solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) and hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine (HICE). Results indicate that a 70 MW CHP system could meet the university’s total energy demand with a heat-to-power ratio ranging from 0.4 to 4.1, depending on seasonal changes. While the HICE-based CHP features a lower capital cost of $140 million, annual operational costs of $24.25 million, and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of 20.1 ¢/kWh, it emits over 4 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) annually. In contrast, the SOFC-based CHP system, while having higher capital, operational expenditures, and LCOE of $280 million and $66.32 million per year, and 33.5 ¢/kWh, respectively, delivers superior environmental performance, positioning it as a more sustainable solution. Additionally, as SOFC technology matures, its long-term economic feasibility is expected to improve significantly. Therefore, although the HICE-based CHP is currently more economical, SOFC systems hold a great potential as the preferred sustainable energy solution for UofA or similar institutions with decarbonization and sustainability mandates.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it