Simulation study demonstrates increased emission reductions and economic gains in an industrial park energy trading system, suggesting hydrogen enhances electricity-carbon market efficiency.
Currently, amidst the continuous expansion of renewable energy capacity and the inherent uncertainties in power consumption patterns, hydrogen has emerged as a preeminent energy storage solution due to its convenience, rapid response capabilities, and environmental sustainability. Consequently, the integration of hydrogen production and storage systems (IHPS) into coupled electricity-carbon market transactions assumes paramount significance. This paper presents a meticulously designed market transaction framework tailored for an electricity-carbon coupling energy system that incorporates IHPS, and evaluates its environmental and economic performance during operational phases through simulation using real-world data from a specific industrial park. The findings reveal that: (1) From an environmental perspective, IHPS substantially enhance carbon reduction rates through synergistic electricity-carbon market transactions. Specifically, carbon emissions reduction increased by 90.43% in systems devoid of IHPS, whereas this figure surged to 106.74% in systems integrating IHPS. Furthermore, carbon pricing strategies exert a profound influence on emission levels. (2) Under both uniform pricing and tiered pricing carbon trading mechanisms, the aggregate economic benefits accrued by IHPS witnessed an increase of 12.66% and 12.67%, respectively. (3) When the carbon trading coefficient is set at 0.75, the costs associated with energy procurement and operational maintenance stabilize at 12.44×103 and 0.93×103, respectively, while carbon emission revenues and associated benefits exhibit an upward trajectory. The insights gleaned from the scheduling analysis exclusively impact environmental and economic efficiency and can serve as a strategic reference point for the investment and construction endeavors pertaining to IHPS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: