KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 5

Integration of Photocatalytic Hydrogen Production with a Pem Fuel Cell-Based Off-Grid Cold Storage System: Thermodynamic, Dynamic Solar, and Environmental Performance Analysis across Three Technology Readiness Scenarios

Hakan Tutumlu(GAZİANTEP ÜNİVERSİTESİ, NACİ TOPÇUOĞLU MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0003-3884-7015
Sayfa
2188–2202
Yayın Tarihi
2026-09-15
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

These findings provide quantitative technology targets and identify photocatalyst development as the sole rate-limiting factor for deployment.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study presents a thermodynamic, dynamic solar, and environmental performance analysis of an integrated off-grid system combining photocatalytic hydrogen (H2) production with a proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell and a vapor-compression cold storage unit (R290) for a representative Mediterranean site (Adana, Türkiye, 37.0°N).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:A critical methodological advance over prior simulations is the adoption of a three-scenario framework explicitly grounded in real outdoor pilot data: Scenario S1 (STH = 0.9%, TiO2-CuO/P25); Scenario S2 (STH = 2.81%, Pd/TiO2); and Scenario S3 (STH = 10%, Z-scheme heterojunction, DOE 2030 target).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:These findings provide quantitative technology targets and identify photocatalyst development as the sole rate-limiting factor for deployment.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2030 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Photocatalytic hydrogen production · PEM fuel cell · Off-grid cold storage

Özet

This study presents a thermodynamic, dynamic solar, and environmental performance analysis of an integrated off-grid system combining photocatalytic hydrogen (H2) production with a proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell and a vapor-compression cold storage unit (R290) for a representative Mediterranean site (Adana, Türkiye, 37.0°N). A critical methodological advance over prior simulations is the adoption of a three-scenario framework explicitly grounded in real outdoor pilot data: Scenario S1 (STH = 0.9%, TiO2-CuO/P25); Scenario S2 (STH = 2.81%, Pd/TiO2); and Scenario S3 (STH = 10%, Z-scheme heterojunction, DOE 2030 target). All three scenarios share the same 20m2 reactor aperture derived from a closed energy-balance calculation requiring the S2 system to meet the full annual cooling demand of a 400-L cabinet and identical system architecture; only the photocatalytic efficiency differs. Dynamic simulation uses 8760 hourly TMY data points from PVGIS-SARAH2. First- and second-law analyses employ the Petela solar exergy model and the Gouy - Stodola theorem. The primary objective is to determine the minimum solar-to-hydrogen (STH) efficiency at which the integrated system becomes carbon-competitive with a diesel reference, rather than to propose a deployment-ready design. A central finding is the identification of a carbon break-even STH of approximately 1.04%: below this threshold the system produces a higher lifecycle carbon footprint than the diesel reference it replaces; above it, meaningful GHG savings accumulate. S1 (STH = 0.9%), which represents the current state of practice at pilot scale, sits marginally below this threshold (system GWP = 0.356 kg CO2-eq/kWh; carbon payback 19.6 years). S2 (STH = 2.81%) crosses the threshold convincingly: system GWP = 0.184 kg CO2-eq/kWh; 42.9% GHG reduction versus diesel; carbon payback 6.3 years. S3 achieves system GWP = 0.023 kg CO2-eq/kWh and 92.9% GHG reduction. These findings provide quantitative technology targets and identify photocatalyst development as the sole rate-limiting factor for deployment.

Abstract

This study presents a thermodynamic, dynamic solar, and environmental performance analysis of an integrated off-grid system combining photocatalytic hydrogen (H2) production with a proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell and a vapor-compression cold storage unit (R290) for a representative Mediterranean site (Adana, Türkiye, 37.0°N). A critical methodological advance over prior simulations is the adoption of a three-scenario framework explicitly grounded in real outdoor pilot data: Scenario S1 (STH = 0.9%, TiO2-CuO/P25); Scenario S2 (STH = 2.81%, Pd/TiO2); and Scenario S3 (STH = 10%, Z-scheme heterojunction, DOE 2030 target). All three scenarios share the same 20m2 reactor aperture derived from a closed energy-balance calculation requiring the S2 system to meet the full annual cooling demand of a 400-L cabinet and identical system architecture; only the photocatalytic efficiency differs. Dynamic simulation uses 8760 hourly TMY data points from PVGIS-SARAH2. First- and second-law analyses employ the Petela solar exergy model and the Gouy - Stodola theorem. The primary objective is to determine the minimum solar-to-hydrogen (STH) efficiency at which the integrated system becomes carbon-competitive with a diesel reference, rather than to propose a deployment-ready design. A central finding is the identification of a carbon break-even STH of approximately 1.04%: below this threshold the system produces a higher lifecycle carbon footprint than the diesel reference it replaces; above it, meaningful GHG savings accumulate. S1 (STH = 0.9%), which represents the current state of practice at pilot scale, sits marginally below this threshold (system GWP = 0.356 kg CO2-eq/kWh; carbon payback 19.6 years). S2 (STH = 2.81%) crosses the threshold convincingly: system GWP = 0.184 kg CO2-eq/kWh; 42.9% GHG reduction versus diesel; carbon payback 6.3 years. S3 achieves system GWP = 0.023 kg CO2-eq/kWh and 92.9% GHG reduction. These findings provide quantitative technology targets and identify photocatalyst development as the sole rate-limiting factor for deployment.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Tutumlu, H. (2026). Integration of Photocatalytic Hydrogen Production with a Pem Fuel Cell-Based Off-Grid Cold Storage System: Thermodynamic, Dynamic Solar, and Environmental Performance Analysis across Three Technology Readiness Scenarios. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 5, 2188–2202. https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1966511

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (44)

  1. Alfano, O. M., Bahnemann, D., Cassano, A. E., Dillert, R., & Goslich, R. (2000). Photocatalysis in water environments using artificial and solar light. Catalysis Today, 58(2–3), 199–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5861(00)00252-2
  2. Amphlett, J. C., Baumert, R. M., Mann, R. F., Peppley, B. A., Roberge, P. R., & Harris, T. J. (1995). Performance modeling of the Ballard Mark IV solid polymer electrolyte fuel cell: I. Mechanistic model development. Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 142(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.2043866
  3. ASHRAE. (2021). ASHRAE handbook fundamentals. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
  4. Barbir, F. (2012). PEM fuel cells: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
  5. Chen, X., Shen, S., Guo, L., & Mao, S. S. (2010). Semiconductor-based photocatalytic hydrogen generation. Chemical Reviews, 110(11), 6503–6570. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr1001645
  6. Corrêa, J. M., Farret, F. A., Canha, L. N., & Simoes, M. G. (2004). An electrochemical-based fuel-cell model suitable for electrical engineering automation approach. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 51(5), 1103–1112. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2004.834972
  7. DOE. (2021). Hydrogen Shot. U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/cmei/fuels/hydrogen-shot-summit
  8. Duffie, J. A., Beckman, W. A., & Blair, N. (2020). Solar engineering of thermal processes, photovoltaics and wind (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  9. FAO. (2019). The state of food and agriculture: Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf
  10. Fujishima, A., & Honda, K. (1972). Electrochemical photolysis of water at a semiconductor electrode. Nature, 238(5358), 37–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/238037a0
  11. Garcia-Torres, F., Valverde, L., & Bordons, C. (2016). Optimal load sharing of hydrogen-based microgrids with hybrid storage using model predictive control. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 63(8), 4919–4928. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2016.2547870
  12. Ghenai, C., Bettayeb, M., Brdjanin, B., & Hamid, A. K. (2019). Hybrid solar PV/PEM fuel cell/diesel generator power system for cruise ship: A case study in Stockholm, Sweden. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 14, Article 100497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2019.100497
  13. Huld, T., Müller, R., & Gambardella, A. (2012). A new solar radiation database for estimating PV performance in Europe and Africa. Solar Energy, 86(6), 1803–1815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.03.006
  14. IEA. (2023). World energy outlook 2023. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023
  15. IRENA. (2023). Renewable power generation costs in 2022. International Renewable Energy Agency. https://www.irena.org/Publications/2023/Aug/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2022
  16. ISO. (2006a). Environmental management – Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework (ISO Standard No. 14040:2006). International Organization for Standardization.
  17. ISO. (2006b). Environmental management – Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines (ISO Standard No. 14044:2006). International Organization for Standardization.
  18. James, S. J., & James, C. (2010). The food cold-chain and climate change. Food Research International, 43(7), 1944–1956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2010.02.001
  19. Jing, D., Guo, L., Zhao, L., Zhang, X., Liu, H., Li, M., Shen, S., Liu, G., Hu, X., Zhang, X., Zhang, K., Ma, L., & Guo, P. (2010). Efficient solar hydrogen production by photocatalytic water splitting: From fundamental study to pilot demonstration. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(13), 7087–7097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.01.030
  20. Kalamaras, C. M., & Efstathiou, A. M. (2013). Hydrogen production technologies: Current state and future developments. Conference Papers in Science, 2013, Article 690627. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/690627
  21. Kazim, A. (2004). Exergy analysis of a PEM fuel cell at variable operating conditions. Energy Conversion and Management, 45(11–12), 1949–1961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2003.09.030
  22. Kho, Y. K., Iwase, A., Teoh, W. Y., Mädler, L., Kudo, A., & Amal, R. (2010). Photocatalytic H₂ evolution over TiO₂ nanoparticles: The synergistic effect of anatase and rutile. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 114(6), 2821–2829. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp910810r
  23. Kudo, A., & Miseki, Y. (2009). Heterogeneous photocatalyst materials for water splitting. Chemical Society Reviews, 38(1), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1039/B800489G
  24. Lemmon, E. W., Huber, M. L., & McLinden, M. O. (2010). NIST standard reference database 23: Reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties (REFPROP), Version 9.0. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  25. Liu, B. Y. H., & Jordan, R. C. (1960). The interrelationship and characteristic distribution of direct, diffuse and total solar radiation. Solar Energy, 4(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(60)90062-1
  26. Lopez, V. A. M., Arcos-Aviles, D., Guinjoan, F., Llanos, J., Barragan-Calvo, J., & Motoasca, E. (2023). Maximization of PV energy use and performance analysis of a stand-alone PV-hydrogen system. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 48(99), 39298–39314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.09.072
  27. Lototskyy, M. V., Yartys, V. A., Pollet, B. G., & Bowman, R. C. (2017). The use of metal hydrides in fuel cell applications. Progress in Natural Science: Materials International, 27(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2017.01.008
  28. Mann, R. F., Amphlett, J. C., Hooper, M. A. I., Jensen, H. M., Peppley, B. A., & Roberge, P. R. (2000). Development and application of a generalised steady-state electrochemical model for a PEM fuel cell. Journal of Power Sources, 86(1–2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(99)00484-X
  29. Nalajala, N., Patra, K. K., Bharad, P. A., & Gopinath, C. S. (2021). Aqueous methanol to formaldehyde and hydrogen on Pd/TiO₂ by photocatalysis in direct sunlight: Structure-dependent activity of nano-Pd and atomic Pt-coated counterparts. ACS Applied Energy Materials, 4(11), 13347–13360. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.1c03080
  30. Ni, M., Leung, M. K. H., Leung, D. Y. C., & Sumathy, K. (2007). A review and recent developments in photocatalytic water-splitting using TiO₂ for hydrogen production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(3), 401–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.01.009
  31. Romero, R. L., Alfano, O. M., & Cassano, A. E. (1997). Cylindrical photocatalytic reactors: Radiation absorption and scattering effects produced by suspended fine particles in an annular space. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 36(8), 3094–3109. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie960664a
  32. Rosen, M. A., & Scott, D. S. (1998). Comparative efficiency assessments for a range of hydrogen production processes. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 23(8), 653–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3199(97)00080-3
  33. Ruiz-Aguirre, A., Polo-López, M. I., Fernández-Ibáñez, P., & Malato, S. (2022). Assessment of pilot-plant scale solar photocatalytic hydrogen generation with multiple approaches: Valorization, water decontamination and disinfection. Energy, 260, Article 125199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125199
  34. Sandrock, G. (1999). A panoramic overview of hydrogen storage alloys from a gas reaction point of view. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 293–295, 877-888. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8388(99)00384-9
  35. Staffell, I., Scamman, D., Abad, A. V., Balcombe, P., Dodds, P. E., Ekins, P., Shah, N., & Ward, K. R. (2019). The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy & Environmental Science, 12(2), 463–491. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EE01157E
  36. Toledo-Camacho, S. Y., Rey, A., Mota, A. L., Hernández-Alonso, M. D., Llorca, J., & Medina, F. (2021). Photocatalytic hydrogen production from water-methanol and glycerol mixtures using Pd/TiO₂(-WO₃) catalysts and validation in a solar pilot plant. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(73), 36152–36166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.08.141
  37. Villachica-Llamosas, J. G., Chávez, A. M., Polo-López, M. I., Malato, S., & Fernández-Ibáñez, P. (2024). CuO-TiO₂ pilot-plant system performance for solar photocatalytic hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 51, 1069–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.07.149
  38. Wang, Q., & Domen, K. (2020). Particulate photocatalysts for light-driven water splitting: Mechanisms, challenges, and design strategies. Chemical Reviews, 120(2), 919–985. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00201
  39. Wang, Y., Chen, K. S., Mishler, J., Cho, S. C., & Adroher, X. C. (2011). A review of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells: Technology, applications, and needs on fundamental research. Applied Energy, 88(4), 981–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.09.030
  40. Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., & Weidema, B. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (Part I): Overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
  41. WHO. (2022). Immunization coverage. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/immunization-coverage
  42. Yang, R. T. (1987). Gas separation by adsorption processes. Boston.
  43. Yilanci, A., Dincer, I., & Ozturk, H. K. (2009). A review on solar-hydrogen/fuel cell hybrid energy systems for stationary applications. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 35(3), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2008.07.004
  44. Zakeri, B., & Syri, S. (2015). Electrical energy storage systems: A comparative life cycle cost analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 569–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.011