Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Richard Blanchard
-- 4307 2023-01-09 17:41:03 |
2 format correct
Vivi Li
 Meta information modification 4307 2023-01-12 03:28:13 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Mukelabai, M.D.;  Wijayantha, K.G.U.;  Blanchard, R.E. Hydrogen for Cooking. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39926 (accessed on 27 April 2024).
Mukelabai MD,  Wijayantha KGU,  Blanchard RE. Hydrogen for Cooking. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39926. Accessed April 27, 2024.
Mukelabai, Mulako D., K. G. U. Wijayantha, Richard E. Blanchard. "Hydrogen for Cooking" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39926 (accessed April 27, 2024).
Mukelabai, M.D.,  Wijayantha, K.G.U., & Blanchard, R.E. (2023, January 09). Hydrogen for Cooking. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/39926
Mukelabai, Mulako D., et al. "Hydrogen for Cooking." Encyclopedia. Web. 09 January, 2023.
Hydrogen for Cooking
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su142416964

About 3 billion people use conventional carbon-based fuels such as wood, charcoal, and animal dung for their daily cooking needs. Cooking with biomass causes deforestation and habitat loss, emissions of greenhouse gases, and smoke pollution that affects people’s health and well-being. Hydrogen can play a role in enabling clean and safe cooking by reducing household air pollution and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

hydrogen cooker clean cooking decarbonization modelling and simulation techno-economic analysis hydrogen economy developing countries

1. Introduction

Cooking is an essential activity that plays an integral role in facilitating microbiological food safety [1][2][3] by killing active bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli. However, cooking is an energy-intensive process on a domestic scale, and this compels about 2.8 billion people to use polluting fuels such as charcoal, wood, cow dung, and crop residues. Access to clean and affordable energy is a basic human need and is emphasized in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 [4]. Moreover, the United Nations SDGs are highly interlinked, and clean cooking has a pivotal role in meeting them. Clean cooking can play a part in meeting SDGs 3, 5, and 13 by promoting good health and well-being, combating gender inequality, and mitigating greenhouse gases. For example, the role of a kitchen in promoting gender equality has been overlooked in developing countries—which is one of the reasons why over 300 million people in developing countries still use wood fuels for cooking [5][6][7][8]. The kitchens (which are predominantly seen as women’s responsibilities in the global south) are usually left out of the decarbonisation picture. The pollution from wood fuels affects the health of the users such as premature death through indoor pollution—which is severely experienced by women and children [9][10]. Women’s needs are usually ignored during policy formulation resulting in a lack of appreciation of these policies by women [6].
Developing countries do not only depend on traditional biomass as the primary energy source for cooking but also to meet daily energy requirements such as heating. Pachauri et al. [11] defined clean cooking as cooking with liquid petroleum gas, electricity, and piped fossil fuel gas which results in little or no household emissions. However, this implies that cooking with electricity from coal or oil is also clean cooking. Thus ‘household’ should be removed from the definition. Over 80% of the global population without access to clean cooking is located in Africa and Asia [12]. Combusting biomass fuels to satisfy household energy requirements contributes to global warming, promotes inequality, worsens energy poverty, threatens the health of people, increases indoor and outside air pollution, and reduces the life span [13][14][15][16]. Moreover, an extended recession after the COVID-19 pandemic could increase the population without access to clean cooking by 470 million in 2030, with adverse effects in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia [11].
These challenges highlight the crucial role that hydrogen can play in enabling clean cooking for all. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and it exists in compounds such as water (hydrogen and oxygen) and fossil fuels (hydrogen and carbon) [17]. However, the current global hydrogen production capacity is about 120 million tons [17]. About 80% of this capacity is through steam methane reforming and coal gasification without carbon capture [18]. This production capacity represents about 65% pure hydrogen, and about 33% is a mixture with other gases [17]. This hydrogen is a feedstock in the petrochemical industries and crude oil refineries, ammonia synthesis using the Haber Bosch process primarily for fertilizer production, and methanol production for various products such as plastics [17]. This carbonized hydrogen production implies that hydrogen production should be decarbonized and scaled rapidly to meet the expected growing demand across the various sectors and new sectors/markets, such as the cooking sector.

2. Cooking Mechanisms

2.1. Solid Fuel Combustion Cookers

Solid fuel combustion or traditional cookers are extensively used in developing countries for cooking and heating. The types of solid fuel combustion mechanisms can be described as open-controlled, three-stone-controlled, and enclosed cooking mechanisms [19]. Open-controlled cooking is used for roasting and drying food by combusting wood fuels and crop residues. Three-stone controlled cooking is used for cooking and heating by combusting wood fuels, crop residues, and cow dung. Enclosed cooking is mainly used for cooking and heating by combusting charcoal, coal, or compressed and palletized animal dung. A coal pellet cooker is under fossil fuel, but it is a solid fuel combustion cooker. The direct combustion of solid fuels is incomplete, thus emitting carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, toxic metals, and elemental carbon [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. The emissions of complete and incomplete solid fuel combustion are summarized in Table 1. Besides environmental risks, these products of combustion pose significant health risks such as lung cancer and acute conditions, hypertension, and premature deaths.
Table 1. Characterisation of solid fuel emissions [19].
Fuel Combustion Emissions
Ideal Solid (C, H, O) Complete CO2, H2O
Incomplete CO2, H2O, CO, NOx, VOC, PM (BC/OC)
Actual Solid (C, H, O, N, S, Si, Al, Ca, K, Na, P, As, Pb, Hg, …) Complete CO2, H2O, SO2, NO2, PM (mineral ash) Hg, As, …
Incomplete CO2, H2O, SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, NH3, PM (BC/OC, mineral ash) Hg, As, …
Advanced solid fuel cookers aimed at improving combustion were investigated in the studies [23][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. Gutierrez, Chica, and Perez [41] parametrically analyzed a gasification-based cooker. Pellet combustion showed improved efficiency of 1.1% over chip combustion due to increased biochar yield and a reduction in biomass consumption, thus resulting in lower carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions. Similarly, Scharler et al. [34] investigated a top-lit updraft gasifier cookstove to reduce incomplete combustion and carbon monoxide emissions. Outdoor biomass combustion is regarded as sustainable if the rate of biomass extraction equals the biomass growth rate—but the biomass extraction rate in developing countries exceeds the biomass growth rate leading to land and forest degradation and stunted industrial growth. Additionally, complete combustion/gasification is unattainable due to the low operating temperatures of solid fuel cookers. Even if complete combustion was attainable, biomass combustion still emits carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, toxic metals, and elemental carbon.

2.2. Fossil Methane and Bio-Gas Cookers

A schematic of a typical methane gas cooker utilized in developing countries is shown in Figure 1. Even though natural gas (fossil fuel gas) and bio-gas cookers fall under different cooking technology classifications due to their sources, they have the same working principle and configurations. The gas is stored in cylinders for liquefied petroleum gas or in production containers for biogas. These methane gas cookers are viewed as clean cooking technologies due to higher efficiency and lower pollutant emissions when compared with solid fuel combustion cookers. Lebel et al. [43] approximated that methane gas cookers emit 0.8–1.3% of the gas as uncombusted methane (a potent greenhouse gas) coupled with nitrogen oxides. Improving the combustion characteristics of these cookers is thus cardinal as has been demonstrated in the studies [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]. However, like advanced solid fuel combustion cookers, improving the efficiency of these cookers leads to more CO2 emissions. Thus, a long-term cooking fuel solution is essential.
Sustainability 14 16964 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic of a typical methane cooker used in developing countries.

2.3. Solar Thermal Cookers

Solar cookers are either solar thermal or solar photovoltaic (PV) cookers. Solar thermal cookers convert sunlight to thermal energy, which is retained and used for cooking. Schwarzer and Silva [57] categorized solar thermal cookers based on the collector type and place of cooking. These are direct utilization of flat plate collectors, indirect utilization of flat plate collectors, direct utilization of parabolic reflectors, and indirect utilization of parabolic reflectors. Significant review studies on solar thermal cookers were undertaken in the recent past [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]. These studies reviewed geometrical designs, thermal energy storage, and nanofluids, techno-economic and social aspects of adopting solar thermal cookers. Unlike solid fuel combustion and methane cookers, the availability and concentration of sunlight limit the utilization of solar thermal cookers. However, there are efforts to improve the utilization by concentrating the sunlight and storing the thermal energy in storage mediums. For example, Abu-Hamdeh [71] experimentally investigated the thermal performance of phase change materials in an indirect parabolic reflector solar thermal cooker. Further advances in concentrating and thermal storage technologies are critical in making solar thermal cookers attractive by enabling cooking when there is no solar irradiation.

