PSI - Issue 77

Arian Semedo and João Garcia/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2026) 000–000

11

Arian Semedo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 77 (2026) 498–511

508

economically unfeasible. Both exhibit an infinite payback period, as no energy cost savings are realized. Figure 9 illustrates the financial trend curves for all four solutions.

Fig. 9. Ten-year accumulated balance (€) trends for solutions A, B, C, and D

6.3. Carbon Emissions Assessment Table 5 presents a comparative evaluation of the CO₂ emissions linked to the energy sources utilized in the refrigeration facilities (Coutinho and Vianna, 2020). The assessment incorporates emissions from grid electricity, wind power, photovoltaic solar energy (Nugent and Sovacool, 2014), and tidal turbines, enabling the estimation of the total carbon footprint for each solution.

Table 5. CO₂ Emissions for Each S olutions

Tidal CO 2 (gCO 2 eq./kWh)

Grid CO 2 (gCO 2 eq./kWh)

Wind CO 2 (gCO 2 eq./kWh)

Photovoltaic CO 2 (gCO 2 eq./kWh)

Total Emission (tCO 2 eq.)

Solutions

A B C D

623 623

- -

- -

- -

296.317 382.246 21.549

- -

34 34

50 50

34

- 15.882 Analyzing the data presented in Table 5 and depicted in Figure 10, it is evident that Solutions C and D, which incorporate renewable energy sources for electricity generation, achieve substantially lower carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions compared to Solutions A and B, which rely exclusively on the public electrical grid. S olution C attains a 92% reduction in CO₂ emissions, while Solution D achieves a 95% reduction. These findings highlight the environmental benefits of autonomous energy systems powered by renewables and emphasize the pivotal role of integrating renewable energy in fostering sustainable refrigeration practices and decreasing reliance on fossil fuel-based electricity.