Environmental life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of triboelectric nanogenerators
Environmental life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of triboelectric nanogenerators
复制标题
DOI：
10.1039/c7ee00158d
复制
发表时间：
2017-03-01
影响因子：
32.5
通讯作者：
Wang, Zhong Lin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ahmed, Abdelsalam;Hassan, Islam;Wang, Zhong Lin
随着世界经济的增长和发展中国家工业化程度的提高，对能源的需求继续增加。摩擦电纳米发电机（TENG）被吹捧为具有巨大的潜力，低碳，非化石燃料能源发电。来自身体运动、振动、风和波浪等的机械能被TENG捕获并转化为电能，从而最大限度地减少全球化石燃料的消耗。然而，只有通过确定性能效率沿着低材料和制造成本以及与其他能量收集技术相比有利的环境概况，才能确定TENG的真正潜力。本文提出了一个详细的技术经济的生命周期评估的两个代表性的例子TENG模块，一个具有高的性能效率（模块A），另一个具有较低的效率（模块B）都使用低成本的材料制造。在其他能量收集技术的背景下，特别是photoprophics，在许多可持续性指标的结果进行了讨论。与模块B相比，模块A具有更好的环境状况、更低的生产成本、更低的CO2排放和更短的能源回收期（EPBP）。然而，模块B的环境概况由于其结构中较高的丙烯酸含量和制造期间较高的电能消耗而略微劣化。鉴于丙烯酸的可回收性和再利用潜力，其寿命结束方案在环境上是可行的，并且由于其在暴露于紫外线辐射期间的稳定性，在燃烧过程中不会产生对人类和环境有害的有毒气体。尽管采用了不太优化的实验室制造路线，但TENG模块通常比商业化的硅基和有机太阳能电池具有更好的环境特性，但模块B的能量回收期略高于基于钙钛矿结构的甲基铵碘化铅的PV技术。总的来说，我们建议未来对TENG的研究应该专注于提高系统性能，材料优化，更重要的是提高其使用寿命，以充分发挥其潜力。
As the world economy grows and industrialization of the developing countries increases, the demand for energy continues to rise. Triboelectric nanogenerators (TENGs) have been touted as having great potential for low-carbon, non-fossil fuel energy generation. Mechanical energies from, amongst others, body motion, vibration, wind and waves are captured and converted by TENGs to harvest electricity, thereby minimizing global fossil fuel consumption. However, only by ascertaining performance efficiency along with low material and manufacturing costs as well as a favorable environmental profile in comparison with other energy harvesting technologies, can the true potential of TENGs be established. This paper presents a detailed techno-economic lifecycle assessment of two representative examples of TENG modules, one with a high performance efficiency (Module A) and the other with a lower efficiency (Module B) both fabricated using low-cost materials. The results are discussed across a number of sustainability metrics in the context of other energy harvesting technologies, notably photovoltaics. Module A possesses a better environmental profile, lower cost of production, lower CO2 emissions and shorter energy payback period (EPBP) compared to Module B. However, the environmental profile of Module B is slightly degraded due to the higher content of acrylic in its architecture and higher electrical energy consumption during fabrication. The end of life scenario of acrylic is environmentally viable given its recyclability and reuse potential and it does not generate toxic gases that are harmful to humans and the environment during combustion processes due to its stability during exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Despite the adoption of a less optimum laboratory manufacturing route, TENG modules generally have a better environmental profile than commercialized Si based and organic solar cells, but Module B has a slightly higher energy payback period than PV technology based on perovskitestructured methyl ammonium lead iodide. Overall, we recommend that future research into TENGs should focus on improving system performance, material optimization and more importantly improving their lifespan to realize their full potential.