2.4. Solar PV Cookers

Solar PV cookers convert sunlight to electricity in photovoltaic cells, and this electricity is used for cooking by converting the electricity to thermal energy. Solar PV cookers are either electric or induction cookers. Solar electric (e) cookers use conventional alternating current (AC) converted from direct current (DC) in an inverter. However, Barton et al. [72] developed an innovative e-cooking system that only operates with DC. Using DC avoids using an inverter, thus preventing a 20% loss of battery energy, extra cost, and physical size of the system [72]. The DC e-cooking power station system is shown in Figure 2 and consists of a 25.6 V 76 Ah lithium iron phosphate battery rated at 20A (500 W), auxiliaries, and appliances. The system has a high round trip efficiency of 88%, can cook for 4 to 8 h (7.8 kg rice, 11.7 kg red kidney beans, or 9.9 L of water), has an initial cost of ($800), and can supply cooking energy for at least one meal per day [72].
Sustainability 14 16964 g002 550
Figure 2. Solar PV DC e-cooking power station [73] (Photograph credit: Alex Smith).

2.5. Direct Hydrogen Combustion Cooker

Hydrogen cookers are either catalytic hydrogen combustion cookers, direct hydrogen combustion cookers, or hybrid hydrogen cooking systems.
Direct hydrogen combustion is the conventional/flame combustion of hydrogen. The flame combustion temperatures range from 1200 °C to 2100 °C [74]. In a direct hydrogen combustion cooker, hydrogen and oxygen from the air combine through flame combustion and produce water vapour. Figure 3 shows a schematic of the proposed hydrogen cooker for developing countries. The difference with a methane cooker is the fuel source, exhaust gases, and the requirement of a flame arrestor to quench flashbacks. Flashback is the propagation of a flame towards fresh gases at high velocity in premix burners when the flow rate of the burning hydrogen-air mixture is lower than the flame velocity [75]. The flame may spread to where premixing is taking place (in the burner), thus leading to burner damage. The hydrogen either has to be pressurized or utilize diffusion burners for a flame arrestor to be effective and prevent this phenomenon [75].
Sustainability 14 16964 g003 550
Figure 3. Schematic of a proposed hydrogen cooker for developing countries.
A study by Vries and Levinsky [76] indicated that the current domestic appliance regulatory standards do not account for the flashback risk regarding laminar burning velocity. The study quantified the concept of a safety allowance to preserve the performance of the domestic burner. Even though there are experimental and numerical studies to understand and solve the flashback phenomenon [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87], these studies are focused on large-scale and high-pressure burners, which highlights the need for studies on domestic burners. For instance, Vance, Goey, and Oijen [87] numerically studied the flashback limits of slit burners. They established that the traditional flashback association with the critical velocity gradient does not disintegrate the flashback data because it does not consider the stretch-induced superior diffusion effects. They, therefore, introduced a new definition of a Karlovitz number with physical insights that collapse the flashback data under all the investigated conditions. The lessons and knowledge acquired in these studies could be built on to understand domestic hydrogen burners—thus facilitating the design of stable and safe burners for residential use.

2.6. Catalytic Hydrogen Combustion Cooker

Catalytic hydrogen combustion is the complete oxidation reaction (flameless combustion) involving a heterogeneous catalyst at lower temperatures when compared with flame combustion [88]. Flameless combustion can be safer than direct flame combustion due to lower temperatures (room temperature to 500 °C for low-temperature catalytic combustion or 500 °C to 1200 °C for hybrid catalytic combustion), no flashback, and negligible NOx emissions [74][75][88][89][90][91]. The combustion surface of catalytic hydrogen combustion cookers also glows in proportion to the burner operating temperature, which is advantageous over the invisible flame in direct hydrogen combustion cookers [75]. Groβmman, Lehmann, and Menzl [92] proposed a non-stationary catalytic hydrogen combustion cooker with portable hybrid hydrogen storage. The purpose of the hydrogen cooker was to facilitate clean cooking for rural households without access to clean energy.
Catalytic hydrogen combustion cookers depend on catalysts and support materials [93][94]. Noble (rare) metal catalysts such as platinum and palladium are outstanding due to their catalytic hydrogen combustion activity [74][88][90][91][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113]. However, they are expensive and characterized by poor sintering characteristics [93][94]. Catalyst support materials such as alumina and silicon carbide facilitate the effective utilization of these catalysts by improving the dissipation of activity sites and agglomeration reduction. These increase the catalytic activity and stability [97][108]. However, non-noble metal oxide catalysts with indistinguishable catalytic characteristics are potential replacements for expensive noble-metal catalysts [94]. These oxides are such as cobalt (II, III), manganese, nickel, and copper oxide. The results of comparative studies [114] showed that the non-noble metal oxide catalysts have an indistinguishable catalytic activity from rare catalysts at about 150 °C under a volumetric hydrogen concentration of 1% in the air. In a separate study, the combustion efficiency (hydrogen conversion to steam) of a cobalt-manganese-silver oxide catalyst was 99% [107]. However, this efficiency was under premixed hydrogen-air conditions. Perovskite-based catalysts such as La0.7Ca0.3MnO3 and 35LaCoO3/SBA-15 are also potential candidates to replace noble-metal catalysts due to their high thermal stability and catalytic activity like single-oxide catalysts [94][115]. Their characteristics enhance the catalytic activity, expanded oxygen vacancies, and defective structures (resulting in increased oxygen adsorption on their surfaces) [94][115].
Vogt et al. [109] developed a novel self-igniting catalytic hydrogen combustion cooker based on porous silicon carbide ceramics coated with platinum. The catalytic hydrogen combustion cooker consists of a porous silicon carbide diffuser with an open cell foam of 100 pores per inch (ppi). The diffuser overlays with a porous silicon carbide foam of 80 ppi with a porosity of ca. 87%, platinum-loaded upper foam of ca. 200 mg coated on silicon carbide 75 g [109]. The cooker is placed under a conventional glass-ceramic for ergonomic reasons to match electric cook stoves. Separation of the feed hydrogen at the bottom and air at the top of the porous catalytic silicon carbide leads to increased and high passive safety. The separated gases mix on the platinum-coated silicon carbide, where the hydrogen is oxidized [109]. Hydrogen is fed from the bottom through a brass-based pre-gas diffuser into the porous diffuser to the platinum-coated silicon carbide, where oxidation occurs [109]. Fumey et al. [116] improved the catalytic hydrogen combustion cooker previously developed in [109]. The cooker consists of a stack of 4 silicon carbide foams with a porosity of over 90% [116]. Figure 4 shows an assembled view of the cooker. A detailed description of the components is accessible from [116].
Sustainability 14 16964 g004 550
Figure 4. Assembled catalytic hydrogen combustion cooker [91] (reused with permission from Elsevier).
The maximum efficiency obtained for the catalytic hydrogen combustion cooker was 79.6% at a hydrogen flow rate of 7 Normal litres/minute and a low oxygen-to-hydrogen equivalence ratio of 1.5 due to the reduction of heat transfer in the combustion unit by reduced air flow [116]. They recommended a cooking temperature of more than 150 °C to maintain a low hydrogen concentration in the exhaust gas below the lower flammability limit of hydrogen (4% by volume) in air. The study indicated that condensing the exhaust steam was a limitation in improving the cooker’s efficiency [116]. But the exhaust steam can condense by using water in the heat exchanger as a working fluid, and unlike air, it can be stored and utilized in a household. Moreover, insulating components such as the combustion unit can also improve the overall energy efficiency of the cooker by reducing radiative losses. Furthermore, the performance of the developed cooker can be improved by optimizing various parameters such as pores per inch, catalytic surface area, and heat exchanger specifications. However, the efficiency of the developed cooker is well above the required minimum efficiency (>35%) for gas cookers with gas below glass technology according to DIN standard [116].

2.7. Hybrid Hydrogen Cooking Systems

Hybrid hydrogen cooking systems are proposed in this entry and described as cookers primarily powered by electricity generated from hydrogen combustion, or hydrogen cookers with thermal energy (waste heat) recovery systems. The electricity for cooking is generated by small alternators that convert mechanical energy (micro gas turbines, Stirling engines, micro-Rankine cycles) to electricity. Micro combustors coupled with thermo-photovoltaics [117] generate electricity by converting the thermal energy (infrared wavelength light) from hydrogen combustion to electricity through the photovoltaic effect—whereas fuel cells generate electricity through the oxidation of hydrogen electrochemically.
These commercialized technologies can be implemented either on a community or household level. Barbieri, Spina, and Venturini [118] evaluated the feasibility of natural gas-based micro-combined heat and power systems to satisfy the domestic energy demands of single-family households. The combined heat and power technologies studied included internal combustion engines, micro gas turbines, micro-Rankine cycles, Stirling engines, and micro combustors coupled with thermo-photovoltaics. The 2011 study showed that a sensible target for the differential cost of a combined heat and power system for household heating was approximately 3000 €/kW-electric. Another work by Brandoni and Renzi [119] indicated that manufacturers should develop household micro combined and heat power systems with investment costs lower than 3500 €/kWe and a minimum electrical efficiency of 20%.
Bazooyar and Darabkhani [120] designed and optimized a biofuel micro gas turbine that fits into the 12 kW-electric Bladon recuperated micro gas turbine. The results showed that the system achieves an average electrical efficiency of 46.7%, system efficiency of 83.2%, 12 kW-electric output power, and 90% recuperator effectiveness under normal operating conditions of the micro gas turbine. The system efficiency obtained is higher than the catalytic hydrogen combustion cookers efficiency obtained by Fumey et al. [116] (79.6%). However, the efficiency of the catalytic hydrogen combustion cooker directly translates into heat for cooking, whereas the energy available for cooking would be 46.7% of the input energy. In addition, the catalytic hydrogen combustion cooker uses hydrogen on a household level. The micro gas turbine uses biofuel on a community level, thus making a direct comparison inadequate but sufficient to give an overview of the two systems.
Another hybrid hydrogen cooking system can be cookers powered by heat from hydrogen combustion, coupled with innovative waste heat recovery systems to generate electricity or thermal energy storage for household electrical appliances or hot water requirements. In this case, thermoelectric generators or hot water systems are more suitable for recovering the waste heat and thus can be integrated with either direct or catalytic hydrogen combustion cookers.
One of the main benefits of hybrid hydrogen cooking systems is they can reduce dependency on intermittent renewables and enable households to have electricity access at any time, unlike only during cooking time or when there is solar irradiation. Cooking occurs during specific times of the day. Thus, limiting electricity generation to cooking time may significantly reduce utilization. A parametric summary of the proposed micro combined heat and power hybrid hydrogen systems are in Table 2. Even though efficiency is a good metric for comparing technologies, what matters is the cost of a system/technology and whether it meets the various energy demands. Thus, a techno-economic comparison of these systems can inform the cost-effectiveness of these systems. Figure 5 shows a schematic of the hybrid hydrogen cooking systems. The schematic two scenarios: (i) electricity is generated from hydrogen oxidation for meeting the cooking demand and other household electricity needs, (ii) hydrogen is directly used for cooking coupled with thermal energy recovery in the form of electricity generation or hot water storage.
Sustainability 14 16964 g005 550
Figure 5. Schematic of hybrid hydrogen cooking systems.
Table 2. Micro Combined Heat and Power Systems that can be utilized in hybrid hydrogen cooking systems.
Micro Combined Heat and Power Electrical Power Output [kW] Electrical Efficiency [%] System Efficiency [%] Moving Parts Reference
Micro gas turbine 2.7–500 12.3–46.7 >83.2 Yes [120][121]
Stirling Engine 1–50 13–28 >80 Yes [119][122]
Micro Combustor Thermo-Photovoltaic 0.01–3 2–50 >90 No [117][121]
Micro-Rankine Cycle 1–10 6–19 >90 Yes [118][123]
Fuel Cell Scalable (Scalable to match demand from W to hundreds of kW by stacking the cells) >50 >80 No [124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134]

2.8. Pros and Cons of Cooking Technologies

The advantages and disadvantages of the assessed cooking mechanisms are summarized in Table 3. The proposed hybrid hydrogen cooking systems are not included in the table due to a lack of comparative data on these systems. Hydrogen as a cooking energy vector is highly attractive because it produces water when oxidized in fuel cells. However, its direct combustion for cooking at high temperatures can produce unwanted nitrous oxide, which is a potent greenhouse gas and affects human health. A way of avoiding this is by utilizing catalytic hydrogen combustors or operating at low temperatures. The catalytic hydrogen combustion cooker [91] showed remarkably-low nitrogen-oxide emissions of 0.09 to 9.49 ppmv equivalent to 0.007 to 0.37 mg/kWh at hydrogen flow rates of 5, 10, and 15 Normal litre/minute (0.9, 1.8, and 2.7 kW-electric respectively). The achieved figures are considerably below the current European Union regulation of 56 mg/kWh for gas ignition in heating applications [91]. Solid fuel cookers are the worst-performing cooking technologies in this regard followed by methane cookers. In addition to undesirable levels of nitrogen oxide emissions, solid fuel cookers emit carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, toxic metals, and elemental carbon. While solar cookers do not produce emissions, they have comparatively low energy content, longer cooking time even when integrated with batteries or phase change materials, and dependability on solar irradiation. The utilizable energy (kWh/kg-fuel) is dominated by hydrogen at an end-usage efficiency of 79.6% [116] followed by methane at 50% efficiency [50][135]), and solid fuels at 25% efficiency [135].
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of cooking mechanisms.
Cooking Mechanism Emissions Energy Content Usable Energy Operating Temperature Cooking Time Availability Safety Capital and Operation Cost
Solid fuel combustion cooker [19][20][21][22][23][24][28][29][30][31] CO, VOC (Volatile organic compounds), PHC (polyaromatic hydrocarbons), PM, SO2, NOx, toxic metals, C, and CO2 3.5 to 8.6 kWh/kg (wood to house coal) 14 kWh/kg 260 °C to 1200 °C Normal (Conventional cooking time for any food due to controllable operating temperature) Dependent on biomass or coal availability Flame combustion Charcoal cooker; Capital: $15 [72], Operation: $58/month
Methane combustion cooker [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][136][137] unburned CH4, NOx, CO, and CO2 10.6 to 12.9 kWh/kg 21.2 kWh/kg 600 °C to 1900 °C Normal Dependent on methane availability Flame combustion LPG; Capital: $72 [138] to $108 [139]
Solar Thermal cooker No indoor emissions 980 W/m2 [140], (230 to 742.9 W/m2) [141] 78.9 W (max) [140] 160 °C (max) [140], 120 °C (average) [141] 40 min (6 eggs); 2 h (1.28 kg rice); 3 h 10 min (0.52 kg sheep, 0.14 kg green pea, 0.2 kg sauce) [140], 25 min (1 kg fries, 1 L cooking oil) [141] Sunshine hours NA Capital: $300 to $700 [141]
  PV cooker No indoor emissions 1.946 kWh/17 kg battery [72] 1.946 kWh [72], 1.8 kWh [142] - 4 to 8 h (7.8 kg rice, 11.7 kg red kidney beans, 9.9 L water) [72], 52 min (0.1 kg rice, fried chicken 12 min, 17 fried potatoes) [142] Dependent on energy storage capacity in a battery NA e-cooker; Capital; $800 [72], i-cooker: capital (TAC): $933 [142], Operation: $3.88/month [142]
Hydrogen DHCC [91] Higher NOx emissions compared to CHCC 33.3 kWh/kg to 39.4 kWh/kg 42.15 kWh/kg 1200 °C to 2100 °C Normal Dependent on hydrogen availability Flame combustion -
  CHCC [78][95][121] Negligible NOx emissions 33.3 kWh/kg to 39.4 kWh/kg 42.15 kWh/kg Room temperature to 500 °C Normal Dependent on hydrogen availability Flameless -
The operating temperature for direct hydrogen combustion (flame) can range from 1200 to 2100 °C. However, room temperature to 500 °C catalytic combustion can meet all the cooking requirements. The duration of cooking when using hydrogen, methane, or solid fuels can be adjusted by regulating the fuel flow rate. But the high energy content of hydrogen translates into lower fuel consumption per heat production. Solar cookers have higher capital and operation costs followed by methane cookers (12.5 kg cylinder, regulator, and a hose) and solid fuel cookers (which are undesirable). There are currently no studies on the capital and operation costs of hydrogen cooking systems. Thus, studies should be undertaken to comparatively model and analyze the cost aspects. However, there is a strong case for cooking with hydrogen based on the average monthly cost of using charcoal. Utilizing charcoal in developing countries is as expensive as utilizing gas in developed countries. For example, the average monthly household expenditure on methane for cooking and space heating was $56.63 (1 GBP = 1.2 USD) in 2021 [143]. Thus, the falling cost of renewable electricity (for hydrogen production) and the increasing cost of fossil gas (natural gas) will make domestic utilization of hydrogen attractive.

3. Hydrogen Production Pathways

Hydrogen production pathways are shown in Figure 8, where green represents hydrogen produced from renewable energy resources such as wind and solar. Pink represents hydrogen production from nuclear electricity, and brown or grey represents hydrogen production from fossil fuels without carbon capture and storage. Blue represents hydrogen production from fossil fuels (reforming) with carbon capture and storage, whereas turquoise represents hydrogen production from methane pyrolysis (cracking) with carbon capture and storage. Figure 9 shows a schematic of electrolysis in a proton exchange membrane electrolysis cell. Other pathways include thermochemical water splitting and photo-electrochemical water-splitting [144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158]. However, these pathways are currently characterized by low technology readiness levels.
Sustainability 14 16964 g008 550
Figure 8. Hydrogen Production Pathways.
Sustainability 14 16964 g009 550
Figure 9. Schematic of electrolysis in proton exchange membrane electrolysis cell.
The preferable hydrogen production pathway in developing countries depends on factors such as the availability of exploitable water resources, exploitable renewable energy resources, and fossil fuel reserves. There is no point for developing countries with exploitable renewable resources for hydrogen production and without fossil fuel reserves to produce or import grey/brown or blue hydrogen when they can exploit their renewable hydrogen potential. Green hydrogen production straightaway for these countries is the obvious step from either solar or wind energy due to the declining cost of electricity generation from these sources. Moreover, green hydrogen offers a golden opportunity to countries or regions without fossil reserves to spearhead industrialization and attain independence from fossil-rich countries, which control oil and gas prices through curtailment.
Furthermore, solar PV systems are currently the cheapest form of electricity generation. However, nations with freshwater constraints [159], but characterized by abundant fossil fuel reservoirs [160] can appraise blue hydrogen to be used as a transition energy carrier while building a sustainable renewable hydrogen economy [17]. However, this hydrogen production pathway can sustain asset impairment because of the decreasing cost of renewable hydrogen, international environment-oriented policies [17], and the reduction of investments in fossil fuel assets [161]. Furthermore, pathways such as pink hydrogen are currently implausible in the global south because of the extremely inadequate nuclear readiness levels and prohibitive capital expenditure [162][163][164][165][166]. For example, the cost of the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in the UK [167] is about 2.5 times the size of the Zambian government expenditure in 2022 [168]. A comprehensive analysis of renewable hydrogen production and hydrogen technology adoption can be accessed in researchers' preceding studies [159] and [169].

References

  1. Akhtar, S.; Sarker, M.R.; Hossain, A. Microbiological food safety: A dilemma of developing societies. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2014, 40, 348–359.
  2. Dudeja, P.; Singh, A. Safe cooking practices and food safety in home kitchen and eating establishment. In Food Safety in the 21st Century; Gupta, R.K., Dudeja, P., Minhas, A.S., Eds.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2017; pp. 373–385. ISBN 9780128018460.
  3. Fung, F.; Wang, H.S.; Menon, S. Food safety in the 21st century. Biomed. J. 2018, 41, 88–95.
  4. United Nations. Do You Know All 17 SDGs? 2022. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 27 May 2022).
  5. Vyas, S.; Gupta, A.; Khalid, N. Gender and LPG use after government intervention in rural north India. World Dev. 2021, 148, 105682.
  6. Francisco Chicombo, A.F.; Musango, J.K. Towards a theoretical framework for gendered energy transition at the urban household level: A case of Mozambique. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 112029.
  7. Winther, T.; Ulsrud, K.; Saini, A. Solar powered electricity access: Implications for women’s empowerment in rural Kenya. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 44, 61–74.
  8. Njenga, M.; Gitau, J.K.; Mendum, R. Women’s work is never done: Lifting the gendered burden of firewood collection and household energy use in Kenya. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 77, 102071.
  9. World LP Gas Association. Cooking With Gas: Why Women in Developing Countries Want LPG and How They Can Get it; World LP Gas Association: Dublin, Republic of Ireland, 2014.
  10. IEA. Africa Energy Outlook 2019; IEA: Paris, France, 2019.
  11. Pachauri, S.; Poblete-Cazenave, M.; Aktas, A.; Gidden, M.J. Access to clean cooking services in energy and emission scenarios after COVID-19. Nat. Energy 2021, 6, 1067–1076.
  12. Sustainable Energy for All Overall Progress. 2022. Available online: https://www.seforall.org/data-stories/seforall-analysis-of-sdg7-progress#:~:text=Forelectricity%2Cthehigh-impact,Uganda%2CUnitedRepublicofTanzania (accessed on 26 November 2022).
  13. To, L.S.; Bruce, A.; Munro, P.; Santagata, E.; MacGill, I.; Rawali, M.; Raturi, A. A research and innovation agenda for energy resilience in Pacific Island Countries and Territories. Nat. Energy 2021, 6, 1098–1103.
  14. Broto, V.C.; Stevens, L.; Ackom, E.; Tomei, J.; Parikh, P.; Bisaga, I.; To, L.S.; Kirshner, J.; Mulugetta, Y. A research agenda for a people-centred approach to energy access in the urbanizing global south. Nat. Energy 2017, 2, 776–779.
  15. Rao, N.D.; Min, J.; Mastrucci, A. Energy requirements for decent living in India, Brazil and South Africa. Nat. Energy 2019, 4, 1025–1032.
  16. Sovacool, B.K.; Heffron, R.J.; McCauley, D.; Goldthau, A. Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nat. Energy 2016, 1, 16024.
  17. IRENA. Geopolitics of the Energy Transformation: The Hydrogen Factor; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2022.
  18. IEA. Hydrogen; IEA: Paris, France, 2021.
  19. Li, Q.; Jiang, J.; Wang, S.; Rumchev, K.; Mead-Hunter, R.; Morawska, L.; Hao, J. Impacts of household coal and biomass combustion on indoor and ambient air quality in China: Current status and implication. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 576, 347–361.
  20. Wu, D.; Zheng, H.; Li, Q.; Jin, L.; Lyu, R.; Ding, X.; Huo, Y.; Zhao, B.; Jiang, J.; Chen, J.; et al. Toxic potency-adjusted control of air pollution for solid fuel combustion. Nat. Energy 2022, 7, 194–202.
  21. Tian, Z.; Tian, Y.; Shen, L.; Shao, S. The health effect of household cooking fuel choice in China: An urban-rural gap perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 173, 121083.
  22. Trubetskaya, A.; Lin, C.; Ovadnevaite, J.; Ceburnis, D.; O’Dowd, C.; Leahy, J.J.; Monaghan, R.F.D.; Johnson, R.; Layden, P.; Smith, W. Study of Emissions from Domestic Solid-Fuel Stove Combustion in Ireland. Energy and Fuels 2021, 35, 4966–4978.
  23. Sinha, A.; Islam, M.M.; Grieshop, A. Influence of Stove, Fuel, and Oxidation Flow Reactor Conditions on Aging of Laboratory-Generated Cookstove Emissions. ACS Earth Sp. Chem. 2021, 5, 1575–1590.
  24. Tao, S.; Ru, M.Y.; Du, W.; Zhu, X.; Zhong, Q.R.; Li, B.G.; Shen, G.F.; Pan, X.L.; Meng, W.J.; Chen, Y.L.; et al. Quantifying the rural residential energy transition in China from 1992 to 2012 through a representative national survey. Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 567–573.
  25. Wu, S. The health impact of household cooking fuel choice on women: Evidence from China. Sustain. 2021, 13, 12080.
  26. Ali, M.U.; Yu, Y.; Yousaf, B.; Munir, M.A.M.; Ullah, S.; Zheng, C.; Kuang, X.; Wong, M.H. Health impacts of indoor air pollution from household solid fuel on children and women. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 416, 126127.
  27. Zhang, Y.; Meliefste, K.; Hu, W.; Li, J.; Xu, J.; Ning, B.; Yang, K.; Chen, Y.; Liu, D.; Wong, J.; et al. Household air pollution from, and fuel efficiency of, different coal types following local cooking practices in Xuanwei, China. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 290, 117949.
  28. Downward, G.S.; Hu, W.; Rothman, N.; Reiss, B.; Wu, G.; Wei, F.; Chapman, R.S.; Portengen, L.; Qing, L.; Vermeulen, R. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure in household air pollution from solid fuel combustion among the female population of Xuanwei and Fuyuan counties, China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 14632–14641.
  29. Bachwenkizi, J.; Liu, C.; Meng, X.; Zhang, L.; Wang, W.; van Donkelaar, A.; Martin, R.V.; Hammer, M.S.; Chen, R.; Kan, H. Fine particulate matter constituents and infant mortality in Africa: A multicountry study. Environ. Int. 2021, 156, 106739.
  30. Hu, W.; Downward, G.S.; Reiss, B.; Xu, J.; Bassig, B.A.; Hosgood, H.D.; Zhang, L.; Seow, W.J.; Wu, G.; Chapman, R.S.; et al. Personal and indoor PM2.5 exposure from burning solid fuels in vented and unvented stoves in a rural region of China with a high incidence of lung cancer. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 8456–8464.
  31. Tian, L.; Lan, Q.; Yang, D.; He, X.; Yu, I.T.S.; Hammond, S.K. Effect of chimneys on indoor air concentrations of PM10 and benzopyrene in Xuan Wei, China. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 3352–3355.
  32. Memon, S.A.; Jaiswal, M.S.; Jain, Y.; Acharya, V.; Upadhyay, D.S. A comprehensive review and a systematic approach to enhance the performance of improved cookstove (ICS). J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2020, 141, 2253–2263.
  33. Li, H.; Mou, H.; Zhao, N.; Chen, D.; Zhou, Y.; Dong, R. Impact of fuel size on combustion performance and gaseous pollutant emissions from solid fuel in a domestic cross-draft gasifier stove. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2021, 1–12.
  34. Scharler, R.; Archan, G.; Rakos, C.; von Berg, L.; Lello, D.; Hochenauer, C.; Anca-Couce, A. Emission minimization of a top-lit updraft gasifier cookstove based on experiments and detailed CFD analyses. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 247, 114755.
  35. Jetter, J.J.; Kariher, P. Solid-fuel household cook stoves: Characterization of performance and emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy 2009, 33, 294–305.
  36. Kshirsagar, M.P.; Kalamkar, V.R. Hybrid draft direct-combustion with secondary air jets in cross-flow for reducing CO and PM2.5 emissions in biomass cookstoves. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 2022, 51, 101913.
  37. Lask, K.; Booker, K.; Gadgil, A. Lessons learned from a comparison study of charcoal stoves for Haiti. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 2017, 22, 188–193.
  38. Sagouong, J.M.; Tchuen, G. A microcontroller and performance testing of three biomass cookstoves commonly used in Cameroon. Int. J. Ambient Energy 2021, 42, 736–743.
  39. Sagouong, J.M.; Tchuen, G. Advanced stoves designing and their thermal behavior prediction: A validated mathematical model. Energy Syst. 2021.
  40. Balogun Mohammed, A.; Vijlee, S.; Belmont, E. Technoeconomic feasibility of a sustainable charcoal industry to reduce deforestation in Haiti. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 2018, 29, 131–138.
  41. Gutiérrez, J.; Chica, E.L.; Pérez, J.F. Parametric Analysis of a Gasification-Based Cookstove as a Function of Biomass Density, Gasification Behavior, Airflow Ratio, and Design. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 7481–7498.
  42. Medina, P.; Núñez, J.; Ruiz-García, V.M.; Beltrán, A. Experimental and numerical comparison of CO2 mass flow rate emissions, combustion and thermal performance for a biomass plancha-type cookstove. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2021, 63, 153–159.
