Citation: Géremi Gilson Dranka, Jorge Cunha, José Donizetti de Lima, Paula Ferreira. Economic evaluation methodologies for renewable energy projects[J]. AIMS Energy, 2020, 8(2): 339-364. doi: 10.3934/energy.2020.2.339
| [1] | Okechukwu Okafor, Abimbola Popoola, Olawale Popoola, Samson Adeosun . Surface modification of carbon nanotubes and their nanocomposites for fuel cell applications: A review. AIMS Materials Science, 2024, 11(2): 369-414. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2024020 |
| [2] | Christoph Nick, Helmut F. Schlaak, Christiane Thielemann . Simulation and Measurement of Neuroelectrodes Characteristics with Integrated High Aspect Ratio Nano Structures. AIMS Materials Science, 2015, 2(3): 189-202. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2015.3.189 |
| [3] | Falko Böttger-Hiller, Klaus Nestler, Henning Zeidler, Gunther Glowa, Thomas Lampke . Plasma electrolytic polishing of metalized carbon fibers. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(1): 260-269. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.1.260 |
| [4] | Christian M Julien, Alain Mauger, Ashraf E Abdel-Ghany, Ahmed M Hashem, Karim Zaghib . Smart materials for energy storage in Li-ion batteries. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(1): 137-148. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.1.137 |
| [5] | Nagesh K. Tripathi . Porous carbon spheres: Recent developments and applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(5): 1016-1052. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.5.1016 |
| [6] | Claas Hüter, Shuo Fu, Martin Finsterbusch, Egbert Figgemeier, Luke Wells, Robert Spatschek . Electrode–electrolyte interface stability in solid state electrolyte systems: influence of coating thickness under varying residual stresses. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(4): 867-877. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.4.867 |
| [7] | Jamal Alnofiay, Ahmed Al-Shahrie, Elsayed Shalaan . Green synthesis of high-performance gallium oxide supercapacitor: A path to outstanding energy density. AIMS Materials Science, 2024, 11(6): 1065-1082. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2024051 |
| [8] | Christoph Janiak . Inorganic materials synthesis in ionic liquids. AIMS Materials Science, 2014, 1(1): 41-44. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2014.1.41 |
| [9] | Giovanna Di Pasquale, Salvatore Graziani, Chiara Gugliuzzo, Antonino Pollicino . Ionic polymer-metal composites (IPMCs) and ionic polymer-polymer composites (IP2Cs): Effects of electrode on mechanical, thermal and electromechanical behaviour. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(5): 1062-1077. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.5.1062 |
| [10] | Christian M. Julien, Alain Mauger . Functional behavior of AlF3 coatings for high-performance cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(3): 406-440. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.3.406 |
An increasing reliance on portable electronics has motivated the recent investigation of wearable energy storage systems. Viable energy storage solutions for wearable applications should be safe for the consumer, lightweight, physically flexible, and straightforward to manufacture. Use of a solid-state gel electrolyte may enable a fully printable device architecture that can satisfy all of these requirements [1]. Ionic liquid-based gels, or ionogels, offer an attractive way to realize a safe supercapacitor electrolyte due to the negligible vapor pressure of the ionic liquid, which renders it nonvolatile and nonflammable.
Ionogels are composite materials that consist of an ionic liquid and a solid support matrix of organic, inorganic, or hybrid composition. The matrix can be formed by physical coagulation of a solid additive (e.g. carbon nanotubes, fumed silica, organic gelators), or through chemical reaction [2]. Electrolyte gels that employ a polymer-based matrix have widely been used to demonstrate flexible supercapacitor prototypes due to their physical integrity [3, 4]. It has recently been shown that ionogels formed in situ by UV-initiated free radical polymerization are extremely simple to fabricate, and possess desirable characteristics as solid electrolytes [5, 6]. However, few studies have explored the integration of UV-cured ionogel electrolytes with carbon electrodes due to the inherent difficulty of irradiating a thin film of gel precursor solution s and wiched between opaque carbon electrodes with UV light [7].
Solid-state, flexible supercapacitor prototype assembly can be broadly classified into two categories: (1) a multi-step approach, whereby the surfaces of two distinct carbon electrodes are first coated with a gel electrolyte and subsequently s and wiched together [8, 9, 10, 11, 12], or (2) a one-step approach, whereby a gel electrolyte is formed in situ against two carbon electrodes that have already been arranged in their desired final geometry within the device [13, 14]. Although the multi-step process is feasible in a laboratory setting, a one-step process would provide a simpler approach to both scale-up and large-scale production. Furthermore, by eliminating the need to mechanically press two halves of the device together, one-step assembly greatly reduces the possibility of damaging the typically fragile high surface area carbon electrodes employed in supercapacitors. With several groups currently developing novel types of high surface area carbon-based electrodes [15, 16, 17, 18, 19], there is a critical need to underst and how ionogel electrolytes can be effectively combined with these structures in situ.
The work described here examines the integration of an in situ UV-cured poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA) -supported ionogel electrolyte [6] with several commercially available, high surface area carbon paper electrodes. In order to cure the gel electrolyte in situ adjacent to both carbon electrodes, a coplanar test bed architecture was employed. This approach served as a repeatable means of forming a thin UV-cured ionogel film in contact with different pairs of opaque carbon electrodes in a single step. In addition, a direct comparison of the electrical response of the ionogel electrolyte with that of the neat ionic liquid, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis (trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide (EMI TFSI), was performed in order to examine the hypothesis that the performance of a particular carbon electrode with neat EMI TFSI is directly correlated to its performance with the PEGDA-supported ionogel electrolyte.
Ionogel-carbon paper electrode assemblies were fabricated with a coplanar electrode geometry on glass microscope slides. PTFE pipe thread tape was used to define a rectangular area of 60 mm2 (12 mm x 5 mm), inside which the active components of the device were located. A portion of each carbon paper was initially immersed in melted paraffin wax (McMaster Carr). After this treatment, the carbon paper was cut such that an uncoated carbon paper projected area of 25 mm2 (5 mm x 5 mm) was exposed directly adjacent to the edge of the paper treated by the paraffin wax. This area represents the active part of each electrode that was wetted by electrolyte. Two electrodes were cut out in this fashion and placed flat on the glass slide within the area bordered by the PTFE tape. A gap of 2 mm was maintained between the edges of the carbon paper electrodes for all assemblies. An electrolyte solution volume of 30 µL (either neat ionic liquid or the ionogel precursor solution, see below) was pipetted into the PTFE-bounded region containing the carbon electrodes from above. Electrical contact was made using nickel-plated steel micro-alligator clips that gripped the paraffin-treated portion of the carbon papers against the glass slide. Ionogel devices were assembled and tested in a nitrogen-filled glovebox (< 1 ppm oxygen and water vapor). Devices made with the neat ionic liquid were assembled and tested under ambient laboratory conditions.
High surface area carbon papers were procured from three sources. Graphitized carbon fiber paper (CFP), manufactured by Engineered Fibers Technology, was obtained from an online materials supplier. Carbon aerogel paper (CAGP) was manufactured by and obtained from Marketech International. Carbon nanotube paper (CNTP) was manufactured by and obtained from Inorganic Specialists, Inc.; four different variations of this paper were examined (CNTP1, CNTP2, CNTP3, and CNTP4). The sheet resistances of all carbon papers were measured using a four-point probe instrument (Creative Design Engineering). The manufacturer-reported specific surface areas and the measured sheet resistance values of each carbon paper are summarized in Table 1.
| Carbon Electrode | Reported Specific Surface Area (m2 g-1) | Measured Sheet Resistance (Ohm sq.-1) | Binder Present? |
| CFP | 80 | 0.5 | yes |
| CAGP | 600 | 1.3 | no |
| CNTP1 | 60 | 5.1 | no |
| CNTP2 | 180 | 5.0 | no |
| CNTP3 | 220 | 14.7 | no |
| CNTP4 | 400 | 3.4 | no |
DownLoad: CSVThe solid ionogel electrolyte was fabricated following the method of Visentin and Panzer [6]. The ionic liquid, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis (trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide (EMI TFSI), was obtained from EMD Chemicals. The polymer scaffold precursor, polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), and UV-initiator, 2-hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone, were obtained from Sigma Aldrich. A polymer content of 16% wt. PEGDA was selected based on its ease of h and ling and flexible character [6]. After dispensing the ionogel precursor solution on top of the coplanar electrode assembly, UV irradiation for 3 min (from the top) was used to create the gel electrolyte. All chemicals used to create the ionogel electrolyte were stored and used in the nitrogen-filled glovebox.
Cyclic voltammetry (CV) and electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) were performed using a potentiostat with a built-in frequency response analyzer (VersaSTAT 3, Princeton Applied Research). CV was conducted at a voltage sweep rate of 1 mV s-1 within a window of -1.5 V to +1.5 V (vs. open circuit); at least three cycles were recorded to ensure repeatability between successive voltage sweeps. For each EIS measurement, the frequency was logarithmically swept from 10 kHz to 1 mHz. The RMS amplitude of the AC signal employed was 10 mV (DC offset of 0 V vs. open circuit).
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to examine the microstructure of the various carbon papers employed in this study. Figure 1 shows representative SEM images obtained for the carbon fiber paper (CFP), carbon aerogel paper (CAGP), and carbon nanotube paper #3 (CNTP3); it should be noted that the four CNTP papers (CNTP1-4) all appeared visually similar when viewed under 5000 x magnification.
Figure 1. SEM images of the three main carbon paper types employed: (a) carbon fiber paper (CFP); (b) carbon aerogel paper (CAGP); (c) carbon nanotube paper #3 (CNTP3), which is representative of all four CNTP materials used in this study. Insets to (b) and (c) show the pore structures of these papers at higher magnification..
CFP is a porous carbon paper that is typically used for laboratory scale fuel cell development. It consists of a graphitized network of resin-bonded carbon fibers, and , as seen in Figure 1a, CFP exhibits the largest apparent pore size among all of the papers utilized in this study. It is important to note that the CFP material was the only electrode studied that contained a binder for physical support (Figure 1a).
According to its manufacturer (Marketech International, Inc.), the CAGP material is prepared by a sol-gel method from a resorcinol-formaldehyde precursor, which, post-reaction, is carbonized to create a carbon foam with high porosity and surface area. To create a robust paper electrode, the CAGP also contains carbon fibers for mechanical support (Figure 1b). Inside the micron-scale cracks present on the surface of the CAGP electrodes, the nanoporous carbon foam structure is visible (pore size of approximately 80 nm, see inset to Figure 1b), which gives the CAGP material its very high reported specific surface area of 600 m2 g-1.
Four types of carbon nanotube paper were obtained from Inorganic Specialists, Inc. (CNTP1-4). All of the CNTP materials consist of 100% carbon nanotubes/fibers, with no binder present (Figure 1c). Such papers are fabricated by dispersing carbon nanotubes/fibers in water, thenfiltering the suspension through a porous support membrane to produce a carbon filter cake [20]. Due to the absence of any binder material, the CNTP electrodes were the most fragile to h and le. Variation in the reported specific surface areas of the four CNTP materials utilized in this study was likely achieved by the manufacturer incorporating carbon nanotubes of different diameters and /or lengths, as evidenced by SEM imaging at high magnification (inset to Figure 1c).
Figure 2 displays the CV curves obtained for coplanar test beds fabricated with the six different types of carbon paper electrodes examined and the ionogel electrolyte; current values are normalized by the total mass of two electrodes. Each curve exhibits an approximately rectangular shape, indicating that capacitive behavior was observed for all of the carbon papers. If it is assumed to be independent of voltage, the capacitance of each device can be calculated directly from the current values measured during the CV sweeps via:
C=1dVdt
Figure 2. Cyclic voltammograms of test beds containing different carbon paper electrodes with 16 wt% PEGDA ionogel electrolyte (third cycle shown in each case). A scan rate of 1 mV s-1 was used.
The positive current value measured at 0 V on the CV graph was used to calculate the capacitance of each device (the absolute values of the negative currents were nearly identical to the positive current values). Gravimetric capacitances for each electrode type integrated with the ionogel electrolyte are summarized in Table 2. The capacitance values can be approximately correlated with the reported surface areas of the carbon papers (shown in Table 1), with one notable exception; namely, the capacitance of the CFP device (0.02 F g-1) was nearly two orders of magnitude lower than was observed for the other electrode papers. Although its reported specific surface area was relatively low (80 m2 g-1), the CFP material exhibited significantly lower capacitance compared to the CNTP1 material, which claimed a similar specific surface area of 60 m2 g-1. This discrepancy is likely due to the presence of the binder in CFP (Figure 1a), which reduces either the wettability of the electrode by the ionogel precursor solution, and /or the effective (conductive) electrode surface area.
Figure 3 displays Bode plots of the phase angle of impedance (φ) obtained for each carbon paper type, together with the neat EMI TFSI ionic liquid (Figure 3a) or the ionogel electrolyte (Figure 3b). The frequency at which the phase angle reaches -45° (f0) is termed the “switching frequency, ” where a device transitions from exhibiting primarily resistive to primarily capacitive behavior. Comparison of the neat EMI TFSI and ionogel electrolytes shown in Figure 3 reveals that the neat EMI TFSI devices uniformly exhibited switching frequencies approximately five times faster than their ionogel counterparts. This difference is due to the presence of the cross-linked PEGDA scaffold in the ionogel, which impedes the polarization response of the ions [6]. The switching frequency for CFP with the ionogel electrolyte (f0 = 6.3 Hz) was observed to be approximately three orders of magnitude larger than for the other carbon papers examined (f0 varies between 2-10 mHz), as seen in Figure 3b. It should be pointed out that these values are lower than those typically reported for supercapacitor prototypes, due to the coplanar electrode architecture employed here. However, a comparison of the EIS behavior of the various carbon paper electrodes for a given electrolyte (either neat ionic liquid or the ionogel) can illuminate differences in the relative performance of each carbon structure. The comparatively fast switching frequency observed for CFP with both electrolyte types is attributed to the large, open pore structure defined by the carbon fibers of this material (Figure 1a), which facilitates ready access to the EMI and TFSI ions for rapid double layer formation and rearrangement. However, the low effective surface area of the CFP material that enables a fast polarization response also leads to the lowest observed capacitance (Figure 2).
Figure 3. Bode plots of the phase angle of impedance for test beds containing: (a) neat EMI TFSI electrolyte; (b) 16 wt% PEGDA ionogel electrolyte. The magnitude of impedance (|Z|) versus frequency data measured using the neat ionic liquid and ionogel electrolyte test beds are shown in Figure 4. While it is noted that the equivalent series resistance (ESR) values obtained here are much larger than those of typical supercapacitor devices (due to the coplanar structure of the test bed), relative comparisons among the carbon papers are highly informative. The CAGP and CFP materials exhibited lower ESR values (taken to be equal to |Z| at f = 10 kHz) compared to the other electrode materials with both neat EMI TFSI (Figure 4a) as well as with the ionogel electrolyte (Figure 4b), as summarized in Table 2. This result was expected since these two electrode materials possessed the lowest measured sheet resistances (Table 1). However, a different trend is observed within the group of CNTP materials upon comparing their behavior with the neat ionic liquid versus the ionogel electrolyte. The order of carbon nanotube paper sheet resistances, from highest to lowest, is: CNTP3 > CNTP1 ≈ CNTP2 > CNTP4 (Table 1). This trend is mirrored in the ordering of device ESR values when EMI TFSI is used as an electrolyte (Figure 4a), but is not the case when the ionogel electrolyte is employed (Figure 4b). As seen in Table 2, the ESR value of the CNTP3 device with the ionogel electrolyte (9.74 kw) is, in fact, lower than those for both the CNTP1 and CNPT2 devices (11.7 kw and 10.2 kw respectively). Furthermore, CNTP4, which exhibited the lowest measured sheet resistance among the four carbon nanotube-based papers and demonstrated a low ESR value when paired with the neat ionic liquid (0.615 kw), displayed an unexpectedly large relative increase in ESR when integrated with the solid ionogel electrolyte (6.98 kw). As shown in Table 2, the relative increase in ESR between the ionogel and the neat EMI TFSI responses ranged from 3.9x (for CNTP3) to as large as 11.3x (for CNTP4).
Figure 4. Magnitude of impedance, |Z|, for test beds containing: (a) neat EMI TFSI electrolyte; (b) 16 wt% PEGDA ionogel electrolyte.
| Carbon Electrode | Specific Capacitance (F gelectrodes-1) | Equiv. Series Resistance (kw) | ESRionogel/ESREMI TFSI (-) |
| CFP | 0.02 | 3.88 | 6.1 |
| CAGP | 2.33 | 2.25 | 4.3 |
| CNTP1 | 0.97 | 11.7 | 9.8 |
| CNTP2 | 1.63 | 10.2 | 7.0 |
| CNTP3 | 1.30 | 9.74 | 3.9 |
| CNTP4 | 1.87 | 6.98 | 11.3 |
DownLoad: CSVSince identical electrolyte solutions and fabrication conditions were employed for each carbon paper electrode test bed, one may attribute differences in performance of the various electrode materials when changing from the ionic liquid to the ionogel electrolyte to differences in wettability and /or interfacial compatibility. More specifically, the formation of the cross-linked PEGDA scaffold inside the ionic liquid during UV-curing of the ionogel precursor solution may lead to adsorption of the polymer on the carbon electrode surface, causing an increased carbon/electrolyte interfacial resistance. This possibility is expected to depend strongly on the detailed nature of the pore structure and surface chemical functionalization of each carbon paper, and is worthy of further investigation. Alternatively, differing degrees of pore mouth blockage among the various carbon papers by the cross-linked PEGDA scaffold may also lead to unexpected relative changes in ESR when switching from the neat ionic liquid to an ionogel electrolyte. Given that the two-electrode double layer capacitance of both the neat EMI TFSI as well as the ionogel electrolyte is approximately 5 mF cm-2 for planar electrodes [6], it is clear that the ionogel precursor solution did not fully penetrate the porous structure of any of these carbon papers during the test bed fabrication procedure (as demonstrated by the low gravimetric capacitance values measured by CV, Table 2). In addition, the high ESR values observed for these devices may also have limited the gravimetric capacitance values achieved. A modified test bed fabrication protocol wherein the iono gel precursor solution is actively drawn into the porous carbon papers (i.e. by vacuum filling) is currently being developed in order to increase the gravimetric capacitance values and to clarify the issue of seeming unpredictable relative ESR changes when transitioning from an ionic liquid to an ionogel electrolyte.
In order to begin integrating UV-cured solid ionogel electrolytes, a promising class of emergent materials for supercapacitors, with high surface area carbon paper electrodes in situ, an underst and ing of the relative compatibility of the ionogel with different carbon electrode materials is required. The coplanar test bed geometry utilized here represents one schema by which this integration might be achieved, and it also provides a straightforward way to compare the electrical response of an ionogel electrolyte with its neat ionic liquid analog. Furthermore, initial results using this test bed have revealed anomalous trends in the relative increase of device equivalent series resistance observed for the use of a 16 wt% PEGDA ionogel compared to the neat ionic liquid that highlight the need to better underst and the wetting and interfacial surface behavior at the electrode/electrolyte interface. These findings can help guide future efforts regarding the in situ integration of ionogel electrolytes with porous carbon electrodes for wearable energy storage applications.
The authors wish to acknowledge Adam Visentin and Ariel Horowitz for useful discussions, Dr. Anna Osherov for collecting the SEM images, and Changqiong Zhu for measuring the carbon paper sheet resistances. SEM images and sheet resistance values were obtained at the Center for Nanoscale Systems (CNS), a member of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), which is supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF award no. ECS-0335765. CNS is part of Harvard University. The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation scholarship, the US Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, and the National Science Foundation (award no. ECCS-1201935).
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
| [1] |
Pukšec T, Leahy P, Foley A, et al. (2018) Sustainable development of energy, water and environment systems. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 82: 1685-1690. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.057
|
| [2] | Selvakkumaran S, Ahlgren EO (2017) Understanding the local energy transitions process: a systematic review. Int J Sustainable Energy Plan Manage 14: 57-78. |
| [3] | OECD/IEA, IRENA (2017) Perspectives for the energy transition: Investment needs for a Low-Carbon energy system. Int Energy Agency 204. |
| [4] |
Söder L, Lund PD, Koduvere H, et al. (2018) A review of demand side flexibility potential in Northern Europe. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 91: 654-664. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.104
|
| [5] | IEA (2017) Renewables 2017: Analysis and Forecasts to 2022. Paris: OECD Publishing, 6. Available from: https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2017. |
| [6] |
Dranka GG, Ferreira P (2019) Review and assessment of the different categories of demand response potentials. Energy 179: 280-294. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.009
|
| [7] |
Kjærland F (2007) A real option analysis of investments in hydropower-The case of Norway. Energy Policy 35: 5901-5908. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.07.021
|
| [8] | Dranka GG, Ferreira P (2020) Towards a smart grid power system in Brazil: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 136. |
| [9] |
McPherson M, Tahseen S (2018) Deploying storage assets to facilitate variable renewable energy integration: The impacts of grid flexibility, renewable penetration, and market structure. Energy 145: 856-870. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.002
|
| [10] |
Koltsaklis NE, Dagoumas AS, Panapakidis IP (2017) Impact of the penetration of renewables on flexibility needs. Energy Policy 109: 360-369. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.026
|
| [11] |
Dranka GG, Ferreira P (2018) Planning for a renewable future in the Brazilian power system. Energy 164: 496-511. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.164
|
| [12] | Sorknæs P, Lund H, Andersen AN, et al. (2014) Small-scale combined heat and power as a balancing reserve for wind-The case of participation in the German secondary control reserve. Int J Sustainable Energy Plan Manage 4: 31-42. |
| [13] |
Dranka GG, Ferreira P, Vaz AIF (2020) Cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency investments for high renewable electricity systems. Energy 198: 117198. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.117198
|
| [14] |
Cedrick BZE, Long PW (2017) Investment motivation in renewable energy: A PPP Approach. Energy Procedia 115: 229-238. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.021
|
| [15] |
Wüstenhagen R, Menichetti E (2012) Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: Conceptual framework and opportunities for further research. Energy Policy 40: 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.050
|
| [16] | Cunha J, Ferreira PV (2014) Designing electricity generation portfolios using the mean-variance approach. Int J Sustainable Energy Plan Manage 4: 17-30. |
| [17] |
Ozorhon B, Batmaz A, Caglayan S (2018) Generating a framework to facilitate decision making in renewable energy investments. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 95: 217-226. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.035
|
| [18] |
Gatzert N, Kosub T (2016) Risks and risk management of renewable energy projects: The case of onshore and offshore wind parks. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 60: 982-998. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.103
|
| [19] | Liebreich M (2005) Financing RE: Risk management in financing renewable energy projects. Refocus 6: 18-20. |
| [20] |
Steffen B (2018) The importance of project finance for renewable energy projects. Energy Econ 69: 280-294. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.11.006
|
| [21] |
Arnold U, Yildiz Ö (2015) Economic risk analysis of decentralized renewable energy infrastructures-A Monte Carlo Simulation approach. Renewable Energy 77: 227-239. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.059
|
| [22] |
Bistline JE, Comello SD, Sahoo A (2018) Managerial flexibility in levelized cost measures: A framework for incorporating uncertainty in energy investment decisions. Energy 151: 211-225. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.036
|
| [23] |
Liu X, Zeng M (2017) Renewable energy investment risk evaluation model based on system dynamics. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 73: 782-788. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.019
|
| [24] |
Sadorsky P (2012) Modeling renewable energy company risk. Energy Policy 40: 39-48. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.064
|
| [25] |
Akter MN, Mahmud MA, Oo AMT (2017) Comprehensive economic evaluations of a residential building with solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage systems: An Australian case study. Energy Build 138: 332-346. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.065
|
| [26] |
Dalton G, Allan G, Beaumont N, et al. (2015) Economic and socio-economic assessment methods for ocean renewable energy: Public and private perspectives. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 45: 850-878. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.068
|
| [27] |
Tran TTD, Smith AD (2018) Incorporating performance-based global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis into LCOE calculations for emerging renewable energy technologies. Appl Energy 216: 157-171. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.024
|
| [28] | Souza A, Clemente A (2008) Financial decisions and investment analysis: Fundaments, techniques and applications. São Paulo, Atlas (original source in Portuguese). |
| [29] | Lima JD de, Trentin MG, Oliveira GA, et al. (2017) Systematic analysis of economic viability with stochastic approach: A proposal for investment. Eng Syst Networks. |
| [30] |
Lima JD de, Trentin MG, Oliveira GA, et al. (2015) A systematic approach for the analysis of the economic viability of investment projects. Int J Eng Manage Econ 5: 19-34. doi: 10.1504/IJEME.2015.069887
|
| [31] | Casarotto Filho NC, Kopittke BH (2010) Investment analysis: Financial mathematics, economic engineering, decision making, business strategy. São Paulo (original source in Portuguese). |
| [32] |
Santos L, Soares I, Mendes C, et al. (2014) Real options versus traditional methods to assess renewable energy projects. Renewable Energy 68: 588-594. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.01.038
|
| [33] | Johansson E (2010) Real options in energy investments. Mathematics 64. |
| [34] |
Martínez-Ceseña EA, Mutale J (2011) Application of an advanced real options approach for renewable energy generation projects planning. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 15: 2087-2094. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.01.016
|
| [35] | Joode J, Boots MG (2005) Concepts of investment risks and strategies in electricity generation. ECN-C-05-061. Netherlands. |
| [36] | Dranka GG, Cunha J, Ferreira P, et al. (2018) Real options theory applied to the evaluation of small hydropower investments in Brazil, ECOS 2018-Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems. |
| [37] | Giorgetto TM (2012) Investment decision for small hydroelectric plants and wind power plants: Application of the real options theory. Fundação Getulio Vargas, São Paulo. (original source in Portuguese). |
| [38] | Fernandes B, Cunha J, Ferreira P (2011) Real options theory in comparison to other project evaluation techniques. 1st International Conference on Project Economic Evaluation, ICOPEV 2011, Guimarães, Portugal, 187-193. |
| [39] | Junkes MB, Tereso AP, Sérgio P, et al. (2009) Current practice and teaching of engineering economics in Brazilian Universities. 4th International Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education-(PAEE), São Paulo, Brazil, 301-308. |
| [40] |
Pereira EJ da S, Pinho JT, Galhardo MAB, et al. (2014) Methodology of risk analysis by Monte Carlo Method applied to power generation with renewable energy. Renewable Energy 69: 347-355. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.054
|
| [41] | Cunha J, Ferreira PV (2014) A risk analysis of Small-Hydro Power (SHP) plants investments. Int J Sustainable Energy Plan Manage 2: 47-62. |
| [42] |
Talavera DL, Pérez-Higueras P, Almonacid F, et al. (2017) A worldwide assessment of economic feasibility of HCPV power plants: Profitability and competitiveness. Energy 119: 408-424. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.093
|
| [43] | Kitzing L, Weber C (2015) Support mechanisms for renewables: How risk exposure influences investment incentives. Int J Sustainable Energy Plan Manage 7: 113-130. |
| [44] | Nogas PSM, Silva WV, Souza A (2010) Investment analysis: A probabilistic contribution to the TMA/TIR index of the multi-index methodology. Rev Iberoam Ciências Empres y Econ 2: 10-26 (original source in Spanish). |
| [45] | Copeland T, Antikarov V (2003) Real Options, Revised Edition: A Practitioner's Guide, Penguin Group. |
| [46] |
Fernandes B, Cunha J, Ferreira P (2011) The use of real options approach in energy sector investments. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15: 4491-4497. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.102
|
| [47] |
Andrés P de, Fuente G de, San Martín P (2015) Capital budgeting practices in Spain. BRQ Bus Res Q 18: 37-56. doi: 10.1016/j.brq.2014.08.002
|
| [48] | de Souza P, Lunkes RJ (2016) Capital budgeting practices by large Brazilian companies. Contaduría y Adm 61: 514-534. |
| [49] |
Schlegel D, Frank F, Britzelmaier B (2016) Investment decisions and capital budgeting practices in German manufacturing companies. Int J Bus Glob 16: 66. doi: 10.1504/IJBG.2016.073626
|
| [50] | Caloba GM, Neves C das, Costa RP, et al. (2008) Economic engineering and finance. Elsevier. (original source in Portuguese). |
| [51] | Harry J, Católica H, Alisson J, et al. (2014) Probabilistic approach of the TMA/TIR indicator to assess financial risk in investment projects. XXI Congresso Brasileiro de Custos, Natal, 16 (original source in Portuguese). |
| [52] | Johann ER, Souza A, Bispo CM (2014) Classical and multi-index methodologies in the financial evaluation of investment projects: A case study in the alpha company. Revista Gestão e Desenvolvimento, Novo Hamburgo, Brazil, v. 11, n. 1, jan. 2014. ISSN 2446-6875 (original source in Portuguese). |
| [53] | Dranka GG, Portolann CA, Casamali DF, et al. (2017) Impact analysis of wind power mini-generation for industrial consumers considering different tariff modalities in Brazil, 2016 12th IEEE International Conference on Industry Applications, INDUSCON 2016. |
| [54] |
Dranka GG, Lima JD de, Bonotto RC, et al. (2018) Economic and risk analysis of Small-Scale PV systems in Brazil. IEEE Lat Am Trans 16: 2530-2538. doi: 10.1109/TLA.2018.8795132
|
| [55] |
Caricimi R, Lima de JD (2018) Economic analysis for small hydroelectric power plant using extended Multi-Index methodology-An approach stochastic by the monte carlo simulation. IEEE Lat Am Trans 16: 2184-2191. doi: 10.1109/TLA.2018.8528233
|
| [56] | Goffi AS, Trojan F, de Lima JD, et al. (2019) Economic feasibility for selecting wastewater treatment systems. Water Sci Technol 78: 2518-2531. |
| [57] |
Gularte LCP, Lima JD de, Oliveira GA, et al. (2017) Economic feasibility study of the implementation of a waste recycling plant construction in Pato Branco, Paraná, using the extended multi-index methodology. Eng Sanit Ambient 22: 985-992. (original source in Portuguese). doi: 10.1590/s1413-41522017162097
|
| [58] | Da Silva KP, De Lima JD, Malacarne K, et al. (2019) Analysis of the economic viability of process automation: a case study in an agro-industrial poultry cooperative. Custos e Agronegocio Line 15: 537-555 (original source in Portuguese). |
| [59] | Lima JD de, Southier LFP (2019) Practical guide for user of SAVEPI, Pato Branco (original source in Portuguese). |
| [60] |
Lima JD de, Bennemann M, Southier FLP, et al. (2017) Savepi-Web System to support the teaching and learning process in engineering economics. Brazilian J Oper Prod Manage 14: 469-485. doi: 10.14488/BJOPM.2017.v14.n4.a4
|
| [61] | Henao A, Sauma E, Reyes T, et al. (2017) What is the value of the option to defer an investment in Transmission Expansion Planning ? An estimation using Real Options. Energy Econ 65: 194-207. |
| [62] |
Saleh JH, Mark G, Jordan NC (2009) Flexibility: A multi-disciplinary literature review and a research agenda for designing flexible engineering systems. J Eng Des 20: 307-323. doi: 10.1080/09544820701870813
|
| [63] | Fabrini KL (2011) Real options theory: An approach to investment analysis in the expansion of the power sector. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (original source in Portuguese). |
| [64] | Fenolio LM da S, Minardi AMAF, Monteiro L, et al. (2009) Applying real options theory to the valuation of small hydropower plants. Rev Econ e Adm 8: 347-369. |
| [65] | Luehrman T (1998) Investment opportunities as real options: Getting started on the numbers. Harv Bus Rev 76: 97-105. |
| [66] | Pamplona E de O, Brandão MC, Montevechi JAB, et al. (2013) Evaluating energy sector investments: Calculating volatility. Math Probl Eng 2013: 128309. |
| [67] | Neto JFC (2009) Elaboration and evaluation of investment projects, GEN Atlas, Rio de Janeiro (original source in Portuguese). |
| [68] | Vasseur JP, Sanchez NMP, Escobar MEM (2019). Real Options Volatility: Literature Review and a Case of Application in the Colombian Oil Sector. J Quant Methods Econ Bus Adm: 27: 136-155. |
| [69] | ANEEL (2013) Technical Note DEA 27/13, Brazil, ANEEL. |
| [70] | ANEEL (2016) Results from electricity auctions in the ACR environment from 2005 to 2016, 2016. Available from: http://www.aneel.gov.br/. |
| [71] |
Pereira EJ da S, Pinho JT, Galhardo MAB, et al. (2014) Methodology of risk analysis by Monte Carlo Method applied to power generation with renewable energy. Renewable Energy 69: 347-355. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.054
|
| [72] |
Bøckman T, Fleten SE, Juliussen E, et al. (2008) Investment timing and optimal capacity choice for small hydropower projects. Eur J Oper Res 190: 255-267. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.044
|
| 1. | Stephanie Flores Zopf, Michael Manser, Screen-printed Military Textiles for Wearable Energy Storage, 2016, 11, 1558-9250, 155892501601100, 10.1177/155892501601100303 | |
| 2. | M. Aulice Scibioh, B. Viswanathan, 2020, 9780128198582, 35, 10.1016/B978-0-12-819858-2.00003-2 | |
| 3. | Rajib Paul, Ajit K. Roy, Liming Dai, 2021, 9780128191170, 143, 10.1016/B978-0-12-819117-0.00001-2 | |
| 4. | Nerea Gil-González, T. Akyazi, E. Castaño, F. Benito-Lopez, Maria C. Morant-Miñana, Elucidating the role of the ionic liquid in the actuation behavior of thermo-responsive ionogels, 2018, 260, 09254005, 380, 10.1016/j.snb.2017.12.153 | |
| 5. | Xuli Chen, Rajib Paul, Liming Dai, Carbon-based supercapacitors for efficient energy storage, 2017, 4, 2095-5138, 453, 10.1093/nsr/nwx009 | |
| 6. | Minh-Hai Tran, Hae Kyung Jeong, Ternary carbon composite films for supercapacitor applications, 2017, 684, 00092614, 1, 10.1016/j.cplett.2017.06.025 | |
| 7. | Shaun Whitley, Dowon Bae, Perspective—Insights into Solar-Rechargeable Redox Flow Cell Design: A Practical Perspective for Lab-Scale Experiments, 2021, 168, 0013-4651, 120517, 10.1149/1945-7111/ac3ab3 | |
| 8. | Asim Ali Yaqoob, Mohamad Nasir Mohamad Ibrahim, Khalid Umar, Tabassum Parveen, Akil Ahmad, David Lokhat, Siti Hamidah Mohd Setapar, A glimpse into the microbial fuel cells for wastewater treatment with energy generation, 2021, 214, 19443986, 379, 10.5004/dwt.2021.26737 | |
| 9. | Swetha Vasudevan Kanakkottu, Babak Rezaei, Stephan Sylvest Keller, Metal-free on-chip microsupercapacitor with high-aspect-ratio 3D interdigitated pyrolytic carbon microelectrodes derived from additive manufacturing, 2025, 641, 03787753, 236816, 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2025.236816 |
Géremi Gilson Dranka, Jorge Cunha, José Donizetti de Lima, Paula Ferreira. Economic evaluation methodologies for renewable energy projects[J]. AIMS Energy, 2020, 8(2): 339-364. doi: 10.3934/energy.2020.2.339
| Carbon Electrode | Reported Specific Surface Area (m2 g-1) | Measured Sheet Resistance (Ohm sq.-1) | Binder Present? |
| CFP | 80 | 0.5 | yes |
| CAGP | 600 | 1.3 | no |
| CNTP1 | 60 | 5.1 | no |
| CNTP2 | 180 | 5.0 | no |
| CNTP3 | 220 | 14.7 | no |
| CNTP4 | 400 | 3.4 | no |
DownLoad: CSV| Carbon Electrode | Specific Capacitance (F gelectrodes-1) | Equiv. Series Resistance (kw) | ESRionogel/ESREMI TFSI (-) |
| CFP | 0.02 | 3.88 | 6.1 |
| CAGP | 2.33 | 2.25 | 4.3 |
| CNTP1 | 0.97 | 11.7 | 9.8 |
| CNTP2 | 1.63 | 10.2 | 7.0 |
| CNTP3 | 1.30 | 9.74 | 3.9 |
| CNTP4 | 1.87 | 6.98 | 11.3 |
DownLoad: CSV| Carbon Electrode | Reported Specific Surface Area (m2 g-1) | Measured Sheet Resistance (Ohm sq.-1) | Binder Present? |
| CFP | 80 | 0.5 | yes |
| CAGP | 600 | 1.3 | no |
| CNTP1 | 60 | 5.1 | no |
| CNTP2 | 180 | 5.0 | no |
| CNTP3 | 220 | 14.7 | no |
| CNTP4 | 400 | 3.4 | no |
| Carbon Electrode | Specific Capacitance (F gelectrodes-1) | Equiv. Series Resistance (kw) | ESRionogel/ESREMI TFSI (-) |
| CFP | 0.02 | 3.88 | 6.1 |
| CAGP | 2.33 | 2.25 | 4.3 |
| CNTP1 | 0.97 | 11.7 | 9.8 |
| CNTP2 | 1.63 | 10.2 | 7.0 |
| CNTP3 | 1.30 | 9.74 | 3.9 |
| CNTP4 | 1.87 | 6.98 | 11.3 |
