Wind-Coupled Hydrogen Integration for Commercial Greenhouse Food and Power Production: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis presents a comprehensive techno-economic analysis of integrating green hydrogen production into the energy systems of commercial greenhouses, focusing on a case study in Ontario, Canada. Utilizing Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) electrolysis powered by a 200MW wind farm, two studies evaluate the feasibility of hydrogen integration to meet the heating, and electricity demands of a greenhouse. Firstly, nine distinct case scenarios were investigated by exploring hydrogen production, transportation, and utilization, specifically targeting blends of hydrogen and natural gas (10%, 20%, and 100% hydrogen) for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generation. Key techno-economic parameters, including the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH), payback period (PBT), internal rate of return (IRR), and discounted payback period (DPB), are analyzed to identify the most viable integration strategy. The analysis reveals that a 10% hydrogen blend utilizing existing transmission infrastructure results in the lowest levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) at USD 5.06/kg. In contrast, a 100% hydrogen scenario shows superior financial metrics, with a payback period (PBT) of 6.205 years and an internal rate of return (IRR) of 15.16%. The economic viability may be further enhanced by the potential sale of surplus hydrogen and oxygen byproducts, with total profits significantly impacted by the chosen pricing and operational strategies. Key techno-economic metrics such as LCOH and discounted payback period (DPB) are assessed, with results showing an LCOH of USD 6.16/kg (including oxygen sales) and a DPB of 3.61 years. Both studies incorporate sensitivity analyses to identify critical factors influencing LCOH and financial performance. Additionally, the potential revenue from selling surplus hydrogen and oxygen is explored, with projected profits significantly enhancing the economic feasibility of the proposed hydrogen integration strategies. Overall, this work contributes valuable insights into sustainable energy solutions for the agricultural sector, promoting a transition towards renewable energy and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".