  43. Lebel, E.D.; Finnegan, C.J.; Ouyang, Z.; Jackson, R.B. Methane and NO x Emissions from Natural Gas Stoves, Cooktops, and Ovens in Residential Homes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 2529–2539.
  44. Junus, R.; Vierkant, J.E.; Stubington, J.F.; Sergeant, G.D.; Tas, I. The effects of the design of the cap of a natural gas-fired cooktop burner on flame stability. Int. J. Energy Res. 1998, 22, 175–184.
  45. Junus, R.; Stubington, J.F.; Sergeant, G.D.; Tas, I. Emissions and efficiency of a prototype natural gas-fired domestic cooktop burner with insert. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2000, 57, 189–205.
  46. Ko, Y.C.; Lin, T.H. Emissions and efficiency of a domestic gas stove burning natural gases with various compositions. Energy Convers. Manag. 2003, 44, 3001–3014.
  47. Maurya, P.; Palanisamy, M.; Mahalingam, A.K.; Kaushik, L.K.; Ramalingam, A. Performance, economic and pilot studies on canister-based methanol stove for household cooking application. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2022, 66, 117–124.
  48. Wang, J.; Zhang, W.; Yang, T.; Yu, Y.; Liu, C.; Li, B. Numerical and experimental investigation on heat transfer enhancement by adding fins on the pot in a domestic gas stove. Energy 2022, 239, 122439.
  49. Jugjai, S.; Rungsimuntuchart, N. High efficiency heat-recirculating domestic gas burners. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2002, 26, 581–592.
  50. Hou, S.S.; Lee, C.Y.; Lin, T.H. Efficiency and emissions of a new domestic gas burner with a swirling flame. Energy Convers. Manag. 2007, 48, 1401–1410.
  51. Das, M.; Ganguly, R.; Datta, A.; Verma, M.M.; Bera, A.K. Performance improvement of a domestic liquefied petroleum gas cook stove using an extended spill-tray and an annular metal insert. J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl. 2021, 13, 1–10.
  52. Chen, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Qin, C.; Duan, P. Combustion performance of domestic gas cookers with swirling strip-port and normal round-port on various natural gas compositions. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2019, 13, 100366.
  53. Boggavarapu, P.; Ray, B.; Ravikrishna, R.V. Thermal efficiency of LPG and PNG-fired burners: Experimental and numerical studies. Fuel 2014, 116, 709–715.
  54. Li, H.B.; Wong, T.T.; Leung, C.W.; Probert, S.D. Thermal performances and CO emissions of gas-fired cooker-top burners. Appl. Energy 2006, 83, 1326–1338.
  55. Masekameni, M.D.; Makonese, T.; Annegarn, H.J. A comparison of emissions and thermal efficiency of three improved liquid fuel stoves. Proc. 23rd Conf. Domest. Use Energy 2015, 2015, 71–76.
  56. Masekela, M.E.; Semenya, K. Factors influencing the use of firewood post-electrification in rural South Africa: The case of Ga-Malahlela village. J. Energy South. Africa 2021, 32, 24–40.
  57. Schwarzer, K.; da Silva, M.E.V. Characterisation and design methods of solar cookers. Sol. Energy 2008, 82, 157–163.
  58. Khatri, R.; Goyal, R.; Sharma, R.K. Advances in the developments of solar cooker for sustainable development: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 145, 111166.
  59. Herez, A.; Ramadan, M.; Khaled, M. Review on solar cooker systems: Economic and environmental study for different Lebanese scenarios. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 421–432.
  60. Indora, S.; Kandpal, T.C. Institutional cooking with solar energy: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 84, 131–154.
  61. Saxena, A.; Varun; Pandey, S. P.; Srivastav, G. A thermodynamic review on solar box type cookers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3301–3318.
  62. Aramesh, M.; Ghalebani, M.; Kasaeian, A.; Zamani, H.; Lorenzini, G.; Mahian, O.; Wongwises, S. A review of recent advances in solar cooking technology. Renew. Energy 2019, 140, 419–435.
  63. Cuce, E.; Cuce, P.M. A comprehensive review on solar cookers. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 1399–1421.
  64. Lahkar, P.J.; Samdarshi, S.K. A review of the thermal performance parameters of box type solar cookers and identification of their correlations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1615–1621.
  65. Panchal, H.; Patel, J.; Chaudhary, S. A comprehensive review of solar cooker with sensible and latent heat storage materials. Int. J. Ambient Energy 2019, 40, 329–334.
  66. Arunachala, U.C.; Kundapur, A. Cost-effective solar cookers: A global review. Sol. Energy 2020, 207, 903–916.
  67. Muthusivagami, R.M.; Velraj, R.; Sethumadhavan, R. Solar cookers with and without thermal storage-A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 691–701.
  68. Yettou, F.; Azoui, B.; Malek, A.; Gama, A.; Panwar, N.L. Solar cooker realizations in actual use: An overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 37, 288–306.
  69. Panwar, N.L.; Kaushik, S.C.; Kothari, S. State of the art of solar cooking: An overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3776–3785.
  70. Sharma, A.; Chen, C.R.; Murty, V.V.S.; Shukla, A. Solar cooker with latent heat storage systems: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 1599–1605.
  71. Abu-Hamdeh, N.H.; Alnefaie, K.A. Assessment of thermal performance of PCM in latent heat storage system for different applications. Sol. Energy 2019, 177, 317–323.
  72. Barton, J.; Bliss, M.; Little, M.; Mbewe, C.G.; Monk, N.; Palmer, D.; Blanchard, R. A Portable Power Station for Humanitarian Contexts. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Humanitarian Technology Conference (IHTC), UK, 2–4 December 2022.
  73. Modern Energy Cooking Services. 400W DC eCooking Power Station Battery Electric Cooking using Solar PV Charging; User Manual: Loughborough, UK, 2021.
  74. Haruta, M.; Sano, H. Catalytic combustion of hydrogen I-Its role in hydrogen utilization system and screening of catalyst materials. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 1981, 6, 601–608.
  75. Saint-Just, J.; Etemad, S. Catalytic combustion of hydrogen for heat production. In Compendium of Hydrogen Energy; Barbir, F., Basile, A., Veziroglu, T.N., Eds.; Elsevier: Cambridge, 2016; ISBN 9781782423638.
  76. de Vries, H.; Levinsky, H.B. Flashback, burning velocities and hydrogen admixture: Domestic appliance approval, gas regulation and appliance development. Appl. Energy 2020, 259, 114116.
  77. Eichler, C.; Sattelmayer, T. Premixed flame flashback in wall boundary layers studied by long-distance micro-PIV. Exp. Fluids 2012, 52, 347–360.
  78. Gruber, A.; Chen, J.H.; Valiev, D.; Law, C.K. Direct numerical simulation of premixed flame boundary layer flashback in turbulent channel flow. J. Fluid Mech. 2012, 709, 516–542.
  79. Baumgartner, G.; Boeck, L.R.; Sattelmayer, T. Experimental Investigation of the Transition Mechanism from Stable Flame to Flashback in a Generic Premixed Combustion System with High-Speed Micro-Particle Image Velocimetry and Micro-PLIF Combined with Chemiluminescence Imaging. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2016, 138, 1–10.
  80. Ebi, D.; Bombach, R.; Jansohn, P. Swirl flame boundary layer flashback at elevated pressure: Modes of propagation and effect of hydrogen addition. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2021, 38, 6345–6353.
  81. Hoferichter, V.; Hirsch, C.; Sattelmayer, T. Prediction of boundary layer flashback limits of laminar premixed jet flames. Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2018, 4, 1–11.
  82. Wang, J.; Nie, Y.; Cai, X.; Guo, S.; Zhang, W.; Xie, Y.; Huang, Z. Investigation on the highly negative curved syngas Bunsen flame and the critical local Karlovitz number when tip opening. Fuel 2018, 215, 429–437.
  83. Fu, J.; Tang, C.; Jin, W.; Huang, Z. Effect of preferential diffusion and flame stretch on flame structure and laminar burning velocity of syngas Bunsen flame using OH-PLIF. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 12187–12193.
  84. Kozlovsky, G.; Sivashinsky, G.I. On open and closed tips of bunsen burner flames. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 1994, 6, 181–192.
  85. Mizobuchi, Y.; Nambu, T.; Takeno, T. Numerical study of tip opening of hydrogen/air Bunsen flame. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2019, 37, 1775–1781.
  86. Goldmann, A.; Dinkelacker, F. Experimental investigation and modeling of boundary layer flashback for non-swirling premixed hydrogen/ammonia/air flames. Combust. Flame 2021, 226, 362–379.
  87. Vance, F.H.; de Goey, L.P.H.; van Oijen, J.A. Development of a flashback correlation for burner-stabilized hydrogen-air premixed flames. Combust. Flame 2022, 243, 112045.
  88. Nguyen, V.N.; Deja, R.; Peters, R.; Blum, L.; Stolten, D. Study of the catalytic combustion of lean hydrogen-air mixtures in a monolith reactor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 17520–17530.
  89. Brennecke, P.W. The Catalytic Combustion of Hydrogen. A Sol. Hydrog. Energy Syst. 1987, 287–295.
  90. Schefer, R.W.; Robben, F.; Cheng, R.K. Catalyzed combustion of H2/air mixtures in a flat-plate boundary layer: I. Experimental results. Combust. Flame 1980, 38, 51–63.
  91. Fumey, B.; Buetler, T.; Vogt, U.F. Ultra-low NOx emissions from catalytic hydrogen combustion. Appl. Energy 2018, 213, 334–342.
  92. GroŸmann, U. A non-stationary hydrogen cooker with portable hydride storage and catalytic hydrogen burner. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2000, 25, 87–90.
  93. Kozhukhova, A.E.; du Preez, S.P.; Bessarabov, D.G. Catalytic hydrogen combustion for domestic and safety applications: A critical review of catalyst materials and technologies. Energies 2021, 14, 4897.
  94. Kim, J.; Yu, J.; Lee, S.; Tahmasebi, A.; Jeon, C.H.; Lucas, J. Advances in catalytic hydrogen combustion research: Catalysts, mechanism, kinetics, and reactor designs. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 40073–40104.
  95. Appel, C.; Mantzaras, J.; Schaeren, R.; Bombach, R.; Kaeppeli, B.; Inauen, A. An experimental and numerical investigation of turbulent catalytically stabilized channel flow combustion of hydrogen/air mixtures over platinum. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2002, 29, 1031–1038.
  96. Fernandes, N.E.; Park, Y.K.; Vlachos, D.G. The autothermal behavior of platinum catalyzed hydrogen oxidation: Experiments and modeling. Combust. Flame 1999, 118, 164–178.
  97. Mantzaras, J.; Bombach, R.; Schaeren, R. Hetero-/homogeneous combustion of hydrogen/air mixtures over platinum at pressures up to 10 bar. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2009, 32, 1937–1945.
  98. Fernández, A.; Arzac, G.M.; Vogt, U.F.; Hosoglu, F.; Borgschulte, A.; Jiménez de Haro, M.C.; Montes, O.; Züttel, A. Investigation of a Pt containing washcoat on SiC foam for hydrogen combustion applications. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2016, 180, 336–343.
  99. Choi, W.; Kwon, S.; Dong Shin, H. Combustion characteristics of hydrogen-air premixed gas in a sub-millimeter scale catalytic combustor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2008, 33, 2400–2408.
  100. Shinde, V.M.; Madras, G. Nanostructured Pd modified Ni/CeO2 catalyst for water gas shift and catalytic hydrogen combustion reaction. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2013, 132–133, 28–38.
  101. Zhang, C.; Zhang, J.; Ma, J. Hydrogen catalytic combustion over a Pt/Ce 0.6Zr 0.4O 2/MgAl 2O 4 mesoporous coating monolithic catalyst. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 12941–12946.
  102. du Preez, S.P.; Jones, D.R.; Bessarabov, D.G.; Falch, A.; Mota das Neves Quaresma, C.; Dunnill, C.W. Development of a Pt/stainless steel mesh catalyst and its application in catalytic hydrogen combustion. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 27094–27106.
  103. Zhou, J.; Wang, Y.; Yang, W.; Liu, J.; Wang, Z.; Cen, K. Combustion of hydrogen-air in catalytic micro-combustors made of different material. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 3535–3545.
  104. Kozhukhova, A.E.; du Preez, S.P.; Shuro, I.; Bessarabov, D.G. Development of a low purity aluminum alloy (Al6082) anodization process and its application as a platinum-based catalyst in catalytic hydrogen combustion. Surf. Coatings Technol. 2020, 404, 126483.
  105. Singh, S.A.; Vishwanath, K.; Madras, G. Role of Hydrogen and Oxygen Activation over Pt and Pd-Doped Composites for Catalytic Hydrogen Combustion. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 19380–19388.
  106. Park, J.; Kim, D.; Lee, Y. Experimental study on flameless combustion and NO emission with hydrogen-containing fuels. Int. J. Energy Res. 2022, 46, 2512–2528.
  107. Haruta, M.; Souma, Y.; Sano, H. Catalytic combustion of hydrogen-II. An experimental investigation of fundamental conditions for burner design. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 1982, 7, 729–736.
  108. Arzac, G.M.; Montes, O.; Fernández, A. Pt-impregnated catalysts on powdery SiC and other commercial supports for the combustion of hydrogen under oxidant conditions. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2017, 201, 391–399.
  109. Vogt, U.F.; Fumey, B.; Bielmann, M.; Siong, V. Catalytic Hydrogen Combustion on Porous SiC Ceramics. In Proceedings of the European Fuel Cell Forum, Lucerne, Switzerland, 17 June 2011; pp. 45–54.
  110. Zheng, X.; Mantzaras, J.; Bombach, R. Kinetic interactions between hydrogen and carbon monoxide oxidation over platinum. Combust. Flame 2014, 161, 332–346.
  111. Kramer, J.F.; Reihani, S.A.S.; Jackson, G.S. Low-temperature combustion of hydrogen on supported Pd catalysts. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2002, 29, 989–996.
  112. Sandeep, K.C.; Bhattacharyya, R.; Warghat, C.; Bhanja, K.; Mohan, S. Experimental investigation on the kinetics of catalytic recombination of hydrogen with oxygen in air. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 17906–17912.
  113. Morfin, F.; Sabroux, J.C.; Renouprez, A. Catalytic combustion of hydrogen for mitigating hydrogen risk in case of a severe accident in a nuclear power plant: Study of catalysts poisoning in a representative atmosphere. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2004, 47, 47–58.
  114. Kaneko, S.; Arakawa, T.; Ohshima, M.; Kurokawa, H.; Miura, H. Dehydrogenation of propane combined with selective hydrogen combustion over Pt-Sn bimetallic catalysts. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2009, 356, 80–87.
  115. Laassiri, S.; Bion, N.; Duprez, D.; Royer, S.; Alamdari, H. Clear microstructure-performance relationships in Mn-containing perovskite and hexaaluminate compounds prepared by activated reactive synthesis. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2014, 16, 4050–4060.
  116. Fumey, B.; Stoller, S.; Fricker, R.; Weber, R.; Dorer, V.; Vogt, U.F. Development of a novel cooking stove based on catalytic hydrogen combustion. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 7494–7499.
  117. LaPotin, A.; Schulte, K.L.; Steiner, M.A.; Buznitsky, K.; Kelsall, C.C.; Friedman, D.J.; Tervo, E.J.; France, R.M.; Young, M.R.; Rohskopf, A.; et al. Thermophotovoltaic efficiency of 40%. Nature 2022, 604, 287–291.
  118. Barbieri, E.S.; Spina, P.R.; Venturini, M. Analysis of innovative micro-CHP systems to meet household energy demands. Appl. Energy 2012, 97, 723–733.
  119. Brandoni, C.; Renzi, M. Optimal sizing of hybrid solar micro-CHP systems for the household sector. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 75, 896–907.
  120. Bazooyar, B.; Gohari Darabkhani, H. Design, manufacture and test of a micro-turbine renewable energy combustor. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 213, 112782.
  121. Visser, W.P.J.; Shakariyants, S.A.; Oostveen, M. Development of a 3 kW microturbine for CHP applications. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2011, 133, 042301.
  122. Parente, A.; Galletti, C.; Riccardi, J.; Schiavetti, M.; Tognotti, L. Experimental and numerical investigation of a micro-CHP flameless unit. Appl. Energy 2012, 89, 203–214.
  123. Leibowitz, H.; Smith, I.K.; Stosic, N. Cost Effective Small Scale ORC Systems for Power Recovery From Low Grade Heat Sources. In Proceedings of the Advanced Energy Systems; ASMEDC: Houston, TX, USA, 2006; pp. 521–527.
  124. Mei, B.; Barnoon, P.; Toghraie, D.; Su, C.H.; Nguyen, H.C.; Khan, A. Energy, exergy, environmental and economic analyzes (4E) and multi-objective optimization of a PEM fuel cell equipped with coolant channels. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 112021.
  125. Di Marcoberardino, G.; Manzolini, G. Investigation of a 5 kW micro-CHP PEM fuel cell based system integrated with membrane reactor under diverse EU natural gas quality. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 13988–14002.
  126. Wallmark, C.; Alvfors, P. Technical design and economic evaluation of a stand-alone PEFC system for buildings in Sweden. J. Power Sources 2003, 118, 358–366.
  127. Chang, H.; Xu, X.; Shen, J.; Shu, S.; Tu, Z. Performance analysis of a micro-combined heating and power system with PEM fuel cell as a prime mover for a typical household in North China. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 24965–24976.
  128. Chahartaghi, M.; Kharkeshi, B.A. Performance analysis of a combined cooling, heating and power system with PEM fuel cell as a prime mover. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 128, 805–817.
  129. Chen, X.; Gong, G.; Wan, Z.; Luo, L.; Wan, J. Performance analysis of 5 kW PEMFC-based residential micro-CCHP with absorption chiller. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 10647–10657.
  130. Baldinelli, A.; Barelli, L.; Bidini, G.; Cinti, G. Micro-cogeneration based on solid oxide fuel cells: Market opportunities in the agriculture/livestock sector. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 10036–10048.
  131. Sorace, M.; Gandiglio, M.; Santarelli, M. Modeling and techno-economic analysis of the integration of a FC-based micro-CHP system for residential application with a heat pump. Energy 2017, 120, 262–275.
  132. Hawkes, A.D.; Aguiar, P.; Croxford, B.; Leach, M.A.; Adjiman, C.S.; Brandon, N.P. Solid oxide fuel cell micro combined heat and power system operating strategy: Options for provision of residential space and water heating. J. Power Sources 2007, 164, 260–271.
  133. Hawkes, A.; Staffell, I.; Brett, D.; Brandon, N. Fuel cells for micro-combined heat and power generation. Energy Environ. Sci. 2009, 2, 729–744.
  134. Xie, D.; Wang, Z.; Jin, L.; Zhang, Y. Energy and exergy analysis of a fuel cell based micro combined heat and power cogeneration system. Energy Build. 2012, 50, 266–272.
  135. Ramanathan, R.; Ganesh, L.S. Energy resource allocation incorporating qualitative and quantitative criteria: An integrated model using goal programming and AHP. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 1995, 29, 197–218.
  136. Zhen, H.S.; Leung, C.W.; Wong, T.T. Improvement of domestic cooking flames by utilizing swirling flows. Fuel 2014, 119, 153–156.
  137. Hou, S.S.; Ko, Y.C. Effects of heating height on flame appearance, temperature field and efficiency of an impinging laminar jet flame used in domestic gas stoves. Energy Convers. Manag. 2004, 45, 1583–1595.
  138. Perros, T.; Büttner, P.; Leary, J.; Parikh, P. Pay-as-you-go LPG: A mixed-methods pilot study in urban Rwanda. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2021, 65, 117–129.
  139. Bruce, N.; de Cuevas, R.A.; Cooper, J.; Enonchong, B.; Ronzi, S.; Puzzolo, E.; MBatchou, B.; Pope, D. The Government-led initiative for LPG scale-up in Cameroon: Programme development and initial evaluation. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2018, 46, 103–110.
  140. Harmim, A.; Merzouk, M.; Boukar, M.; Amar, M. Design and experimental testing of an innovative building-integrated box type solar cooker. Sol. Energy 2013, 98, 422–433.
  141. El Moussaoui, N.; Talbi, S.; Atmane, I.; Kassmi, K.; Schwarzer, K.; Chayeb, H.; Bachiri, N. Feasibility of a new design of a Parabolic Trough Solar Thermal Cooker (PSTC). Sol. Energy 2020, 201, 866–871.
  142. Altouni, A.; Gorjian, S.; Banakar, A. Development and performance evaluation of a photovoltaic-powered induction cooker (PV-IC): An approach for promoting clean production in rural areas. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 6, 100373.
  143. GOV.UK (Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy). Annual Domestic Energy Bills. 2021. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/annual-domestic-energy-price-statistics (accessed on 2 January 2022).
  144. Peter, L.M.; Upul Wijayantha, K.G. Photoelectrochemical water splitting at semiconductor electrodes: Fundamental problems and new perspectives. ChemPhysChem 2014, 15, 1983–1995.
  145. Cummings, C.Y.; Marken, F.; Peter, L.M.; Tahir, A.A.; Wijayantha, K.G.U. Kinetics and mechanism of light-driven oxygen evolution at thin film α-Fe2O3electrodes. Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 2027–2029.
  146. Wu, X.; Ng, Y.H.; Saputera, W.H.; Wen, X.; Du, Y.; Dou, S.X.; Amal, R.; Scott, J. The Dependence of Bi2MoO6 Photocatalytic Water Oxidation Capability on Crystal Facet Engineering. ChemPhotoChem 2019, 3, 1246–1253.
  147. Wu, H.; Tan, H.L.; Toe, C.Y.; Scott, J.; Wang, L.; Amal, R.; Ng, Y.H. Photocatalytic and Photoelectrochemical Systems: Similarities and Differences. Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1904717.
  148. Samanta, B.; Morales-García, Á.; Illas, F.; Goga, N.; Anta, J.A.; Calero, S.; Bieberle-Hütter, A.; Libisch, F.; Muñoz-García, A.B.; Pavone, M.; et al. Challenges of modeling nanostructured materials for photocatalytic water splitting. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2022, 51, 3794–3818.
  149. Nandy, S.; Savant, S.A.; Haussener, S. Prospects and challenges in designing photocatalytic particle suspension reactors for solar fuel processing. Chem. Sci. 2021, 12, 9866–9884.
  150. Gutierrez, R.R.; Haussener, S. Modeling and design guidelines of high-temperature photoelectrochemical devices. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2021, 5, 2169–2180.
  151. Tahir, A.A.; Peiris, T.A.N.; Wijayantha, K.G.U. Enhancement of photoelectrochemical performance of AACVD-produced TiO2 electrodes by microwave irradiation while preserving the nanostructure. Chem. Vap. Depos. 2012, 18, 107–111.
  152. Tahir, A.A.; Mat-Teridi, M.A.; Wijayantha, K.G.U. Photoelectrochemical properties of texture-controlled nanostructured α-Fe2O3 thin films prepared by AACVD. Phys. Status Solidi Rapid Res. Lett. 2014, 8, 976–981.
  153. Peter, L.M.; Wijayantha, K.G.U.; Tahir, A.A. Kinetics of light-driven oxygen evolution at α-Fe2O3 electrodes. Faraday Discuss. 2012, 155, 309–322.
  154. McInnes, A.; Plant, S.R.; Ornelas, I.M.; Palmer, R.E.; Wijayantha, K.G.U. Enhanced photoelectrochemical water splitting using oxidized mass-selected Ti nanoclusters on metal oxide photoelectrodes. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2017, 1, 336–344.
  155. Brack, P.; Chillman, M.; Wijayantha, K.G.U.; Adcock, P.; Foster, S.; Dann, S.E. Activation of silicon towards hydrogen generation by pelletisation. J. Alloys Compd. 2017, 704, 146–151.
  156. Brack, P.; Dann, S.E.; Upul Wijayantha, K.G. Heterogeneous and homogenous catalysts for hydrogen generation by hydrolysis of aqueous sodium borohydride (NaBH4) solutions. Energy Sci. Eng. 2015, 3, 174–188.
  157. Joy, J.; Mathew, J.; George, S.C. Nanomaterials for photoelectrochemical water splitting—Review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 4804–4817.
  158. Minggu, L.J.; Wan Daud, W.R.; Kassim, M.B. An overview of photocells and photoreactors for photoelectrochemical water splitting. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 5233–5244.
  159. Mukelabai, M.D.; Wijayantha, U.K.G.; Blanchard, R.E. Renewable hydrogen economy outlook in Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 167, 112705.
  160. Statisa. Natural Gas Reserves in Africa as of 2021, by Main Countries. 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1197585/natural-gas-reserves-in-africa-by-main-countries/ (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  161. Jessop, S.; Sterling, T. Exclusive Dutch Bank ING Ends Financing for New Oil and Gas Projects. 2022. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/exclusive-dutch-bank-ing-ends-financing-new-oil-gas-projects-2022-03-23/ (accessed on 24 March 2022).
  162. Eash-Gates, P.; Klemun, M.M.; Kavlak, G.; McNerney, J.; Buongiorno, J.; Trancik, J.E. Sources of Cost Overrun in Nuclear Power Plant Construction Call for a New Approach to Engineering Design. Joule 2020, 4, 2348–2373.
  163. Carelli, M.D.; Garrone, P.; Locatelli, G.; Mancini, M.; Mycoff, C.; Trucco, P.; Ricotti, M.E. Economic features of integral, modular, small-to-medium size reactors. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2010, 52, 403–414.
  164. Stewart, W.R.; Shirvan, K. Capital cost estimation for advanced nuclear power plants. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 155, 111880.
  165. Gao, R.; Nam, H.O.; Jang, H.; Ko, W. Il The economic competitiveness of promising nuclear energy system: A closer look at the input uncertainties in LCOE analysis. Int. J. Energy Res. 2019, 43, 3928–3958.
  166. Roth, M.B.; Jaramillo, P. Going nuclear for climate mitigation: An analysis of the cost effectiveness of preserving existing U.S. nuclear power plants as a carbon avoidance strategy. Energy 2017, 131, 67–77.
  167. BBC News. Sizewell C: What Is It and Where Is It Planned to Be? 2022. Available online: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-62035444 (accessed on 13 December 2022).
  168. Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR) and United Nations Zambia. Analysis of The 2023 National Budget: Reinforcing The Foundation For Inclusive Growth And Development; ZIPAR and United Nations Zambia: Lusaka, Zambia, 2022.
  169. Mukelabai, M.D.; Wijayantha, U.; Blanchard, R.E. Hydrogen technology adoption analysis in Africa using a Doughnut-PESTLE hydrogen model. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 31521–31540.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Energy & Fuels
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Mulako D. Mukelabai
,
K. G. U. Wijayantha
,
Richard E. Blanchard
View Times: 4.1K
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 12 Jan 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback