The Effect of Water Availability On The European Green-Hydrogen Based Power System

The Effect of Water Availability on the European
Green-Hydrogen Based Power System

Water – Energy Nexus Approach
Steven Sergij Salim
Master Thesis
Renewable Energy Systems
30 Credits
Department of Technology System
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
UNIVERSITY OF OSLO
May 2022
© 2022 Steven Sergij Salim
The Effect of Water Availability on the European Green-Hydrogen Based Power System
Water – Energy Nexus Approach
http://www.duo.uio.no/
Printed: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo

Preface
Preface
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors Marianne and Matylda for their time and
guidance throughout this master thesis. I would also like to thank Max for his advice and
assistance.
As our world faces unpredictable challenges from the climate crisis. I am keen to contribute
to energy transitions research. This thesis aims to assess one of many potential energy
transition pathways. Throughout the thesis journey, I found a lot of interesting questions
related to our society, energy, and nature. I believe the results from this thesis will be
beneficial as a foundation for those questions.
This thesis also marks the end of my journey as a student at UiO. Therefore, I would like to
thank all professors and staff at Kjeller for all the time and help for the past 2 years. Most
importantly, I would like to express my gratitude to my family and friends for their endless
love and support.
Steven Sergij Salim
II
Summary
Summary
Hydrogen based power system emerges as one of the narrative pathways to limit 1.5 degrees
warming by 2050. The general discourse is that green hydrogen will be produced through
electrolysis utilizing excess energy from the grid and converted back into electricity using
fuel cells during high demand – low VRE generation periods. However, there is a knowledge
gap from the environmental perspective. Most hydrogen modelling studies ignore the fact
that freshwater is temporal – spatially limited. A global water crisis was predicted to get
worse in the future. Therefore, it is important to take into account water resources as a
limiting factor.
The research questions in this study are: “What is the effect of water availability constraints
on Europe's hydrogen-based power system?” and “How different water utilization strategies
will change hydrogen storage deployment in terms of capacities and spatial deployment?”. This
study introduces water resource availability as a constraint in a European power system
model, which is a novel approach for Europe power system modelling. To answer the
questions, the model HighRES was used as a methodology. HighRES is a high spatial and
temporal resolution electricity system model with an objective to design a cost-effective and
flexible electricity system, in addition to the link with the weather condition. An expansion of
the model is made to incorporate the water resource availability that limits hydrogen
production.
The scenario in this study is to aim for zero-emission by 2050 and limited growth of nuclear.
The data source used are generation technology cost and parameter, variable renewable
(VRE) capacity factor and surface runoff, interconnectors, and demand data obtained from
open source databases from ENTSO-E, JRC reports, and ECMWF ERA5. This study simulates
a power system with two storage technology options. Hydrogen from surface runoff and
Hydrogen from ocean water, which the latter is more expensive due to the need for
desalination technology but have unlimited water resources for countries with direct ocean
access.
The introduction of water availability constraints does not alter Europe’s energy mix
significantly. Europe will have enough freshwater resources for hydrogen production. This is
resulting in a similar power system cost throughout different water availability conditions in
Europe. A closer look at the country-level finds out that several countries dominate their
storage deployment with hydrogen from the ocean. The result will likely to be are likely to be
exacerbated when including the use of hydrogen in other sectors and taking into account the
energy security aspect per country. It is also recommended to the model need to be expanded
to incorporate inter-annual variability. In addition, It is also important to take into account
future weather scenarios, where climate change is predicted to significantly affect weather
patterns including wind and water resources. Thus providing a greater understanding of
future energy systems in facing extreme weather threats.
III
Table of Content
Table of Content
Preface........................................................................................................................................................................ II
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. III
Table of Content ....................................................................................................................................................IV
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................................... V
List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................................................VI
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Research Questions ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Research Outline................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research Limitation ............................................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Energy System ....................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Power System and Demand ..................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Electricity Generation Technology ....................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Energy Storage Technology ..................................................................................................... 9
2.1.4 Power System Modeling and Optimization .....................................................................11
2.2 Power System with green/yellow hydrogen- Concept and Value Chain ......................13
2.2.1 Electrolyzer ..................................................................................................................................16
2.2.2 Hydrogen Storage ......................................................................................................................19
2.2.3 Fuel Cell .........................................................................................................................................22
2.2.4 Saline water Desalination .......................................................................................................24
2.3 Climate Variability on Variable Renewable Energy Generation Technology ..............25
2.4 Hydrological Cycle and Water-Energy Nexus .........................................................................26
Chapter 3: Methodology and Data; highRES Model Description ................................................... 29
3.1.1 Hydrogen Production Limit Implementation .................................................................31
3.2 Data Acquisition ..................................................................................................................................33
3.2.1 Storage Parameter.....................................................................................................................34
3.2.2 Surface Runoff to Volume Water Availability .................................................................36
Chapter 4: Model Results and Discussions ............................................................................................ 42
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 58
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix 1 – HighRES Expansion Storage Setup .................................................................................... 65
Appendix 2 – Surface Runoff to Water Availability Data Processing............................................... 68
Appendix 3 – Europe Storage Distribution ................................................................................................ 76
Appendix 4 – Europe Generation Mix .......................................................................................................... 81
IV
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Energy - service supply system embedded in the surrounding energy-supply
system and their common natural and socioeconomic environment as
described by Groscurth et al [44] ..................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-2 Energy Trilemma Index, described by World Energy Council. [19] ............................ 7
Figure 2-3 Typical structure of a power system [46] .............................................................................. 8
Figure 2-4 Example of options for storing renewable electricity [56] ........................................... 11
Figure 2-5 Example of energy system blocks (OSeMOSYS ‘blocks’ and levels of abstraction)
[61] ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2-6 Feasible region on linear programming [63] ...................................................................... 13
Figure 2-7 Chemical properties of Hydrogen [65] .................................................................................. 13
Figure 2-8 Potential integration of the hydrogen supply chain with the energy supply chain
[15] ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2-9 Colors indication of hydrogen [67] ......................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-10 Green hydrogen value chain [68].......................................................................................... 16
Figure 2-11 Configuration of an electrolysis module: (a) unipolar module or parallel
connection of cells; (b) bipolar module or series connection of cells [70]..... 16
Figure 2-12 Electrolyzer with components necessary for its operation from a system
perspective [72] .................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2-13 Tthe operating principle of an alkaline electrolyzer [70] ........................................... 18
Figure 2-14 The operating principle of a proton exchange membrane electrolyser [70] ....... 19
Figure 2-15 Scheme of the operating principle of a solid oxide (SOE) [70].................................. 19
Figure 2-16 Hydrogen Storage Technology Options [74] .................................................................... 20
Figure 2-17 Schematic illustration of (a) solid solution phase (α-phase), (b) Pressure-
Composition-Isotherm (PCI) curve with a corresponding van't Hoff plot, and
(c) hydride phase (β-phase) in a metal/intermatallic compund. [79] ............. 21
Figure 2-18 Map of European salt deposits and salt structures as a result of suitability
assessment for underground hydrogen storage [81] ............................................. 22
Figure 2-19 Operating principle of alkaline fuel cell [87] .................................................................... 23
Figure 2-20 Operating principle of proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) [87] ....... 23
Figure 2-21 Operating principle of solid–oxide fuel cell (SOFC) [87] ............................................. 24
Figure 2-22 Schematic of reverse osmosis method [93] ...................................................................... 24
Figure 2-23 Zero Liquid Discharge framework as introduced by [95] ........................................... 25
Figure 2-24 Average PV and Wind Hourly Capacity Factor [102] ................................................... 26
Figure 2-25 Water Cycle on Earth [103] ..................................................................................................... 27
Figure 2-26 Water–energy nexus illustration [105] ............................................................................ 27
Figure 3-1 HighRES modelling framework [39] ...................................................................................... 29
Figure 3-2 HighRES expansion framework ............................................................................................... 31
Figure 3-3 Surface runoff distribution 1980 – 2020; Poland (top) and Norway (bottom);
Horizontal axis represent day of the year, Vertical axis represent surface
runoff in mm ........................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-4 hydrogen production limit parameter .................................................................................. 33
Figure 3-5 ERA5 surface runoff model [114]. ........................................................................................... 37
Figure 3-6 HighRES data format for hydrogen production limit ...................................................... 37
Figure 3-7 Renewable freshwater resources [116] ............................................................................... 38
Figure 3-8 Total water abstraction [116] ................................................................................................... 40
Figure 4-1 Power system cost under different water availability .................................................... 42
Figure 4-2 Europe energy mix under various water availability level ........................................... 43
Figure 4-3 Percentage of curtailment .......................................................................................................... 43
V
List of Tables
Figure 4-4 Capacity per country .................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 4-5 Percentage of energy mix per country (installed capacities) ....................................... 45
Figure 4-6 Investment of natural gas with CCS per country ............................................................... 45
Figure 4-7 Investment of natural gas without CCS per country ........................................................ 46
Figure 4-8 Investment of solar pv per country ....................................................................................... 46
Figure 4-9 Investment of wind offshore per country ............................................................................ 47
Figure 4-10 Investment of wind onshore per country .......................................................................... 47
Figure 4-12 Investment of hydroRoR per country ................................................................................. 48
Figure 4-13 Investment of hydro reservoir per country ...................................................................... 48
Figure 4-14 Percentage of SaltHydrogen deployment for different levels of water availability
...................................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 4-15 Europe Storage Distribution ................................................................................................... 52
Figure 4-16 SaltHydrogen percentage under 30% water availability ............................................ 53
Figure 4-17 SaltHydrogen Percentage on various water availability level ................................... 53
Figure 4-18 Storage operational strategy in Norway – 30% water availability ......................... 54
Figure 4-19 Storage operational strategy in Norway – 5% water availability ............................ 55
Figure 4-20 Storage operational strategy in Greece – 30% water availability ............................ 55
Figure 4-21 Storage operational strategy in Greece – 5% water availability .............................. 56
Figure 4-22 Storage operational strategy in Cyprus – 5% water availability .............................. 56
Figure 4-23 Hydrogen state of charge in Cyprus – 5% water availability ..................................... 57
List of Tables
Table 1-1 List of countries in the boundary condition and its maximum VRE capacity ............ 5
Table 2-1 Drivers of electricity demand according to [49] ................................................................... 8
Table 2-2 Relevant storage technology database according to European Commission [54] . 10
Table 2-3 Physical properties of hydrogen [66] ...................................................................................... 14
Table 3-1 HighRES list of filename ................................................................................................................ 30
Table 3-2 HighRES input data sources ........................................................................................................ 34
Table 3-3 HighRES storage parameter description ................................................................................ 34
Table 3-4 Storage Parameter .......................................................................................................................... 36
Table 3-5 Annual water volume calibration factor ................................................................................. 39
Table 3-6 Percentage of freshwater utilization........................................................................................ 41
Table 4-1 Europe energy mix under various water availability levels ........................................... 42
Table 4-2 Electrolyzer and fuel cell size from various water availability levels ......................... 49
Table 4-3 Energy storage size from various water availability levels ............................................ 50
Table 4-4 SaltHydrogen investment ratio at the country level .......................................................... 51
VI
Chapter 1: Introduction
In order to avert some of the worst effects of the climate crisis, global temperature raise needs
to be limited to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels [1]. This target requires global carbon
emissions to drop to zero by 2050 [2]. Nevertheless, there is no single answer to the question of
whether it is feasible to limit warming to 1.5 °C [1]. Multiple forms of knowledge, including
scientific evidence, narrative scenarios and prospective pathways, inform the understanding of
the difficulties to reach the 1.5 °C limit [1]. It is agreed that it will take a variety of solutions to
achieve this target and the green hydrogen rise is one of the promising niches to help society
decarbonize [3], [4], [5].
Green hydrogen is hydrogen that is generated exclusively from renewable energy [6]. Hydrogen
is extracted from water in an electrochemical process known as electrolysis [7]. The main
discourse surrounding green hydrogen is to decarbonize a range of sectors that have proved
hard to clean up in the past [8] such as steel industry, transport, etc. [9], [10]. Hydrogen can also
be used to heat our homes and in power systems, by supporting the integration of variable
renewable energy sources such as solar and wind by providing long-term storage. [11], [12].
Hydrogen-based energy systems offer a solution to the ever-increasing demand for sustainable
energy solutions. The general idea is that the green hydrogen is first produced through
electrolysis utilizing excess energy from the grid and then converted back into electricity using
fuel cells during high demand periods [13]. Nevertheless, the green hydrogen integration into
energy systems still faces many challenges, mainly with weight and volume in the hydrogen
storage system, system efficiency, durability, and cost [14]. Research trends on hydrogen
technology project positive news regarding the green hydrogen integration with an incredible
learning curve; hydrogen production costs quickly decreasing in the future, novel storage
technologies for large-scale stationary applications, and massive improvements in the hydrogen
system efficiency [4], [6], [7], [15].
The efficient integration of green hydrogen into the power system will also require policy
support [15], [16], [17]. The decision on energy policy requires predictions & scenarios of future
energy systems, which are mostly proposed by energy system modelling studies [18]. Most
energy policies made a choice between environmental, affordability or security (energy
trilemma concept) [19]. It is proven difficult to model these parameters at the same time, thus,
energy system models often are simplify so as to prioritize the most important driver of the
targeted policy [20]. The climate crisis drives the trend in the energy system modelling that
prioritizes the environmental solutions followed by either affordability or security [21]. This is
also valid for models analyzing the green hydrogen integration in power and/or energy systems
[22]. However, there is a research gap in the green hydrogen-based energy models, with the
environmental focus. One of neglected parameters is the necessity of using pure water as the
main feedstock for the green hydrogen generation through electrolysis.. This is a dangerous
precedent since water is one of the important resources for humanity's existence [23].
1
Introduction
In 2040, it is projected that most parts of the world will not have enough water to meet year-
round demand [24]. A global water crisis was predicted to get worse in a society with careless
water management [25] [26]. Introduction a new water consumption factor to produce green
hydrogen as the water crisis grows will raise a concern about how to build the world with a
limited access to its most important resource. A study from [27] identified the required water
treatment depending on the water source before feeding into the electrolyzer. However, to this
day there is no study that has assessed the impact of water availability on the regional hydrogen
production capacity.
The quest to achieve water availability has been one of the defining struggles of human history
[28]. A civilization that harnessed water thrived while the ones that failed would fall [29]. In
modern society, easy access to water made most people forget the importance of water to
society. Water does not abide by the common economic rule [30]. The price of water is almost
nothing compared to the actual value of water and is often treated and priced like there will
always be enough of it [31]. Societies are still inconclusive on how to treat water, either as a basic
human right commodity (e.g. for drinking water or irrigation) or as a private good (e.g. for car
washing or recreational pool). Thus, we ended up using water in absurdly wasteful ways.
Global water consumption reaches 4 trillion cubic meters of freshwater annually [32]. This is
mainly coming from surface-and groundwater and is projected to increase in the future [33]. In
most countries, surface water is treated as a public resource and key to economic development
[34]. Meanwhile, groundwater usually has more strict regulations and categorized as a
nonrenewable water source [34].
The climate crisis created yet another challenge with water availability because the
precipitation, that one counts on to fill up the surface water reservoirs, is getting more erratic
and less reliable [35]. Combined with the increase water consumption, this issue possesses a
challenge for the future of societies. Thus, it is important to start recognizing the value of water
before we fail to fulfil water adequacy for our society, which potentially can lead to a water-
triggered conflict such as those mentioned in [36], [37], and [38].
1.1 Research Questions
The motivation of this study is to bridge the knowledge gap in the current scientific world
through answering the following research questions:
”What is the effect of water availability on the European green hydrogen-based

power system?”
“How different water utilization strategy will affect hydrogen storage in terms
of capacity and spatial deployment?”
2
Introduction
In this study, water-energy nexus approach will be applied to estimate the limit of hydrogen
production through electrolysis in the European power system. Water availability will become
the theoretical limit of hydrogen production in a full green hydrogen economy. To illustrate
water utilization strategy, the model will be tested with different levels of water availability. The
findings from this study include, but are not limited by, the comparison of power system costs
and operational strategies, along with the optimum energy mix for the European countries.
1.2 Research Outline
The high temporal and spatial resolution electricity system model (highRES-Europe) is a model
used to plan least-cost electricity systems for Europe and is specifically designed to analyze the
effects of high shares of variable renewables and explore integration/flexibility options. highRES
is written in GAMS and its objective is to minimize power system investment and operational
costs to meet hourly demand, subject to several system constraints. [39]
From the current model of highRES-Europe https://github.com/highRES-model, an expansion

of the model will be implemented to plan the least-cost electricity systems for Europe
considering the implementation of green hydrogen storage and the effect of constrained water
on power systems. The main assumption is a scenario where green hydrogen is the main storage
technology to handle the intermittency of variable renewable energy generation. To reduce the
complexity of the study, the competition for hydrogen demand from outside power system
demand will be simplified.
To answer the research question, water availability from each country will be implemented as a
new constraint in highRES-Europe. The data for water availability will be taken from European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). Specifically, using ERA5 (fifth
generation) ECMWF atmospheric reanalysis of the global climate. Water availability will be
derived from surface runoff data. The percentage of water availability from surface runoff will
be based on the historical statistics of country water usage from Eurostat. Lastly, a sensitivity
analysis of water availability will be conducted to illustrate different policies on water priority.
The climate year 2013 is selected as the study year hourly demand and hourly capacity factors
. The historical hourly capacity factor of solar is derived from CMSAF-SARAH2 [40] and the
capacity factor of wind is derived from ECMWF ERA5 [41]. Hourly demand data is obtained from
the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSOE) ignoring
demand scaling for the future [42].
The cost of technology in 2050 will be based on several sources; mainly the Joint Research Centre
European Commission [43] and ENTSOE [42]. Special cost details will be given on hydrogen
technology costs to illustrate the effect of different water sources used in green hydrogen
production, these are indexed as Hydrogen (hydrogen from sweet water) and HydrogenSalt
(hydrogen from ocean water).
3
Introduction
The thesis is structured as follows: Chapter 1 describes the background and motivation of this
study, including the research outline ;Chapter 2 summarizes the relevant knowledge used
throughout this study, Chapter 3 presents the methodology and outlines the expansion of
HighRES to accommodate the research questions, while the results are discussed in Chapter 4.
This thesis is closed with conclusions of the study and a list of recommendations on how to
improve the future research on the topic. In addition, in chapter 5 the questions raised
throughout the writing process that could serve as the research outlook are presented.
1.3 Research Limitation
The spatial boundary condition in this study is limited to countries in Table 1-1, while the
temporal boundary condition is limited for one calendar year from the 1st of January until the
31st of December. Electricity generation technologies considered in this study are based on
natural gas, with and without carbon capture & storage (CCS) options, solar photovoltaics (PV),
onshore/offshore wind and hydropower, while electrochemical hydrogen production from
water, for energy storage purposes, is based on surface and seawater Finally, the assumption in
this study is no existing capacity has been built, letting the model optimize location-based on
VRE resources. However, maximum capacity development (Table 1-1) was put as a constraint
as defined in [39].
4
Introduction
Code Country Solar PV Wind Onshore Wind Offshore

(MW) (MW) (MW)
AT Austria 8062.7 2765.0 0
BE Belgium 1556.1 1474.0 3417.0
BG Bulgaria 25734.3 5153.0 4309.0
CH Switzerland 3511.3 0 0
CY Cyprus 734.0 256.0 115.0
CZ Czechia 13863.8 10976.0 0
DE Germany 60368.5 49403.0 55986.0
DK Denmark 19730.5 19676.0 91279.0
EE Estonia 14581.3 14576.0 22689.0
ES Spain 225832.7 120936.0 11922.0
FI Finland 29285.9 64161.0 55017.0
FR French 168000.2 144954.0 57405.0
GB Great Britain 68109.2 94710.0 183890.0
GR Greece 40376.1 9306.0 9623.0
HR Croatia 14306.3 1360.0 3068.0
HU Hungary 32375.3 19184.0 0
IE Ireland 41560.7 47196.0 24347.0
IT Italy 91759.7 23653.0 12298.0
LT Lithuania 26603.0 26590.0 5133.0
LU Luxembourg 154.7 150.0 0
LV Latvia 27820.5 27812.0 18419.0
MT Montenegro 19.5 16.0 240.0
NL Netherlands 11205.1 11064.0 61835.0
NO Norway 28007.1 63327.0 41396.0
PL Poland 61679.1 60862.0 18536.0
PT Portugal 35645.2 20490.0 7902.0
RO Romania 58953.2 28924.0 13654.0
SE Sweden 59779.4 87501.0 85443.0
SI Slovenia 2441.6 0 0
SK Slovakia 5915.5 2519.0 0
Table 1-1 List of countries in the boundary condition and its maximum VRE capacity
5
Literature Review
Chapter 2: Literature Review

To understand the relationship between an energy system and water resources, it is important
to provide the general understanding and assumption of the energy system modelling principle
and climate science. This chapter will briefly introduce the theory of the energy system
modelling and mathematical optimization. In addition, this chapter will describe the underlying
technology included in this study. Lastly, this chapter will explain the climate variability effect
on variable renewable energy generation technology.
2.1 Energy System
An energy system is system, whose main function is to supply energy service to end-users. As
described by Groscurth et al., an energy-services supply system consists of the equipment, the
commodity flows and the information necessary to meet a given demand for energy services
within a well-defined spatial area. Figure 2-1 illustrates the relationship of the energy-service
supply system with its surroundings and the natural and socio-economic environments. [44]
Figure 2-1 Energy - service supply system embedded in the surrounding energy-supply system and their common
natural and socioeconomic environment as described by Groscurth et al [44]
A reliable and affordable supply of energy is essential for modern life. Modern energy systems
are a comparatively recent development and they continue to evolve in response to the demand
for energy and the changing sources of supply. Constrains from local policy and regulations
determine which energy sources are used and, at the same time, define the transmission and
distribution networks' operational strategy. In today’s trend in energy policy, the increase of
environmental considerations affects choices of energy sources, which fulfil the environmental
requirement, affordability, and security. These dilemmas are often referred to as the energy
trilemma concept, which is identified as the most pressing international problem that involves
energy and climate change. [18], [45]
6
Literature Review
Figure 2-2 Energy Trilemma Index, described by World Energy Council. [19]
2.1.1 Power System and Demand
An electricity system, often addressed as a power system, is one of a sector under the energy
system as a whole. The electricity system is a network, which consists of generation, distribution
and transmission systems. In an electricity system , various forms of energy are converted into
electrical energy. The typical structure of a power system is shown in Figure 2-3, in which energy
is generated in a power plant, and transferred through transmission and distribution systems to
reach end-users. [46]
7
Literature Review
Figure 2-3 Typical structure of a power system [46]
Electricity demand represents the amount of electricity consumption over a specific time, in
units of watt-hour [47]. Electricity demand varies spatially and temporally, which creates a
challenge on the supply side of the electricity demands and the interconnections sides [48]. The
European Commission conducted a study to assess the list of drivers that affect the electricity
demand (Table 2-1). Commonly, the electricity demand projections have to take into account
two main aspects known as income drivers and price drivers. The income drivers are
macroeconomic and demographic factors such as GDP growth, growth in household disposable
income, population growth, growth in the number of households or the living space per capita,
etc. Price drivers, on the other hand, are related to the price level for electricity and other energy
sources that could substitute electricity. [49]
Drivers of electricity demand and supply

Economic growth
End-user prices and subsidies
Peak load and seasonal variation
Energy intensity, energy savings and demand-side
management
Industry Structure
Technological development and energy conservation
Policy factors
Table 2-1 Drivers of electricity demand according to [49]
2.1.2 Electricity Generation Technology
In the context of this study, there are two distinguishable groups of electricity generation
technologies; non-variable renewable energy (non-VRE) technologies and variable renewable
energy technologies. Several studies labelled VRE technologies as intermittent renewable
energy sources, which indicating that the sources of energy are not dispatchable due to their
8
Literature Review
fluctuating nature. On contrary, non-VRE technologies specify the nature of controllable

renewable energy sources. [1], [45]
As targeted by IPCC, the higher penetration of VRE technologies to mitigate climate change
necessitates upgrades or even redesign of an energy system [50]. The main factor is the
intermittent nature of energy resources, unable to sustain a steady and consistent output to fulfil
the demand [16], [51]. The high penetration of VREs will require more flexible energy systems
[51]. The limited flexibility of the energy generation portfolio can increase the amount of
essential capacity, resulting in oversupply in the period of low load (curtailment) [51].
2.1.3 Energy Storage Technology
In today’s power system design, electricity is rarely stored – it has to be consumed at the same
time as it is produced. This means that demand varies from instant to instant, from hour to hour,
and from season to season. To meet demand, the system must have the ability to generate the
demanded energy over a certain period, but also the capacity to meet demand during peak hours.
[51], [52]
The European Commission energy research team indicates that energy storage has a key role in
future of the energy system and in establishing a carbon-neutral economy [53], [54]. In general,
storage technologies can be classified either as mechanical, electrochemical, electrical, chemical
or thermal. Each storage technology has its unique performance characteristic, and thus will
have a different optimal situation for deployment [54].
9
Literature Review
Table 2-2 Relevant storage technology database according to European Commission [54]
Energy storage technologies can be divided into power components and energy components
[55]. Power components indicate the amount of capacity per unit of time, for example turbine
capacity hydropower technology and fuel cell/electrolyzer capacity in hydrogen technology. On
the other hand, energy components indicate the amount of stored energy by the given
technology, such as reservoir capacity in hydropower technology and salt cavern/metal hydride
storage capacity in hydrogen technology [55]. In this study, the most relevant parameters of
storage technology are storage capital and variable cost, storage capacity (energy reservoir), loss
of energy in the reservoir over time, and charging-discharging time (related to capacity).
10
Literature Review
Figure 2-4 Example of options for storing renewable electricity [56]
2.1.4 Power System Modeling and Optimization
By definition, a model is a description of a system, which functions to explain how the system
works and calculate what might happen [57]. In the setting of the power system, the model
portrays the behavior of underlying technologies as well as their interconnections and
constrains. In summary, energy/power system modelling is a process of assembling computer
models of a well-defined boundary of an energy/power system to analyze and predict them [17].
The motive to construct a model often varies between stakeholders. There are two most
common approaches to constructing a power system model; top-down models, which are
represent economic approaches and bottom-up models, which capture the engineering and
physical limitation of the system [58], [59]. Combining bottom-up with top-down to generate a
hybrid model is termed as an Integrated Assessment Modelling. However, it is often challenging
and requires too many details included without providing an additional benefit to answer the
posed main questions [59]. Thus, it is important to choose approaches wisely to avoid
unnecessary complexity while developing an energy/power system model.
Energy and power system modelling is an important tool used to predict the impact of a policy
in a complex system [60]. However, it is important to note that the model should provide
sufficient transparency and use open-source data as much as possible. Policy developed using
an inadequately transparent model may result in damage to the public trust [61].
11
Literature Review
Figure 2-5 Example of energy system blocks (OSeMOSYS ‘blocks’ and levels of abstraction) [61]
In modelling studies, there are two important definitions regarding variables. Exogenous
variable, known as a variable determined outside the model and imposed on the model, means
variables that are not explained by other variables within a model. On contrary, an endogenous
variable is a variable, which determined by the model. [62]
The power system optimization problems are broadly categorized as operation and planning
problems. The operation problems are usually related to how to exploit the existing
devices/power plants. In electricity generation expansion planning, the decision-maker is trying
to find out the investment decision regarding the generation technology, size and time of
investment [63]. A typical objective of a power system model is to minimize system cost while
fulfilling technological and environmental constraints. Linear programming is often used as a
mathematical modelling technique to design a power system model. Linear programming
creates a feasible region, which is the set of all possible points that satisfy the problem’s
constraints, including, inequalities, and integer constraints [64]. Figure 2-6 shows the general
technique to write a linear programming problem together with an illustration of a typical
feasible region on a simple linear programming problem [65].
12
Literature Review
Figure 2-6 Feasible region on linear programming [65]
2.2 Power System with green/yellow hydrogen- Concept and Value Chain
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Characteristically, hydrogen is a

colourless, odourless, tasteless and flammable gaseous substance. The earliest known important
chemical property of hydrogen is that it burns with oxygen to form water, resulting in the name
of this element, as derived from Greek words, meaning “maker of water.” [66]
Figure 2-7 Chemical properties of Hydrogen [66]
Table 2-3 presents several relevant physical properties of hydrogen for this study. Hydrogen
contains more energy per unit of mass than natural gas or gasoline, which makes it attractive as
a fuel. Nevertheless, hydrogen is the lightest element and has a very low volumetric energy
density. This means that larger volumes of hydrogen must be considered to meet identical
energy demands as compared with other fuels. This can be achieved, for example, through the
use of larger or faster-flowing pipelines and/or larger storage tanks. Hydrogen can be
compressed, liquefied, or transformed into solid-/liquid-state hydrogen-based fuels (hydrides,
liquid organic hydrogen carriers, etc.) with higher volumetric energy densities, but this (and any
subsequent re-conversion) requires some energy investments. [67]
13
Literature Review
Table 2-3 Physical properties of hydrogen [67]
Hydrogen is used in various sectors, of which chemical oil and gas along with metal production
industry are the major consumers. Hydrogen versatility can help tackle various critical energy
challenges and offers an option to decarbonize sectors categorize as hard to abate in the past. In
power generation, hydrogen – being and energy carrier - is seen as one of the leading options for
renewable energy storage. [67]
Figure 2-8 Potential integration of the hydrogen supply chain with the energy supply chain [15]
Stakeholders use a color scheme to identify various types of hydrogen, depending on how it is
produced . “Black”, “grey” and “brown” hydrogen refer to the production of hydrogen from fossil
fuel. “Blue” is used to describe hydrogen obtained from fossil fuels with CO2 emissions reduced
using carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS)
14
Literature Review
technologies. “Green” hydrogen describes hydrogen production from water, though electrolysis,
when the energy used to power electrolysis comes from renewable sources like wind, water or
solar . [67] If hydrogen is produced by electrolytic water splitting by utilization of the mixed-
origin grid energy, then it is called yellow. In this case, the carbon emissions vary greatly
depending on the sources powering the grid.
Figure 2-9 Colors indication of hydrogen [68]
This study highlights the use of green and yellow hydrogen production routes, in power systems.
Figure 2-10 exemplifies the typical green hydrogen value chain with electrolysis being the main
technology to produce hydrogen, by splitting water molecules, using electricity generated from
renewable energy sources. Once generated, hydrogen must be stored. Possible options include
compressed gas storage in vessels and/or geological storage in depleted oil and gas reservoirs,
aquifers, salt caverns, abandoned mines, and rock caverns; liquid hydrogen storage in tanks, and
solid-state hydrogen storage in a form of chemical compounds called hydrides. To be further
utilized, hydrogen is then converted back to electricity by using a fuel cell technology. The
following sub-chapter will discuss the principle and limitations of fundamental technologies
involved in the green hydrogen value chain. In addition, salt water desalination technology is
also discussed to give an overview of the green/ yellow hydrogen production from sea and ocean
water.
15
Literature Review
Figure 2-10 Green hydrogen value chain [69]
2.2.1 Electrolyzer
Electrolysis, a process of using electricity to split a water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen,
happens in a cell called an electrolyzer [70]. [71], [72]. The electrolyzer consists of electrodes
(anodes and cathodes), diaphragm and electrolyte and the electrolytic water splitting reaction
is described as follows
1
𝐻2 𝑂 (𝑙) → 𝐻2 (𝑔) + 𝑂2 (𝑔) Equation 2-1
2
Figure 2-11 Configuration of an electrolysis module: (a) unipolar module or parallel connection of cells; (b) bipolar
module or series connection of cells [71]
16
Literature Review
In this study an electrolyzer is defined as a stack and balance of the plant, in other words, an
electrolyzer as a system for hydrogen feeding and production and necessary storage (Figure
2-12). The term “electrolyzer” from the system perspective, as defined by IRENA and adapted in
this study, includes the peripherals items necessary for the system operation but excludes
further components for the compressed large-scale hydrogen storage. Moreover, the major
components for the balance of plant cost typically also include a rectifier, a water purification
unit, hydrogen gas processing (compression and storage) and cooling components (Table 2-4)
[73]. It is important to note that water purification processes differ from desalination processes
and will be discussed in sub-chapter 2.2.4.
Figure 2-12 Electrolyzer with components necessary for its operation from a system perspective [73]
Electrolyzer Stack Component Electrolyzer Balance of Plant

Catalyst coated membrane Power supply
Porous transport layer Deionized water circulation
Bipolar plates Hydrogen processing
Stack assembly and end plates Cooling
Protective coating
Table 2-4 Electrolyzer list of component [73]
Currently, there are three major technologies proposed for a large-scale hydrogen production
through water electrolysis: alkaline electrolysis, proton exchange membrane electrolysis, and
high-temperature solid oxide electrolysis. The efficiency of alkaline water electrolyzer ranges
from 47% to 82%, with operating temperatures and pressures up to 100 °C and 25 – 30 bar.
Hydrogen gas produced in this way can reach purity of 99.9 vol. % without necessity of
utilization of auxiliary purification equipment [71]. To be operated, the alkaline water
electrolyzer requires purified water, with electrical conductivity ≤ 5 𝜇𝑆⁄𝑐𝑚, to safeguard the
efficiency of electrolytic processes and lifetime of electrodes [71]. Equation 2-2 and Equation
2-3 describe the half reactions that occur at a cathode and an anode in an alkaline electrolyzer.
Figure 2-13 illustrates the typical scheme of the operating principle of an alkaline electrolyzer.
17
Literature Review
Cathode: 2𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) + 2𝑒 − → 𝐻2 (𝑔) + 2𝑂𝐻− (𝑎𝑞) Equation 2-2
1
Anode: 2𝑂𝐻 − (𝑎𝑞) → 𝑂 (𝑔) + 𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) + 2𝑒 − Equation 2-3
2 2
Figure 2-13 Tthe operating principle of an alkaline electrolyzer [71]
A proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) electrolyzer utilizes a gas-tight thin (below 0.2 mm in
thickness) polymeric membrane as an electrolyte, typically a cross-linked network structure
based on with sulfonic acid group (−𝑆𝑂3 𝐻) containing polymers [71]. The efficiency of a PEM
electrolyzer ranges from 48% to 65%, with operating temperatures lower than 80 °C and
pressures up to 85 bar [71]. Without the auxiliary purification equipment, hydrogen produced
by PEM electrolysis reaches higher purity than in alkaline electrolyzer (typically 99.999 vol.%).
The electrochemical half reactions at electrode sides in a PEM electrolyzer are presented by
Equation 2-4 and Equation 2-5, with the operation scheme shown in Figure 2-14.
1
Anode: 𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) → 𝑂 (𝑔) + 2𝐻 + (𝑎𝑞) + 2𝑒 − Equation 2-4
2 2
Cathode: 2𝐻 + (𝑎𝑞) + 2𝑒 − → 𝐻2 (𝑔) Equation 2-5
18
Literature Review
Figure 2-14 The operating principle of a proton exchange membrane electrolyser [71]
Compared to alkaline electrolyzer and PEM electrolyzer, solid oxide electrolyzer (SOE) is still a
premature technology, being researched and developed. SOEs operate at high temperatures
(500 – 900 °C) and uses thermal energy from heat in combination with electrical energy from an
electric current to synthesize hydrogen, using a ceramic solid oxide electrolyte membrane [71].
Due to that SOE are characterized by higher efficacy than alkaline and PEM cells. [74]. The
schematic of SOE is presented in Figure 2-15, Equation 2-6 and Equation 2-7..
1
Anode: 𝑂 2− → 𝑂2 (𝑔) + 2𝑒 −
2
Equation 2-6
Cathode: 𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙𝑔) + 2𝑒 − → 𝐻2 (𝑔) + 𝑂 2− Equation 2-7
Figure 2-15 Scheme of the operating principle of a solid oxide (SOE) [71]
2.2.2 Hydrogen Storage
Hydrogen can be stored physically (either in a gas or liquid state) or chemically, in materials-
often addressed as solid-state hydrogen storage) [75]. Storage of hydrogen in a form of
19
Literature Review
compressed gas or liquid are most mature, broadly used technologies [76]. The typically used
storage vessels have cylindrical shape, and the longitudinal stress is the decisive parameter
governing the required wall thickness of the tank [76]. The mechanical stress the analysis
indicates that raising operating vessel pressure or the vessel diameter requires the proportional
increase in wall thickness. Thus, increasing volume of the hydrogen stored inside a pressure
vessel, requires the vessel length extension rather than its diameter to avoid unnecessary
increase in the wall thickness [76].
Figure 2-16 Hydrogen Storage Technology Options [75]
Storage of hydrogen as a liquid requires cryogenic temperatures because the boiling point of
hydrogen at one-atmosphere pressure is -252.8 °C [75]. Cryogenic tank systems have slightly
higher volumetric storage density compared to compressed hydrogen systems [76]. However,
cryogenic vessels, require utilization of efficient multilayer vacuum superinsulation [77]. Still,
the hydrogen liquefaction processes account for energy losses at the level of 30-40 % within
additional 1 – 5 % boil-off rates per day, which make this storage option challenging for a large-
scale application in a long run. [78].
The solid-state hydrogen storage refers to a method of storing hydrogen in solid state materials
by either absorption, in metallic hydrides or adsorption on nanostructured and/or porous
materials such as carbon nanotubes or metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) [79]. The
fundamental principles of solid-state hydrogen storage are illustrated in Figure 2-17.
20
Literature Review
Figure 2-17 Schematic illustration of (a) solid solution phase (α-phase), (b) Pressure-Composition-Isotherm (PCI)
curve with a corresponding van't Hoff plot, and (c) hydride phase (β-phase) in a metal/intermatallic compund. [80]
Hydrogen molecules in the gas phase can be adsorbed physically on the surface of
metal/intermetallic compound/alloy and then dissociate into two hydrogen atoms.
Subsequently, the formed atomic hydrogen diffuses from the surface into the bulk and starts
occupying interstitial sites in the metal atom sublattice to form a chemical compound(s) know
as hydride(s), during so called hydrogen absorption process. During the revers hydrogen
desorption process of the hydrogen atoms are removed from the interstitial sites and diffuse
out of the bulk to the surface of a metal/intermetallic compound/alloy, to finally bond together
and form gaseous hydrogen molecules. [81]
The important factors that should be considered while choosing a proper material for solid-state
hydrogen storage include: hydrogen absorption/desorption temperature and pressure, material
gravimetric and volumetric hydrogen storage capacities, resistance to oxidation, reversibility
and cyclic stability, kinetics and reactivity, and [79]. The broad application of this hydrogen
storage technology still requires development and improvements [80].
The storage of large quantities of hydrogen underground in solution-mined salt domes, aquifers,
excavated rock caverns, or mines can function as grid energy storage, and has been identified as
a promising technology due to its massive potential storage capacity, only rivalled by
hydropower [82]. [82]. However, several considerations need to be take into account for
geological hydrogen storage. The main concern is to ensure the geo-mechanical safety of caverns
with the carefully defined salt layer thicknesses [83]. Moreover, salt cavern placement analysis
has been performed across all eligible areas with a separation distance of 4 times the cavern
diameter between the vertical cavern axis [84].
21
Literature Review
Figure 2-18 Map of European salt deposits and salt structures as a result of suitability assessment for underground
hydrogen storage [82]
It is important to consider the engineering geology approach while considering salt caverns for
underground hydrogen storage applications. The charging/discharging rate is likely to affect the
decreased speed of the internal gas pressure. Rapid charging / discharging conditions can lead
geological loads applied to the cavern roof not to be transferred in a timely fashion, which can
causes a stress concentration zone to form [85]. This may lead to an increased risk of geological
failure.
2.2.3 Fuel Cell
In the simplest term, a fuel cell is a reverse electrolyzer that converts the chemical energy of a
fuel (often hydrogen) and an oxidizing agent (often oxygen) into electricity through a pair of
redox reactions. Direct conversion of the chemical energy in to the electrical one leads to higher
efficiency compared to a combustion engine. Moreover, fuel cells allow independent scaling
between power (fuel cell size) and capacity (storage size). The fuel cell utilization presents
several obstacles to increasing market penetration, mainly in cost, power density, operating
temperature and durability under rough operating conditions. [86]
Examples of a hydrogen fuel cell include an alkaline fuel cell (AFC), a proton exchange membrane
fuel cell (PEMFC), and a solid–oxide fuel cell (SOFC). Alkaline fuel cells operate between 60 – 90
°C and can reach electrical efficiency of 60 % [87]. The operating principle of an alkaline fuel cell
is illustrated in Figure 2-19 with the electrode reactions presented by Equation 2-8 and
Equation 2-9.
22
Literature Review
Figure 2-19 Operating principle of alkaline fuel cell [88]
Anode: 2𝐻2 (𝑔) + 4𝑂𝐻 − → 4𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) + 4𝑒 − Equation 2-8
Cathode: 2𝑂2 (𝑔) + 2𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) + 4𝑒 − → 4𝑂𝐻 − Equation 2-9
Figure 2-20 illustrates the operating principle of PEMFCs according to [88]. Hydrogen is
activated by a catalyst to form proton ions and eject electrons at the anode. The proton passes
through the membrane while the electron is forced to flow to the external circuit and generate
electricity. The electron then flows to the cathode and interact with oxygen and proton ion to
form water. PEMFC tends to have a higher lifetime, they operate in the temperature range of
between 60 -120°C with the electrical efficiency ranging from 40 – 60 % [89].
Figure 2-20 Operating principle of proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) [88]
Anode: 𝐻2 (𝑔) → 2𝐻 + + 2𝑒 − Equation 2-10
1
Cathode: 𝑂 (𝑔) + 2𝐻 + + 2𝑒 − → 𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) Equation 2-11
2 2
Contrary to PEMFC and alkaline FC, solid – oxide fuel cells operate at high temperatures (>1000
°C) with metallic oxide solid ceramic electrolytes [90]. SOFCs are suitable for large-scale
distributed power generation systems [91], however limited by ramp-up/down time, they reveal
mechanical and chemical compatibility issues [91].
23
Literature Review
Figure 2-21 Operating principle of solid–oxide fuel cell (SOFC) [88]
Anode: 𝑂 2− + 𝐻2 (𝑔) → 𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) + 2𝑒 − Equation 2-12
1
Cathode: 𝑂 (𝑔) + 2𝑒 − → 𝑂 2− Equation 2-13
2 2
2.2.4 Saline water Desalination
Saline water (commonly known as salt water) refers to water with a high concentration of
dissolved salts (mostly sodium chloride (NaCl)). United States Geological Survey (USGS)
categorizes saline water as follows [92] (the salt concentration in water is expressed in particle
per million (ppm)):
• Freshwater - Less than 1,000 ppm

• Slightly saline water - From 1,000 ppm to 3,000 ppm
• Moderately saline water - From 3,000 ppm to 10,000 ppm
• Highly saline water - From 10,000 ppm to 35,000 ppm
Desalination is a process that takes away mineral components from saline water [93]. The most
common desalination technique is reverse osmosis (RO), based on a pressure-driven thin
membrane diffusion process [94]. The applied pressure in reverse osmosis processes ranges
from 1000 – 500 kPa, achieving >99 % salinity removal [94].
Figure 2-22 Schematic of reverse osmosis method [94]
Desalination processes require significant electrical energy input, ranging from 1 – 6 𝑘𝑊ℎ⁄𝑚3
[95]. In addition, high saline water (brine) is produced as a by-product of this process. Due to
the high salt concertation, brine needs to be treated using cost-effective methods to mitigate
environmental pollutions [96].
24
Literature Review
Figure 2-23 Zero Liquid Discharge framework as introduced by [96]
2.3 Climate Variability on Variable Renewable Energy Generation Technology
A strategy to decarbonize power systems utilizing variable renewable energies creates a variety
of impacts [12]. It is important to unravel the peripherals’ effects of using VRE generations [97].
One characteristic of VRE is prone to climate variability, which in extreme conditions leads to
extreme residual load and high curtailment [98].
Climate variability exists in time and space dimensions. This is often addressed as a spatial –
temporal variation in climate. In long-term energy planning models, this variability needs to be
somehow represented in the models as a variable. The common method to represent climate
variability is by using capacity factor values with desired time and space dimensions. [99]
Capacity Factor (CF) is a unitless ratio of actual energy produced over a period divided by the
theoretical maximum electrical energy output [100]. In the context of VRE generation, the
capacity factor is useful to describe the availability of resources to generate electricity. VRE
capacity factor can be derived from historical data of existing power plants and coupled with
reanalysis [101] [102].
25
Literature Review
Figure 2-24 Average PV and Wind Hourly Capacity Factor [103]
2.4 Hydrological Cycle and Water-Energy Nexus
The hydrologic cycle is an Earth science branch, which studies water on Earth, including
occurrence, circulation and distribution, physical and chemical properties and relation to living
things [104]. The hydrologic cycle links the Earth’s atmosphere, land and oceans (Figure 2-25),
which is an important aspect in determination of water availability in a given region [104].
Natural sources of fresh water include surface water, groundwater and frozen water. However,
only surface water can be categorized as a renewable water source, while the latter are treated
as fossil water. This definition is due to the rechargeability of water sources using the
hydrological cycle [105].
This study focuses on surface water from the water availability perspective. By definition,
surface water is water in a river, lake or fresh water wetland. Surface water is naturally
replenished by precipitation and lost through discharge to the oceans, evaporation,
evapotranspiration and groundwater recharge [30].
Water availability unitize as a volume unit, while surface runoff is normally unitized in 𝑚3 ⁄𝑠
(volume per unit of time). To transform runoff height (typical unit is in millimeter or meter), a
multiplication with the area will produce volume over a period.
𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤⁄ Equation 2-14

Surface runoff ( 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒) = runoff (height in meter) × area (in meter square
26
Literature Review
Figure 2-25 Water Cycle on Earth [104]
Water resources and power systems are fundamentally linked, thus, it is important to assess the
world’s most critical resources comprehensively [106]. From an academic point of view, this is
often addressed as water-energy nexus and there is no clear definition and boundary to water-
energy nexus. Therefore, this study limit to the water-energy nexus to two dimensions; the
environmental and technological one, as defined in [106]. However, it is also important to note
that the water-energy nexus also affects the other dimensions, e.g., economic, social and political.
Figure 2-26 Water–energy nexus illustration [106]
Water-energy nexus usually translate into a public policy. A policy designed in an environmental
mindset will potentially mix up the water-energy nexus balance. An example of an
environmental dimension is climate change affecting water quality, thus, reducing the amount
27
Literature Review
of water supply to produce electricity. This will lead to trade-offs and may present geopolitical
conflict. Meanwhile, the technological dimension describes the physical link between water and
energy. The electricity sector, energy generation technologies and alternative energy sources
consume different amounts of water; for example, water needed for thermal generation and
water as feedstock for hydrogen production. Another example refers to the water industry,
technological options to support water supply are becoming increasing energy-intensive such
as desalination, water recycling, water transfers and groundwater extraction.
28
Methodology and Data; highRES Model Description
Chapter 3: Methodology and Data; highRES Model Description

This study uses highRES-Europe model developed by Price and Zeyringer [39]. HighRES describe
as a high spatial and temporal resolution electricity system model with an objective to design a
cost-effective and flexible electricity system, in addition to the link with the weather condition.
HighRES address the missing high-resolution details from a typical long term whole energy
system model, which have proven significant in high shares of VRE in energy systems [20].
The model runs for 1 future snap-shot year with hourly temporal resolution (8670h) using
annuitized cost. It designs a future least-cost power system making both investment and
dispatch decisions. The Europe version of highRES is split into 30 zones. The objective function
of the model is to minimize power system costs to fulfil the hourly demand subject to several
technical constraints. Therefore, the model will optimize the location to expand generation
technology, storage and transmission.
Figure 3-1 HighRES modelling framework [39]
Figure 3-1illustrate the overview of highRES modelling framework. The input for the model
includes:
• Technical constraints on power plant operation

• Current transmission grid
• Future technology cost
• Annual electricity demand
• Maximum CO2 emissions
Historical meteorological data from reanalysis data were used to model hourly capacity factors
from wind, solar and hydro capacity. In addition, reanalysis data is also used to define the
29
hydrogen production limit which is the main focus of model expansion in this thesis. At the
spatial level, another constraint is put to limit the capacity development of VRE generation. This
is reviewed on technical, social and environmental exclusion zones.
HighRES is written in GAMS and utilizes the CPLEX solver, the list of files listed in Table 3-1. The
main file is mainly written in *.gms filetype and the input and output are either written in *.dd
or *.gdx, with Further explanation can be found in Refs. [39] and [107].
File name Description

highres.gms The main model
highres_data_input.gms Data input management
highres_results.gms Results management
highres_storage_setup.gms List of storage equations
highres_hydro.gms List of reservoir hydro equations
highres_uc_setup.gms Unit commitment
(has not been implemented)
Table 3-1 HighRES list of filename
The model was used to design Europe's power system in 2050. European Commission aimed to
reach zero emission by 2050 [108]. Meaning the model is practically not allowed to invest in
technology that emits carbon. In addition, this study limits the growth of Nuclear due to
polarized opinions between member states on Nuclear energy [109]. Thus, leaving the model to
choose to either invest in VRE generation, gas power plant, interconnectors expansion, or
storage.
30
3.1.1 Hydrogen Production Limit Implementation
Figure 3-2 HighRES expansion framework
Water availability at the country level defines the limit of hydrogen production capabilities.
Therefore, it is necessary to expand HighRES to link water resources with the energy sector.
Figure 3-2, illustrates the modification in the HighRES framework. Water availability derived
from surface runoff reanalysis data from ECMWF ERA5. Surface runoff unitizes as height (mm),
thereby scaling with countries area (m2) will translate into volume unit (m3). Figure 3-3
illustrates the temporal distribution of surface runoff, the Y-axis represent runoff height in mm
and X-axis is the day of the year. The data from 1980 – 2020 were plotted to demonstrate
interannual variability (percentiles shown in color thickness).
31
Figure 3-3 Surface runoff distribution 1980 – 2020; Poland (top) and Norway (bottom); Horizontal axis represent
day of the year, Vertical axis represent surface runoff in mm
The first modification in highRES was done under the highres_data_input.gms file. The
modification aimed to include a hydrogen production limit. The input file for hydrogen
production limit is defined as:
%Scenario_Name%_ hydrogen_%demand_year%.dd.
with syntax as below:
$INCLUDE %esys_scen%_hydrogen_%dem_yr%.DD
This file includes a parameter of hourly limit hydrogen production (kWh) per member state. The
structure of this file is Country.Hour hydrogen_prod_limit, with Figure 3-4 shows the first 24
hours of Austria's hydrogen production limit.
32
Figure 3-4 hydrogen production limit parameter
The crucial modification in hghRES happened under highres_storage_setup.gms file. This file
controls the behaviour of storage due to its constraints and priorities. A new equation introduces
named eq_hydrogen_limit, with a syntax defined as below:
* Hydrogen Hourly Production Limit
eq_hydrogen_limit(s_lim(z,'Hydrogen'),h)..
var_store(h,z,'Hydrogen') =L= hydrogen_prod_limit(z,h)/MWtoGW;
This equation put a new constraint in HighRES. This constraint aims to limit the amount of
storage charging by the amount of available hydrogen at given hour in each member state. The
full expanded version of the storage setup of HighRES Europe is presented in Appendix 1 –
HighRES Expansion Storage Setup.
3.2 Data Acquisition
The climate year 2013 was chosen as a temporal boundary condition and defined as a study year,
meaning that the temporal variation input for this study will be based on 2013 data for each
node (member state). The data acquisition process aimed to utilize as much as possible open-
source data to maintain transparency of this study with the list of sources listed in Table 3-2
with further explanation of data input integration in [107].
33
Data Sources
Generation technology cost and JRC [43]
parameter
VRE capacity factor and surface ERA5 and CMSAF-SARAH2 [41], [40]
runoff
Interconnectors ENTSO – E Transparency Platform [42]
Demand data ENTSO – E Transparency Platform [42]
Table 3-2 HighRES input data sources
3.2.1 Storage Parameter
The input file for the highres_storage_setup.gms file is structured in two different files. The set
of storage technology listed under NewPl_min80_store_set_all files and the storage parameter
outlined under NewPl_min80_store_parameters.dd file. The list of parameters is presented in
Table 3-3, together with the description and the context used in this study.
Parameter HighRES Description Context

store_pcapex annualised power capex ($k per MW) Total Cost of electrolyser, fuel cell
%model_yr%(s) and desalination in 2050
store_ecapex annualised energy capex ($k per Total cost of Hydrogen Storage in
%model_yr%(s) MWh); 2050
store_varom(s) variable O&M ($k per MWh) Variable cost of technology
store_fom(s) fixed O&M ($k per MW per year) Fixed O&M cost per year
store_eff_in(s) fractional charge efficiency Electrolyzer + Desalination
Efficiency
store_eff_out(s) fractional discharge efficiency Fuel Cell Efficiency
store_loss_per_hr(s) self-discharge
store_p_to_e(s) power to energy ratio Electrolyzer/Fuelcell size compare
to the hydrogen storage technology
size (MW – MWh)
store_lim_pcap_z(z,s,lt) power capacity limit by zone
store_exist_pcap_z(z,s,lt) existing power capacity
store_lim_ecap_z(z,s,lt) energy capacity limit by zone
store_exist_ecap_z(z,s,lt) existing energy capacity
store_af(s) fractional availability factor
store_max_in(s) max charge (MW);
store_max_out(s) max discharge (MW);
store_max_res(s) fractional maximum contribution to Not implemented
operating reserve;
store_max_freq(s) fractional maximum contribution to Not implemented
frequency response;
store_e_unitsize(s) energy storage capacity per unit if Not implemented
using fixed sized units
store_e_unitcapex(s) Not implemented
Table 3-3 HighRES storage parameter description
This study classified 2 storage technologies coded as Hydrogen and SaltHydrogen. Hydrogen
parameter consists of electrolyzer and fuel cell, while SaltHydrogen includes additionally the
desalination processes. Maximum charging capacity for hydrogen is limited by the electrolyzer
capacity (output from the model) and water availability. In contrary, SaltHydrogen is only
34
limited by the electrolyzer capacity. The incorporation of the desalination technology in

SaltHydrogen leads to the cost increase (3–15%) in the capital cost [110], [111], [112], thus
increasing the variable and fixed O&M costs. The desalination plant consumes electricity to
purify salt water, which translates into a reduction of charging efficiency by2% as compared to
the Hydrogen technology with calculation as follows:
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 1 𝑚3 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 0.86 𝑘𝑤ℎ
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 1 𝑚3 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 22.36 𝑘𝑤ℎ
𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒 1 𝑘𝑔 𝐻2 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠 0.032 𝑚3 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 [113]
0.032 𝑚3
22.36 𝑘𝑤ℎ × = 0.71 𝑘𝑤ℎ
1 𝑚3
𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒 1 𝑘𝑔 𝐻2 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠 0.039 𝑀𝑊ℎ [114]
0.71
1000 𝑀𝑊ℎ = 1.97 % ~ 2%
0.039
In addition, the desalination plant will incur extra variable O&M costs, which are mainly caused
by the price of water transportation [111] and limited availability for member states with direct
ocean access. Both storage technologies assume the underground hydrogen storage in salt
caverns. This assumption is inaccurate as the zone limitation was not implemented in the model.
Moreover, both storage technologies assume the power to energy ratio of 10, meaning that for
each 1 MW invested in power, the model automatically invests in 10 MW of energy stored. These
assumptions are adequate for a model with the same energy CAPEX and will not change the merit
order of storage investment. The storage parameter summarizes in Table 3-4.
35
Parameter Hydrogen SaltHydrogen Source

Electrolyzer Cost
580 580 [14], [67], [73], [99], [115]
(kEUR per MW)
Fuel Cell Cost
1045 1045 [67], [75]
(kEUR per MW)
Desalination – Reverse Osmosis 15% from system cost
- 250
(kEUR per MW) [110], [111], [112]
Annualised power capex
106 122
(kEUR per MW)
Hydrogen Salt caverns
300 300 [82], [84], [43]
(kEUR / MWh)
annualised energy capex
19.51 19.51
(kEUR per MWh)
Electrolyzer Variable O&M 0.0005 0.0005 [14], [67], [73], [99], [115]
Fuel Cell Variable O&M 0.0005 0.0005 [67], [75]
Desalination Variable O&M
- 0.00015 [110], [111], [112]
(kEUR per MWh)
variable O&M
0.001 0.0012
(kEUR per MWh)
fixed O&M 3 % from CAPEX
(kEUR per MW per year) [14], [67]
fractional charge efficiency 80 % 78.4 % [73] , [99],
fractional discharge efficiency 60 % 60 % [67], [73]
(self-discharge) - -
power to energy ratio 10 10 [55], [116]
Only Member
power capacity limit by zone Available for all State with access
to ocean
existing power capacity 0 0
energy capacity limit by zone Unlimited Unlimited
existing energy capacity 0 0
fractional availability factor 95 % 95 %
Electrolyser
Electrolyser
max charge (MW) capacity and surface
capacity
runoff availability
max discharge (MW) Fuel cell capacity Fuel cell capacity
Table 3-4 Storage Parameter
3.2.2 Surface Runoff to Volume Water Availability
Surface runoff data was extracted from ERA5 which is based on the hydrological model per grid
as structured in Figure 3-5. Detail explanation of the surface runoff physical model can be read
in ref. [117]. ERA5 runoff data have a resolution of approximately 30 km × 30 km, the data is
then aggregated for each member state using methodology developed by the Joint Research
Centre of the European Commission as described in ref. [118].
36
Figure 3-5 ERA5 surface runoff model [117].
The surface runoff data is available from 1980 until 2018. The data was then processed to
represent the volume of water available for each member state for the selected year of study
(2013). The complete step of data processing presented in Appendix 2 – Surface Runoff to Water
Availability Data Processing. Several missing data of runoff assume to have the same runoff
height as its neighboring countries with similar sizes (Greece and Malta with Bulgaria). The
surface runoff height is then multiplied by the member state area to obtain the volume of water.
Figure 3-6 HighRES data format for hydrogen production limit
37
Figure 3-7 Renewable freshwater resources [119]
The volume of water was then calibrated with Eurostat water statistics (Figure 3-7 and Table
3-5) [119]. This calibration process is not ideal since the data is only available on an annual level.
Thereafter, the volume of water was adjusted with freshwater abstraction from the same
statistics from Eurostat (Figure 3-8 and Table 3-6). This data represents the current water usage
from each member state. Thus, leaving the volume of water available for hydrogen production.
The water volume converted into hydrogen production is limited based on the assumption that
1 kg of hydrogen needs 30.2 kg of water (0.0302 m3) [113] and 39 kWh (electrolyzer with 100%
efficiency) [114]. The data is formatted as country.time and hydrogen production limit MWh per
hour (Figure 3-6)
38
EUROSTAT Annual ERA5 Annual Water Calibration

Water volume (m3) volume (m3) Factor
AT 86,000,000,000 5,234,202,406,043 1.64%
BE 24,032,000,000 299,025,756,337 8.04%
BG 99,789,000,000 1,401,345,835,240 7.12%
CH 52,385,000,000 2,109,886,747,518 2.48%
CY 321,000,000 1,394,773,236 23.01%
CZ 16,260,000,000 1,481,758,825,679 1.10%
DE 188,000,000,000 43,022,604,593,830 0.44%
DK 16,340,000,000 411,073,485,634 3.97%
EE 12,347,000,000 389,724,514,252 3.17%
ES 107,204,000,000 42,656,433,745,651 0.25%
FI 110,000,000,000 38,929,868,784,909 0.28%
FR 206,236,000,000 115,247,869,210,132 0.18%
GB 172,861,000,000 29,611,274,775,634 0.58%
GR 72,000,000,000 1,665,797,876,476 4.32%
HR 118,312,000,000 1,720,891,635,795 6.88%
HU 116,430,000,000 810,724,800,339 14.36%
IE 52,793,000,000 285,016,799,841 18.52%
IT 134,469,000,000 49,951,741,486,097 0.27%
LT 22,267,000,000 895,383,779,673 2.49%
LU 1,644,000,000 2,043,508,866 80.45%
LV 36,639,000,000 1,032,001,726,961 3.55%
MT 85,000,000 3,989,632,628 2.13%
NL 91,825,000,000 401,562,251,320 22.87%
NO 246,106,000,000 88,656,711,069,799 0.28%
PL 60,553,000,000 13,729,041,216,932 0.44%
PT 73,593,000,000 2,860,086,009,280 2.57%
RO 39,564,000,000 7,907,320,775,329 0.50%
SE 195,333,000,000 70,985,047,071,923 0.28%
SI 32,092,000,000 321,948,004,795 9.97%
SK 80,326,300,000 275,348,901,771 29.17%
Table 3-5 Annual water volume calibration factor
39
Figure 3-8 Total water abstraction [119]
40
Renewable freshwater Water

% water
resources Consumption
utilization
(m3) (m3)
AT 86,000,000,000 3,490,000,000 4.06%
BE 24,032,000,000 5,300,000,000 22.05%
BG 99,789,000,000 5,710,000,000 5.72%
CH 52,385,000,000 2,000,000,000 3.82%
CY 321,000,000 255,300,000 79.53%
CZ 16,260,000,000 1,840,000,000 11.32%
DE 188,000,000,000 27,880,000,000 14.83%
DK 16,340,000,000 728,500,000 4.46%
EE 12,347,000,000 1,630,000,000 13.20%
ES 107,204,000,000 36,750,000,000 34.28%
FI 110,000,000,000 6,560,000,000 5.96%
FR 206,236,000,000 28,060,000,000 13.61%
GB 172,861,000,000 8,020,000,000 4.64%
GR 72,000,000,000 9,940,000,000 13.81%
HR 118,312,000,000 661,000,000 0.56%
HU 116,430,000,000 5,050,000,000 4.34%
IE 52,793,000,000 757,000,000 1.43%
IT 134,469,000,000 33,980,000,000 25.27%
LT 22,267,000,000 536,800,000 2.41%
LU 1,644,000,000 44,600,000 2.71%
LV 36,639,000,000 248,200,000 0.68%
MT 85,000,000 40,100,000 47.18%
NL 91,825,000,000 10,720,000,000 11.67%
NO 246,106,000,000 2,730,000,000 1.11%
PL 60,553,000,000 11,470,000,000 18.94%
PT 73,593,000,000 9,150,000,000 12.43%
RO 39,564,000,000 6,480,000,000 16.38%
SE 195,333,000,000 2,560,000,000 1.31%
SI 32,092,000,000 928,000,000 2.89%
SK 80,326,300,000 665,300,000 0.83%
Table 3-6 Percentage of freshwater utilization
41
Model Results and Discussions
Chapter 4: Model Results and Discussions

The scenario in this model forbids the utilization of the nuclear energy and aims at reaching zero
emission by 2050. However, the latter constraint leads to infeasible results, meaning that the
combination of constraints leads to no feasible region thus the model need to be relaxed. The
model then relaxed by allowing a small amount of emission level. This results in a small
deployment of natural gas to meet the demand, resulting in a total investment of energy
generation (GW) listed in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1
Technology No Water 70% 30% 10% 5%

Constraint Water Water Water Water
availability availability availability availability
NaturalgasCCGTwithCCSnewOT 1.9 0.78 1.66 1.62 2.38
NaturalgasOCGTnew 0.76 0 0.49 0.51 0.91
Solar 1 471.4 1 473.97 1 473.51 1 473.16 1 470.63
Windoffshore 522.13 519 521.22 521.46 523.11
Windonshore 1 138.38 1 143.87 1 139.5 1 138.78 1 136.63
HydroRoR 40.83 40.69 40.79 40.79 40.85
HydroRes - - - - -
Nuclear - - - - -
Table 4-1 Europe energy mix under various water availability levels
Reducing water availability does not translate into a large change in the new investment in
generation and storage technology as seen in Figure 4-2. In addition, the fraction of curtailment
relatively did not change by the factor of water availability as seen in Figure 4-3.
Power System Cost

500 000
450 000
400 000
350 000
300 000
250 000
200 000
150 000
100 000
50 000
-
No water 70% water 30% water 10% water 5% water
constraint const const constraint constraint
Generation Cost Total Cost Storage cost
Figure 4-1 Power system cost under different water availability
42
Europe Energy Mix

1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
GW
800
600
400
200
No Water Constraint 70% Water availability 30% Water availability

10% Water availability 5% Water availability
Figure 4-2 Europe energy mix under various water availability level
Percentage of curtailment
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Solar Windoffshore Windonshore HydroRoR
No Water Constraint 70% Water availability 30% Water availability

10% Water availability 5% Water availability
Figure 4-3 Percentage of curtailment
Figure 4-4 displays the total composition of energy generation technology in gigawatt and Figure
4-5 displays the distribution. The full result on energy mix per country-level is attached in
Appendix 4 – Europe Generation Mix. This study assumes perfect cooperation between countries
43
subsequently forcing interconnections to play an important role in the energy system and
extreme case some countries fulfilling their demands dominated by electricity import.
Due to the lowest cost, natural gas without CCS has the highest priority of investment as long as
the emission level is not exceeded. However, due to only a small amount of emission allowed
resulting the model prioritizes natural gas for countries that are not able to satisfy the demand
depending on zero-emission generation technology. The list of countries that need natural gas
in their energy mix is presented in Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7, with Cyprus and Germany having
the highest level of natural gas investment.
VRE generation such as solar PV and wind energy depends on the resource of each country. The
result is some countries are dominated by solar PV (Figure 4-8) such as Spain, Italy, Switzerland,
Greece, and Romania. While others are dominated by wind (Figure 4-9 and Figure 4-10) such as
Great Britain, France, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. Another finding is some countries have an
electricity generation composition not dominated by one peculiar electricity generation
technology, such as the Netherland and Lithuania.
Capacity of Europe Energy Mix Per Country - 30% Water Availability

1,000
900
800
700
600
Capacity (GW)
500
400
300
200
100
-
AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK
NaturalgasCCGTwithCCSnewOT NaturalgasOCGTnew Solar

Windoffshore Windonshore HydroRoR
HydroRes Storage
Figure 4-4 Capacity per country
44
Percentage of Energy Mix per Country - 30% water availability

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK
NaturalgasCCGTwithCCSnewOT NaturalgasOCGTnew Solar

Windoffshore Windonshore HydroRoR
HydroRes Storage
Figure 4-5 Percentage of energy mix per country (installed capacities)
Natural Gas with CCS Investment

0.35
0.30
0.25
Capacity (GW)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
-
CY DE FR BE NL ES LU GB IT CH PL CZ AT IE PT DK SI HR SK LT HU LV SE EE NO RO FI MT BG GR
No water constraint 30% water availability
Figure 4-6 Investment of natural gas with CCS per country
45
Natural Gas Investment

0.030
0.025
0.020
Capacity (GW)
0.015
0.010
0.005
-
CY ES FR GB PT CH NL BE DE LU IT IE CZ AT DK PL SI SE HR NO SK MT LT HU LV FI EE RO BG GR
Figure 4-7 Investment of natural gas without CCS per country
Solar PV Investment
600
500
400
Capacity (GW)
300
200
100
-
ES IT CH GR RO FI FR GB CY PT MT BG SI HR HU IE NO AT DE SK SE LU BE CZ PL NL DK EE LV LT
Figure 4-8 Investment of solar pv per country
46
Wind Offshore Investment

250
200
Capacity (GW)
150
100
50
-
NO IE FI RO GR MT DK CY FR GB SE PL PT BG NL LV DE EE IT LT BE HR ES AT CH CZ HU LU SI SK
Figure 4-9 Investment of wind offshore per country
Wind Onshore Investment

350
300
250
Capacity (GW)
200
150
100
50
-
ES GB FR DK EE PL GR IE PT HR RO CY IT LV SE NO NL LT DE AT BE FI BG SK HU CZ MT LU CH SI
Figure 4-10 Investment of wind onshore per country
47
Hydro RoR Investment

12
10
8
Capacity (GW)
-
FR NO AT DE FI PT GB LV SI CZ HR PL IE LT BE NL SK CH HU IT LU ES RO DK EE BG CY GR MT SE
Figure 4-11 Investment of hydroRoR per country
Hydro Res Investment

25
20
Capacity (GW)
15
10
-
NO ES SE FR CH IT RO AT GR BG PT HR FI DE CZ SK SI PL HU LU BE CY DK EE GB IE LT LV MT NL
Figure 4-12 Investment of hydro reservoir per country
48
The introduction of water availability constraints has an insignificant impact on total storage
invested. Total storage invested increases by only~0.14% comparing no water constraints with
30% water available. However, this constraint provides evidence that relying on hydrogen based
on surface water is not enough to fulfil hydrogen needs as demanded by the power sector.
Comparing between 2 models run with and without water availability constraints resulting a
reduction of Hydrogen investment and an increase in SaltHydrogen investment.
Electrolyzer and Fuel Cell Size

Hydrogen (GW) SaltHydrogen (GW) SaltHydrogen
Percentage
No Water Constraint 396.625 0.000 0.00 %
70% Water available 398.599 1.874 0.47 %
30% Water available 392.913 4.250 1.07 %
10% Water available 392.759 4.365 1.10 %
5% Water available 389.287 5.972 1.51 %
Table 4-2 Electrolyzer and fuel cell size from various water availability levels
Table 4-2 presents the optimum deployment of electrolyser and fuel cell aggregated for the
whole member state. The constant power to energy ratio results in the total investment of
hydrogen storage size having the same percentage as the electrolyser and fuel cell, with the total
investment of storage size being a factor of 10 (Table 4-3). In general, reducing the water
availability results in an increased percentage of SaltHydrogen investment as illustrated in
Figure 4-13. The result also points out shifts in storage investment at the country level as seen
in Table 4-4. However, these changes did not change the rank on where is the storage invested
as seen in Figure 4-14
49
Energy Storage Size

Hydrogen (GWh) SaltHydrogen (GWh) SaltHydrogen
Percentage
No Water Constraint 3 966.250 0 0.00 %
70% Water available 3 985.990 18.741 0.47 %
30% Water available 3 929.130 42.497 1.07 %
10% Water available 3 927.590 43.651 1.10 %
5% Water available 3 892.870 59.721 1.51 %
Table 4-3 Energy storage size from various water availability levels
Total SaltHydrogen Percentage in Europe

1.60%
1.40%
1.20%
SaltHydrogen Percentage
1.00%
0.80%
0.60%
0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
No Water 70% Water 30% Water 10% Water 5% Water
Constraint availibility availibility availibility availibility
Water availibility level
Figure 4-13 Percentage of SaltHydrogen deployment for different levels of water availability
50
No water constraint 30% water availibility

Hydrogen SaltHydrogen Hydrogen SaltHydrogen Salt Hydrogen Percentage
(GWh) (GWh) (GWh) (GWh)
AT 108.21 - 110.364 - 0.00 %
BE 15.30 - 11.978 1.110 8.48 %
BG 6.50 - 4.546 0.933 17.03 %
CH 345.92 - 349.015 - 0.00 %
CY 18.54 - 0.392 18.502 97.92 %
CZ 29.23 - 22.877 - 0.00 %
DE 358.96 - 365.990 1.218 0.33 %
DK 7.42 - 6.055 0.989 14.04 %
EE 3.20 - 2.239 0.783 25.90 %
ES 501.02 - 500.378 1.242 0.25 %
FI 13.81 - 13.429 0.948 6.59 %
FR 828.97 - 832.501 1.254 0.15 %
GB 232.88 - 235.374 1.252 0.53 %
GR 4.03 - 2.731 0.837 23.46 %
HR 30.33 - 26.787 1.091 3.91 %
HU 11.03 - 7.920 - 0.00 %
IE 13.47 - 10.201 1.088 9.64 %
IT 1 042.39 - 1 043.480 1.246 0.12 %
LT 5.94 - 4.757 0.898 15.88 %
LU 17.68 - 15.122 - 0.00 %
LV 4.15 - 3.039 0.837 21.59 %
MT 8.08 - 6.738 0.910 11.90 %
NL 7.98 - 5.311 1.027 16.20 %
NO 3.42 2.385 0.792 24.93 %
PL 120.55 - 126.553 1.112 0.87 %
PT 99.62 - 98.289 1.191 1.20 %
RO 4.95 - 3.351 0.883 20.86 %
SE 12.94 - 12.450 - 0.00 %
SI 38.26 - 36.600 1.120 2.97 %
SK 10.72 - 7.614 - 0.00 %
Table 4-4 SaltHydrogen investment ratio at the country level
51
Europe Total Storage Distribuition

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
IT FR ES DE CH GB PL AT PT SI HR CZ CY LU BE FI IE SE HU SK MT NL DK BG LT RO LV GR NO EE
No water Constraint 30% water availibility
Figure 4-14 Europe Total Storage Distribution
Table 4-4 also points out that the needs for SaltHydrogen to fulfil its energy demand differ
significantly between each country. This proves the difference in water resource availability in
each country affecting the optimum investment location for hydrogen storage. The whole result
for storage investment is attached in Appendix 3 – Europe Storage Distribution. A closer look at
the 30% water availability level shows that the deployment of SaltHydrogen on average of
10.5%, ranging from 0.12% (Italy) up to 97.8% (Cyprus) and with descending rank as shown in
Figure 4-15.
Tightening the water constraint results in interesting shifts in the SaltHydrogen ratio in the
storage system. In general, every member state experience an increase in the SaltHydrogen ratio.
However, the rate of increase differs significantly for each member state. In the most extreme
cases, Malta shifts from 0.11% (70% water availability) to 61.24% (5% water availability).
Whereas others experience a more mild increase, the Netherlands from 12.2% (70% water
availability) to 17.22% (5% water availability) and Norway from 19.68% (70% water
availability) to 26.8% (5% water availability). The prognosis of this phenomenon is caused by
how extreme the temporal difference of water availability is, with countries with mild volume
fluctuation resulting in mild changes in the SaltHydrogen investment.
52
SaltHydrogen Percentage
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CY EE NO GR LV RO BG NL LT DK MT IE BE FI HR SI PT PL GB DE ES FR IT AT CH CZ HU LU SE SK
Figure 4-15 SaltHydrogen percentage under 30% water availability
SaltHydrogen Percentage; Country Aggregation

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CY EE NO RO GR NL BG LV IE DK LT MT BE FI HR SI PT PL GB DE ES FR IT AT CH CZ HU LU SE SK
70% water availibility 30% water availibility 10% water availibility 5% water availibility
Figure 4-16 SaltHydrogen Percentage on various water availability level
53
Another interesting finding from this study is the operational strategy of the storage for different
water availability. Examples of the storage state of charge level can be seen in Figure 4-17 until
Figure 4-20. Unexpectedly, the model optimizes the storage operational strategy for the short
term, with an abrupt change between the charging and discharging situation. However, there is
some exception with the hydrogen state of charge in Cyprus under 5% water availability,
whereas the model slightly optimizes for the medium-term (Figure 4-22).
The unexpected results regarding the storage operational strategy are possible due to erratic
fluctuation in water availability as seen in Appendix 2 – Surface Runoff to Water Availability Data
Processing. In addition, the model optimizes with full knowledge for the future demand and VRE
resources, which is not the case in real power system design.
Norway Storage Operational Strategy - 30% Water Availability

3.0
2.5
Storage Level (GWh)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Jan-13 Feb-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jul-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Dec-13
Month
Hydrogen SaltHydrogen
Figure 4-17 Storage operational strategy in Norway – 30% water availability
54
Norway Storage Operational Strategy - 5% Water Availability

4.0
3.5
Storage Level (GWh)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Month
Figure 4-18 Storage operational strategy in Norway – 5% water availability
Greece Storage Operational Strategy - 30% Water Availability

3.0
2.5
Storage Level (GWh)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Month
Figure 4-19 Storage operational strategy in Greece – 30% water availability
55
Greece Storage Operational Strategy - 5% Water Availability

5.0
4.5
4.0
Storage Level (GWh)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Month
Figure 4-20 Storage operational strategy in Greece – 5% water availability
Cyprus Storage Operational Strategy - 5% Water Availability

20.0
18.0
16.0
Storage Level (GWh)
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Month
Figure 4-21 Storage operational strategy in Cyprus – 5% water availability
56
Cyprus Storage Operational Strategy - 5% Water Availability

0.5
0.5
0.4
Storage Level (GWh)
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
Month
Hydrogen
Figure 4-22 Hydrogen state of charge in Cyprus – 5% water availability
57
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

Aiming for the zero-emission power system by 2050 and limiting the growth of Nuclear
technology, a high-level assessment of the European power system concludes that water
availability is insignificant for hydrogen deployment in Europe. A novel approach to integrating
water availability in a hydrogen market scenario demonstrates that there is no change in the
total investment of storage technology and likewise the electricity generation technology. This
results in similar power system costs for different water availability levels.
At the European level, 395 GW of electricity storage is required to support 3175 GW of electricity
generation technology. For extreme water availability levels, 1.5% of the storage investment is
based on the SaltHydrogen technology. Observation at the country level identifies several
countries (Cyprus, Estonia, Norway and Greece) that require a significant amount of the
SaltHydrogen investment due to water stress. However, this country is relatively small size in
the European context, resulting in the total SaltHydrogen being insignificant at the European
level.
Most of the results of this study are aligned with the general idea of the utilization of VRE in
power systems. The VRE technology is invested where the resources are adequate or even
abundant to achieve the least-cost power system. This leads to a unique composition of
investments in electricity generation and storage technology from each country. The operational
strategy utilizes hydrogen as short term storage. The model optimizes the storage level with a
short to medium storage operational strategy, exploiting charging-discharging capabilities. One
of the prognoses is due to the power to energy ratio set as input in the model instead of letting
the model optimize the power to energy ratio.
Moreover, this study assumes the storage level as zero by the start of the temporal variation,
resulting in inaccuracy at the beginning and at the end of the timeframe. This can be improved
either by lengthening the temporal variation or setting the initial condition for storage. Spatial
mismatch also causes inaccuracy in the input data. The mismatch between the natural boundary
(water catchment) with a human-made boundary (country’s sovereignty) results in the water
volume data having immense hourly fluctuation. Increasing the accuracy of water resource data
can be done by conducting the study on water catchment levels and by addressing the problem
using a bottom-up approach as a comparison to the top-down approach used in this study.
Another interesting observation is the failure of the model to solve the zero-emission constraint.
Relaxation of emission constraints leads to a small amount of investment in natural gas in several
countries. This does not translate directly into a dead end to achieving zero-emission by 2050. A
recommendation to improve the model by allowing the inter-annual storage application has the
potential to solve this issue. Moreover, this study was limited to countries within Europe and
assume Europe as an isolated energy system, which is a less precise assumption. Subsequently.
the integration of Europe fringe countries will give different results and potentially reduce the
power system cost.
58
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results are likely to be exacerbating when including the use of hydrogen in other sectors. It
is also important to improve the demand data to represent the future demand for electricity and
hydrogen. This study uses historical demand without rescaling resulting inaccuracy to represent
both hydrogen and electricity demand. It is recommended to conduct a further study by updating
the demand, in particular by incorporating hydrogen demand from outside power system
demand. This can be done either by adding the hydrogen demand as an increase in the
exogenous electricity demand. It is also important to properly address other options in the
hydrogen technology component. In particular, with storage options, this study assumed salt
caverns have no capacity limit and ignore their charging-discharging limitation. In addition,
there is a need to conduct model validation. Meaning that this study needs to be tested with a
different year of input data to test model robustness.
Several questions were raised from the findings and need to be addressed in future studies. The
model used to focus on the environmental and affordability of the energy trilemma principle.
Thus, neglecting the energy security aspect. It is recommended to incorporate the energy
security aspect in the model either by adding constraints in minimum energy generation per
member state or maximum electricity trade. Adding energy security consideration will be
allowed the model to assess the relationship between member states and dissociated with an
assumption of full collaboration between member states.
Climate change is predicted to significantly affect weather patterns including wind and water
resources. Leading to high penetration of VRE technology in the energy generation mix prone to
uncertainty and inefficient design. This study can be improved by incorporating the uncertainty
of future climate scenarios and energy system design consideration under the threat of extreme
climate, thus providing a greater understanding of future energy systems.
59
Bibliography
Bibliography
[1] T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G. -K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M. Midgley, "Climate
Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA, 2018.
[2] J. Rockström, O. Gaffney, J. Rogelj, M. Meinshausen, N. Nakicenovic and H. J. Schellnhuber, "A roadmap for rapid
decarbonization," Science, vol. 355, pp. 1269 - 1271, 2017.
[3] M. Ball and M. Weeda, "The hydrogen economy - Vision or reality?," Compendium of Hydrogen Energy Volume 4:
Hydrogen Use, Safety and the Hydrogen Economy, vol. 4, pp. 237-266, 2016.
[4] W. W. Clark II and J. Rifkin, "A green hydrogen economy," Energy Policy, vol. 34, no. 17, pp. 2630-2639, 2006.
[5] N. MacDowell, N. Sunny, N. Brandon, H. Herzog, A. Y. Ku, W. Mass, A. Ramirez, D. M. Reiner, G. N. Sant and N. Shah, "The
hydrogen economy: A pragmatic path forward," Joule, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 2524-2529, 2021.
[6] I. Dincer, "Green methods for hydrogen production," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 1954-
1971, 2012.
[7] M. Rashid, M. K. A. Mesfer, H. Naseem and M. Danish, "Hydrogen production by water electrolysis: a review of alkaline
water electrolysis, pem water electrolysis and high temperature water electrolysis," International Journal of
Engineering and Advanced Technology, 2015.
[8] S. Dutta, "A review on production, storage of hydrogen and its utilization as an energy resource," Journal of Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1148-1156, 2014.
[9] T. Sinigaglia, F. Lewiski, M. E. Santos Martins and M. J. C. Siluk, "Production, storage, fuel stations of hydrogen and its
utilization in automotive applications-a review," International journal of hydrogen energy, vol. 42, no. 39, pp. 24597-
24611, 2017.
[10] W. Lubitz and W. Tumas, "Hydrogen: An Overview," Chemical Reviews, vol. 107, no. 10, pp. 3900-3903, 2007.
[11] T. S. Uyar and D. Beşikci, "Integration of hydrogen energy systems into renewable energy systems for better design of
100% renewable energy communities," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 2453-2456, 2017.
[12] S. Collins, P. Deane, B. Gallachoir, S. Pfenninger and I. Staffell, "Impacts of Inter-annual Wind and Solar Variations on the
European Power System," Joule, vol. 2, pp. 1-15, 2018.
[13] T. Magdalena Momirlan, "The properties of hydrogen as fuel tomorrow in sustainable energy system for a cleaner
planet," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 795-802, 2005.
[14] O. Schmidt, A. Gambhir, I. Staffell, A. Hawkes, J. Nelson and S. Few, "Future cost and performance of water electrolysis:
An expert elicitation study," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 42, no. 52, p. 30470–30492, 2017.
[15] M. Frankowska, K. Błonski, M. Mankowska and A. Rzeczycki, "Research on the Concept of Hydrogen Supply Chains and
Power Grids Powered by Renewable Energy Sources: A Scoping Review with the Use of Text Mining," Energies, vol. 15,
p. 866, 2022.
[16] Mott MacDonald, "The Carbon Trust and DTI Renewables Network Impacts Study," Brighton, 2004.
[17] C. Breyer, Future Energy - Improved, Sustainable and Clean Options for our Planet, Elsevier, 2020.
[18] N. Jenkins, Energy System - A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
[19] World Energy Council, "World Energy Trilemma Index - Summary Report," World Energy Council, London, 2021.
[20] J. DeCarolis, H. Daly, P. Dodds, I. Keppo, F. Li, W. McDowall, S. Pye, N. Strachan, E. Trutnevyte, W. Usher, M. Winning, S.
Yeh and M. Zeyringer, "Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization modelling," Applied Energy, vol. 194,
pp. 184-198, 2017.
[21] I. Khan, F. Hou, M. Irfan, A. Zakari and H. P. Le, "Does energy trilemma a driver of economic growth? The roles of energy
use, population growth, and financial development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 146, 2021.
[22] A. V. Abad and P. E. Dodds, "Green hydrogen characterisation initiatives: Definitions, standards, guarantees of origin,
and challenges," Energy Policy, vol. 138, 2020.
[23] W. J. Cosgrove and D. P. Loucks, "Water management: Current and future challenges and research directions," Water
Resources Research, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 4823-4839, 2015.
[24] M. A. Hanjra and M. E. Qureshi, "Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change," Food policy,
vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 365-377, 2010.
60
Bibliography
[25] W. A. Jury and H. J. Vaux Jr, "The emerging global water crisis: managing scarcity and conflict between water users,"
Advances in agronomy, vol. 95, pp. 1-76, 2007.
[26] L. C. Peterson and G. H. Haug, "Climate and the collapse of maya civilization: A series of multi-year droughts helped to
doom an ancient culture," American Scientist, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 322-329, 2005.
[27] S. G. Simoes, J. Catarino, A. Picado, T. F. Lopes, S. D. Berardino, F. Amorim, F. G. ı́ rio, C. Rangel and T. P. d. L. ã o, "Water
availability and water usage solutions for electrolysis in hydrogen production," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 315,
p. 128124, 2021.
[28] F. R. Rijsberman, "Water scarcity: fact or fiction?," Agricultural water management, vol. 80, pp. 5-22, 2006.
[29] C. Sullivan, "Calculating a water poverty index," World development, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1195-1210, 2002.
[30] D. C. Gibbons, The Economic Value of Water, New York: RFF Press, 1986.
[31] S. Meredith, "Why some of the world’s biggest companies are increasingly worried about water scarcity," CNBC, 29 June
2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/29/water-scarcity-why-some-of-the-worlds-biggest-
companies-are-worried.html. [Accessed 20 February 2022].
[32] J. D. Priscoli, "Water and civilization: using history to reframe water policy debates and to build a new ecological
realism," Water Policy, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 623-636, 2000.
[33] A. Boretti and L. Rosa, "Reassessing the projections of the world water development report," NPJ Clean Water, vol. 2, no.
1, pp. 1-6, 2019.
[34] S. Burchi and A. D’Andrea, "Preparing national regulations for water resources management: principles and practice.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations," FAO, Rome, Italy, 2003.
[35] M. A. M. Jr, "Global water crisis and climate change," Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 167-170, 2010.
[36] D. Abebe, "Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Nile: The Economics of International Water Law," Chicago Journal of International
Law, vol. 15, p. 27, 2014.
[37] W. A. Qureshi, "Water as a human right: A case study of the Pakistan-India water conflict.," Penn State Journal of Law
and International Affairs, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 374, 2017.
[38] K. Abbink, L. C. Moller and S. O’Hara, "Sources of Mistrust: An Experimental Case Study of a Central Asian Water
Conflict," Environmental and Resource Economics , vol. 45, pp. 283-318, 2010.
[39] J. Price and M. Zeyringer, "highRES-Europe: The high spatial and temporal Resolution Electricity System model for
Europe," SoftwareX, vol. 17, 2022.
[40] U. Pfeifroth, S. Kothe, R. Müller, J. Trentmann, R. Hollmann, P. Fuchs and M. Werscheck, "Surface Radiation Data Set -
Heliosat (SARAH) - Edition 2," EUMETSAT CM SAF, 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://wui.cmsaf.eu/safira/action/viewDoiDetails?acronym=SARAH_V002. [Accessed 12 March 2022].
[41] ECMWF, "ERA5," 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/datasets/reanalysis-datasets/era5.
[Accessed 23 April 2022].
[42] ENTSOE Transparency Platform, [Online]. Available: https://transparency.entsoe.eu/. [Accessed 25 February 2022].
[43] I. Tsiropoulos, D. Tarvydas and A. Zucker, "Cost development of low carbon energy technologies: Scenario-based cost
trajectories to 2050, 2017 edition," Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018.
[44] H.-M. Groscurth, T. Bruckner and R. Kümmel, "Modeling of energy-services supply systems," Energy, vol. 20, no. 9, pp.
941-958, 1995.
[45] World Energy Council, "Assessment of Energy Policy and Practices," World Energy Council, London, 2008.
[46] Circuit Globe, "Power System - Circuit Globe," Circuit Globe, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://circuitglobe.com/power-
system. [Accessed 25 4 2022].
[47] D. M. Martínez, B. W. Ebenhack and T. P. Wagner, "Electric power sector energy efficiency," in Energy Efficiency -
Concepts and Calculations, Elsevier Science, 2018, pp. 129-160.
[48] Z. Liu, Global Energy Interconnection, Academic Press, 2016.
[49] Observatoire Méditerranéen de l’Energie, "Cost assessment for sustainable energy systems - WP1 “The Drivers of
Electricity Demand and Supply”," European Commission, Italy, 2007.
[50] IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers - Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," WGIII
- IPCC, 2022.
61
Bibliography
[51] A. S. Brouwer, M. v. d. Broek, A. Seebregts and A. Faaij, "Impacts of large-scale Intermittent Renewable Energy Sources
on electricity systems, and how these can be modeled," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 33, pp. 443-466,
2014.
[52] P. Breeze, Power Generation Technologies - Third Edition, Newnes, 2019.
[53] European Commission, "European Commission Research and Technology Centre," European Commission, [Online].
Available: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/energy-storage_en. [Accessed 25 4 2022].
[54] C. Andrey, P. Barberi, L. Lacombe, L. v. Nuffel, F. Gérard, J. G. Dedecca, K. Rademaekers, Y. E. Idrissi and M. Crenes,
"Study on energy storage - Contribution to the security of the electricity supply in Europe," European Commission -
Directorate General for Energy, Brussels, 2020.
[55] P. Breeze, Power System Energy Storage Technologies, Academic Press, 2019.
[56] G. Meyer and N. Thomas, "Financial Times," 5 April 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.ft.com/content/c3526a2e-
cdc5-444f-940c-0b3376f38069. [Accessed 25 April 2022].
[57] Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, "Oxford Learner's Dictionaries," [Online]. Available:
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/model_1?q=model. [Accessed 25 April 2022].
[58] H. K. Jacobsen, "Integrating the bottom-up and top-down approach to energy–economy modelling: the case of
Denmark," Energy Economics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 443-461, 1998.
[59] D. L. Kelly and C. D. Kolstad, "Integrated Assessment Models For Climate Change Control," 1998.
[60] L. E. Jones, Renewable Energy Integration - Practical Management of Variability, Uncertainty and Flexibility in Power
Grids, Academic Press, 2014.
[61] M. Howells, H. Rogner, N. Strachan, C. Heaps, H. Huntington, S. Kypreos, A. Hughes, S. Silveira, J. DeCarolis, M. Bazillian
and A. Roehrl, "OSeMOSYS: The Open Source Energy Modeling System: An introduction to its ethos, structure and
development," Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 5850-5870, 2011.
[62] J. M. Wooldridge, Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, Cengage Learning, 2008.
[63] A. Soroudi, Power System Optimization Modeling in GAMS, Dublin: Springer, 2017.
[64] G. B. Dantzig, The Basic, New York: Springer, 1997.
[65] J. F. Shepherd, Topologic and Geometric Constraint-Based Hexahedral Mesh Generation, Utah: School of Computing The
University of Utah, 2007.
[66] W. L. Jolly, "Encyclopædia Britannica," 1 June 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.britannica.com/science/hydrogen. [Accessed 26 April 2022].
[67] International Energy Agency, "The Future of Hydrogen - Seizing today's opportunities," IEA, 2019.
[68] gasunie, "theworldofhydrogen.com," [Online]. Available: https://www.theworldofhydrogen.com/gasunie/what-is-
hydrogen/. [Accessed 2022].
[69] Y. M. Macía, P. R. Machuca, A. A. R. Soto and R. C. Campos, "Green Hydrogen Value Chain in the Sustainability for Port
Operations: Case Study in the Region of Valparaiso, Chile," Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 24, 2021.
[70] R. d. Levie, "The electrolysis of water," Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, vol. 476, no. 1, pp. 92-93, 1999.
[71] A. Ursua, L. M. Gandia and P. Sanchis, "Hydrogen Production From Water Electrolysis: Current Status and Future
Trends," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 410-426, 2011.
[72] R. L. LeRoy, C. T. Brown and D. J. LeRoy, "The Thermodynamics of Aqueous Water Electrolysis," Journal of The
Electrochemical Society, vol. 127, no. 9, 1980.
[73] IRENA, "Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction - Scaling up electrolyzer," 2020.
[74] L. Wang, M. Chen, R. Küngas, T.-E. Lin, S. Diethelm, F. Maréchal and J. V. herle, "Power-to-fuels via solid-oxide
electrolyzer: Operating window and techno-economics," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 110, pp. 174-
187, 2019.
[75] US Department of Energy, "Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies," [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/.
[Accessed 29 April 2022].
[76] U. Eberle, M. Felderhoff and F. Schüth, "Chemical and Physical Solutions for Hydrogen Storage," Angewandte Chemie,
vol. 48, no. 36, pp. 6608-6630, 2009.
[77] J. Zhang, T. S. Fisher, P. V. Ramachandran, J. P. Gore and I. Mudawar, "A Review of Heat Transfer Issues in Hydrogen
Storage Technologies," Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 127, no. 12, pp. 1391-1399, 2005.
62
Bibliography
[78] H. Derking, L. v. d. Togt and M. Keezer, Liquid Hydrogen Storage: Status and Future Prespectives, Enschede, The
Netherlands: Cryoworld BV, 2019.
[79] N.A.A.Rusman and M.Dahari, "A review on the current progress of metal hydrides material for solid-state hydrogen
storage applications," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 41, no. 28, pp. 12108-12126, 2016.
[80] A. Züttel, "Materials for hydrogen storage," Materials Today, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 24-33, 2003.
[81] Z. Chen, Z. Ma, J. Zheng, X. Li, E. Akiba and H.-W. Li, "Perspectives and challenges of hydrogen storage in solid-state
hydrides," Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 29, pp. 1-12, 2021.
[82] D. G. Caglayan, N. Weber, H. U. Heinrichs, J. Linßen, M. Robinius, P. A. Kukla and D. Stolten, "Technical potential of salt
caverns for hydrogen storage in Europe," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 6793-6805,
2020.
[83] T. Wang, C. Yang, H. Ma, J. Daemen and H. Wu, "Safety evaluation of gas storage caverns located close to a tectonic fault,"
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, vol. 23, pp. 281-293, 2015.
[84] A. Ozarslan, "Large-scale hydrogen energy storage in salt caverns," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 37, no.
19, pp. 14265-14277, 2012.
[85] T. Wang, C. Yang, J. Chen and J. Daemen, "Geomechanical investigation of roof failure of China's first gas storage salt
cavern," Engineering Geology.
[86] R. O'Hare, S.-W. Cha, W. G.Colella and F. B. Prinz, Fuel Cell Fundamentals, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2016.
[87] G. McLean, T. Niet, S. Prince-Richard and N. Djilali, "An assessment of alkaline fuel cell technology," International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 507-526, 2002.
[88] S. Mekhilef, R. Saidur and A. Safari, "Comparative study of different fuel cell technologies," Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 981-989, 2012.
[89] K. Sopian and W. R. W. Daud, "Challenges and future developments in proton exchange membrane fuel cells,"
Renewable Energy, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 719-727, 2006.
[90] M. Singh, D. Zappa and E. Comini, "Solid oxide fuel cell: Decade of progress, future perspectives and challenges,"
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 46, no. 54, pp. 27643-27674, 2021.
[91] S. Giarola, O. Forte, A. Lanzini, M. Gandiglio, M. Santarelli and A. Hawkes, "Techno-economic assessment of biogas-fed
solid oxide fuel cell combined heat and power system at industrial scale," Applied Energy, vol. 211, pp. 689-704, 2018.
[92] Water Science School USGS, "USGS," 11 September 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.usgs.gov/. [Accessed 29
April 2022].
[93] H. El-Dessouky and H. Ettouney, Fundamentals of Salt Water Desalination, Elsevier, 2002.
[94] T. Younos and K. E. Tulou, "Overview of Desalination Techniques," Journal of Contemporary Water Research and
Education, vol. 132, pp. 3-10, 2005.
[95] DESWARE, "Energy Requirements Of Desalination Processes," [Online]. Available: http://www.desware.net/Energy-
Requirements-Desalination-Processes.aspx. [Accessed 29 April 2022].
[96] A. Panagopoulos, K.-J. Haralambous and M. Loizidou, "Desalination brine disposal methods and treatment technologies
- A review," Science of The Total Environment, vol. 693, 2019.
[97] J. Peter, How Does Climate Change Affect Optimal Allocation of Variable Renewable Energy, Cologne: Institute of Energy
Economics at the University of Cologne (EWI), 2019.
[98] S. Höltinger, C. Mikovits, J. Schmidt, J. Baumgartner, B. Arheimer, G. Lindström and E. Wetterlund, "The impact of
climatic extreme events on the feasibility of fully renewable power systems: a case study for Sweden," Energy, 2019.
[99] IRENA, "Planning for the Renewable Future - Long-term modelling and tools to expand variable renewable power in
emerging economies," 2017.
[100] Office of Nuclear Energy, "What is Generation Capacity?," US Department of Energy , 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity. [Accessed 30 April 2022].
[101] S. Pfenninger and I. Staffell, "Long-term patterns of European PV output using 30 years of validated hourly reanalysis
and satellite data," Energy, vol. 114, pp. 1251-1265, 2016.
[102] Reanalyses.org, "Advancing Reanalysis," 2010. [Online]. Available: https://reanalyses.org/. [Accessed 30 April 2022].
[103] S. Pfenninger, "Dealing with multiple decades of hourly wind and PV time series in energy models: A comparison of
methods to reduce time resolution and the planning implications of inter-annual variability," Applied Energy, vol. 197,
pp. 1-13, 2017.
63
Bibliography
[104] V. M. Ponce, Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices, Pearson College Div, 1989.
[105] European Environment Agency, "EEA Glossary," [Online]. Available: https://www.eea.europa.eu/help/glossary/eea-
glossary/water-resources. [Accessed 30 April 2022].
[106] A. M. Hamiche, A. B. Stambouli and S. Flazi, "A review of the water-energy nexus," Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 65, pp. 319-331, 2016.
[107] J. Price and M. Zeyringer, "highRES-Model Github," 2021. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/highRES-model.
[Accessed 5 May 2022].
[108] European Commission, "Energy Roadmap 2050," Belgium, 2020.
[109] C. Clifford, "CNBC," 9 March 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/09/why-eu-didnt-include-
nuclear-energy-in-plan-to-get-off-russian-gas.html. [Accessed 20 April 2022].
[110] A. Jonsson and H. M, An Industrial Perspective on Ultrapure Water Production for Electrolysis, Stockholm: KTH, 2021.
[111] S. G. Simoes, J. Catarino, A. Picado, T. F. Lopes, S. d. Berardino, F. Amorim, F. Gírio, C. Rangel and T. P. d. Leao, "Water
availability and water usage solutions for electrolysis in hydrogen production," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.
1281124, 2021.
[112] M. A. Khan, T. Al-Attas, S. Roy, M. M. Rahman, N. Ghaffour, V. Thangadurai, S. Larter, J. Hu, P. M. Ajayan and M. G. Kibria,
"Seawater electrolysis for hydrogen production: a solution looking for a problem?," Energy and Environmental Science,
vol. 14, no. 4831, 2021.
[113] D. J. Lampert, H. Cai and A. Elgowainy, "Wells to wheels: water consumption for transportation fuels in the United
State," Energy & Environmental Science, no. 3, 2016.
[114] B. C. Tashie-Lewis and S. GodfreyNnabuife, "Hydrogen Production, Distribution, Storage and Power Conversion in a
Hydrogen Economy - A Technology Review," Chemical Engineering Journal Advances, vol. 8, 2021.
[115] A. Mayyas, M. Ruth, B. Pivovar, G. Bender and K. Wipke, "Manufacturing Cost Analysis for Proton Exchange Membrane
Water Electrolyzers," National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Denver, 2019.
[116] K. Mongird, V. Viswanathan, P. Balducci, J. Alam, V. Fotedar, V. Koritarov and B. Hadjerioua, "Energy Storage Technology
and Cost Characterization Report," HydroWIRES - U.S Department of Energy, 2019.
[117] ECMWF, "IFS Documentation - PART IV: Physical Properties," 2012.
[118] M. D. Felice and K. Kavvadias, "Exploring the ERA-NUTS dataset," JRC, European Commission`, [Online]. Available:
https://github.com/energy-modelling-toolkit/era-nuts-code/blob/master/notebooks/exploring-ERA-NUTS.ipynb.
[Accessed 15 February 2022].
[119] Eurostat, "Water Statistics," 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Water_statistics#Water_abstraction. [Accessed 15 April 2022].
64
Appendix 1 – HighRES Expansion Storage Setup

******************************************
* highres storage module
******************************************
$ONEPS
$ONEMPTY
* storage setup
* read in storage sets/data
set s
/
$INCLUDE %psys_scen%_store_set_all.dd
/;
parameter store_pcapex%model_yr%(s) annualized power capex (�k per MW);

parameter store_ecapex%model_yr%(s) annualized energy capex (�k per MWh);
parameter store_varom(s) variable O&M (�k per MWh) ;
parameter store_fom(s) fixed O&M (�k per MW per yr);
parameter store_eff_in(s) fractional charge efficiency;
parameter store_eff_out(s) fractional discharge efficiency;
parameter store_loss_per_hr(s) fractional energy loss/hour (self-discharge);
parameter store_p_to_e(s) power to energy ratio;
parameter store_lim_pcap_z(z,s,lt) power capacity limit by zone;
parameter store_exist_pcap_z(z,s,lt) existing power capacity;
parameter store_lim_ecap_z(z,s,lt) energy capacity limit by zone;
parameter store_exist_ecap_z(z,s,lt) existing energy capacity;
parameter store_af(s) fractional availability factor;
parameter store_max_in(s) max charge (MW);
parameter store_max_out(s) max discharge (MW);
parameter store_max_res(s) fract maxi contribution to operating reserve;
parameter store_max_freq(s) fract maxi contribution to frequency response;
parameter store_e_unitsize(s) energy storage capacity per unit using fixed sized units;
parameter store_e_unitcapex(s) ;
$INCLUDE %psys_scen%_store_parameters.dd
parameter store_p_capex(s);
parameter store_e_capex(s);
* only FOM for generator component of storage currently

store_p_capex(s)=store_pcapex%model_yr%(s)+store_fom(s);
store_e_capex(s)=store_ecapex%model_yr%(s);
$ontext
parameters store_fx_natcap(s);
$IF "%fx_natcap%" == YES $INCLUDE %esys_scen%_store_fx_natcap.dd
scalar
store_avail_factor
/0.9/;
$offtext
positive variables
var_store_level(h,z,s) Amount of electricity currently stored by hour and technology (MWh)
var_store(h,z,s) Electricity into storage by hour and technology (MW)
var_store_gen(h,z,s) Electricity generated from storage by hour and technology (MW)
var_new_store_pcap_z(z,s) Capacity of storage generator (MW)
var_new_store_pcap(s)
var_new_store_ecap_z(z,s)
var_new_store_ecap(s)
var_exist_store_pcap_z(z,s)
var_exist_store_pcap(s)
var_exist_store_ecap_z(z,s)
var_exist_store_ecap(s)
var_tot_store_pcap_z(z,s)
var_tot_store_pcap(s)
var_tot_store_ecap_z(z,s)
var_tot_store_ecap(s);
65
*** Storage equations ***
* existing storage power capacity
var_exist_store_pcap_z.UP(z,s)$(store_exist_pcap_z(z,s,"UP")) = store_exist_pcap_z(z,s,"UP");
var_exist_store_pcap_z.L(z,s)$(store_exist_pcap_z(z,s,"UP")) = store_exist_pcap_z(z,s,"UP");
var_exist_store_pcap_z.FX(z,s)$(store_exist_pcap_z(z,s,"FX")) = store_exist_pcap_z(z,s,"FX");
var_exist_store_pcap_z.FX(z,s)$(not var_exist_store_pcap_z.l(z,s)) = 0.0;
* existing storage energy capacity
var_exist_store_ecap_z.UP(z,s)$(store_exist_ecap_z(z,s,"UP")) = store_exist_ecap_z(z,s,"UP");
var_exist_store_ecap_z.L(z,s)$(store_exist_ecap_z(z,s,"UP")) = store_exist_ecap_z(z,s,"UP");
var_exist_store_ecap_z.FX(z,s)$(store_exist_ecap_z(z,s,"FX")) = store_exist_ecap_z(z,s,"FX");
var_exist_store_ecap_z.FX(z,s)$(not var_exist_store_ecap_z.l(z,s)) = 0.0;
* limits on total storage generation capacity
var_tot_store_pcap_z.UP(z,s)$(store_lim_pcap_z(z,s,'UP'))=store_lim_pcap_z(z,s,'UP');
var_tot_store_pcap_z.LO(z,s)$(store_lim_pcap_z(z,s,'LO'))=store_lim_pcap_z(z,s,'LO');
var_tot_store_pcap_z.FX(z,s)$(store_lim_pcap_z(z,s,'FX'))=store_lim_pcap_z(z,s,'FX');
* limits on total storage capacity
var_tot_store_ecap_z.UP(z,s)$(store_lim_ecap_z(z,s,'UP'))=store_lim_ecap_z(z,s,'UP');
var_tot_store_ecap_z.LO(z,s)$(store_lim_ecap_z(z,s,'LO'))=store_lim_ecap_z(z,s,'LO');
var_tot_store_ecap_z.FX(z,s)$(store_lim_ecap_z(z,s,'FX'))=store_lim_ecap_z(z,s,'FX');
*var_tot_store_gen_cap.FX(s)$(store_fx_natcap(s))=store_fx_natcap(s);
*var_store_level.FX(z,"0",s)=0;
set s_lim(z,s);
*s_lim(z,s) = YES;
* only create equations for zones/techs with capacity limits/existing capacity > 0
* TO CHECK -> since new cap + exist cap <= limit I think we only need limit to be included here
s_lim(z,s) = YES$(((sum(lt,store_lim_pcap_z(z,s,lt))+sum(lt,store_exist_pcap_z(z,s,lt)))>0.) or
(sum(lt,store_lim_ecap_z(z,s,lt))+sum(lt,store_exist_ecap_z(z,s,lt)))>0.);
equations
eq_store_balance
eq_store_level
eq_store_gen_max
eq_store_charge_max
eq_store_ecap_max
eq_new_store_pcap
eq_exist_store_pcap
eq_tot_store_pcap_z
eq_tot_store_pcap
eq_new_store_ecap
eq_exist_store_ecap
eq_tot_store_ecap_z
eq_tot_store_ecap
eq_hydrogen_limit
;
* power capacity balance equations
eq_new_store_pcap(s) .. var_new_store_pcap(s) =E= sum(z,var_new_store_pcap_z(z,s));
eq_exist_store_pcap(s) .. var_exist_store_pcap(s) =E= sum(z,var_exist_store_pcap_z(z,s));;
eq_tot_store_pcap_z(z,s) .. var_new_store_pcap_z(z,s) + var_exist_store_pcap_z(z,s) =E=

var_tot_store_pcap_z(z,s);
66
eq_tot_store_pcap(s) .. sum(z,var_tot_store_pcap_z(z,s)) =E= var_tot_store_pcap(s);
* energy capacity balance equations
eq_new_store_ecap(s) .. var_new_store_ecap(s) =E= sum(z,var_new_store_ecap_z(z,s));
eq_exist_store_ecap(s) .. var_exist_store_ecap(s) =E= sum(z,var_exist_store_ecap_z(z,s));;
eq_tot_store_ecap_z(z,s) .. var_new_store_ecap_z(z,s) + var_exist_store_ecap_z(z,s) =E=

var_tot_store_ecap_z(z,s);
eq_tot_store_ecap(s) .. sum(z,var_tot_store_ecap_z(z,s)) =E= var_tot_store_ecap(s);
set hfirst(h),hlast(h);
hfirst(h) = yes$(ord(h) eq 1) ;
hlast(h) = yes$(card(h));
* right now there is no ramp for storage
eq_store_balance(h,s_lim(z,s)) ..
var_store_level(h,z,s) =E= var_store_level(h-1,z,s)*(1-store_loss_per_hr(s)) +

var_store(h,z,s)*store_eff_in(s) - var_store_gen(h,z,s)*round(1/store_eff_out(s),3)
eq_store_level(s_lim(z,s),h) .. var_store_level(h,z,s) =L= var_tot_store_ecap_z(z,s);
* limit new storage energy capacity to be new storage power capacity multiplied by p to e ratio.
* there could be problems with existing capacity being partially decomissioned
eq_store_ecap_max(z,s)$(s_lim(z,s)) .. var_new_store_ecap_z(z,s) =E=

var_new_store_pcap_z(z,s)*store_p_to_e(s);
eq_store_charge_max(s_lim(z,s),h) .. var_store(h,z,s) =L= var_tot_store_pcap_z(z,s)*store_af(s) ;
*equation eq_store_netzero_e;
*eq_store_netzero_e(h,z,s)$(s_lim(z,s) and hlast(h)) .. var_store_level(h,z,s) =G=

var_new_store_ecap_z(z,s)*0.0 ;
* Hydrogen Hourly Production Limit

eq_hydrogen_limit(s_lim(z,'Hydrogen'),h).. var_store(h,z,'Hydrogen') =L=
hydrogen_prod_limit(z,h)/MWtoGW;
$ifThen "%UC%" == ON
Positive variables
var_store_res(h,z,s)
var_store_f_res(h,z,s);
eq_store_gen_max(s_lim(z,s),h) ..
var_store_gen(h,z,s)+var_store_res(h,z,s)+var_store_f_res(h,z,s) =L=
var_tot_store_pcap_z(z,s)*store_af(s) ;
*var_store_gen(h,z,s)+var_store_f_res(h,z,s)=L= var_tot_store_pcap_z(z,s)*store_af(s) ;
$else
eq_store_gen_max(s_lim(z,s),h) .. var_store_gen(h,z,s) =L= var_tot_store_pcap_z(z,s)*store_af(s) ;
$endIf
67
Appendix 2 – Surface Runoff to Water Availability Data Processing
Appendix 2 – Surface Runoff to Water Availability Data

Processing
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Appendix 3 – Europe Storage Distribution

No Water Constraint
Electrolyzer & Fuel Cell Size Hydrogen Storage Capacity
Hydrogen SaltHydrogen Hydrogen SaltHydrogen
Country Ratio Ratio
(GW) (GW) (GWh) (GWh)
AT 10.82 0 0.00 % 108.21 0 0.00 %
BE 1.52 0 0.00 % 15.29 0 0.00 %
BG 0.65 0 0.00 % 6.50 0 0.00 %
CH 34.59 0 0.00 % 345.91 0 0.00 %
CY 1.85 0 0.00 % 18.54 0 0.00 %
CZ 2.92 0 0.00 % 29.22 0 0.00 %
DE 35.89 0 0.00 % 358.96 0 0.00 %
DK 0.74 0 0.00 % 7.41 0 0.00 %
EE 0.32 0 0.00 % 3.20 0 0.00 %
ES 50.10 0 0.00 % 501.01 0 0.00 %
FI 1.38 0 0.00 % 13.80 0 0.00 %
FR 82.89 0 0.00 % 828.97 0 0.00 %
GB 23.28 0 0.00 % 232.88 0 0.00 %
GR 0.404 0 0.00 % 4.03 0 0.00 %
HR 3.03 0 0.00 % 30.33 0 0.00 %
HU 1.10 0 0.00 % 11.02 0 0.00 %
IE 1.34 0 0.00 % 13.47 0 0.00 %
IS 6.07 0 0.00 % 60.73 0 0.00 %
IT 104.23 0 0.00 % 1042.39 0 0.00 %
LT 0.59 0 0.00 % 5.94 0 0.00 %
LU 1.76 0 0.00 % 17.67 0 0.00 %
LV 0.41 0 0.00 % 4.15 0 0.00 %
MT 0.80 0 0.00 % 8.07 0 0.00 %
NL 0.79 0 0.00 % 7.98 0 0.00 %
NO 0.34 0 0.00 % 3.42 0 0.00 %
PL 12.05 0 0.00 % 120.54 0 0.00 %
PT 9.96 0 0.00 % 99.62 0 0.00 %
RO 0.49 0 0.00 % 4.95 0 0.00 %
SE 1.29 0 0.00 % 12.93 0 0.00 %
SI 3.82 0 0.00 % 38.26 0 0.00 %
SK 1.07 0 0.00 % 10.71 0 0.00 %
76
70% water availability

Country Ratio Ratio
AT 11.34 0.000 0.00 % 113.36 - 0.00 %
BE 0.85 0.001 0.09 % 8.52 0.007 0.09 %
BG 0.01 0.001 11.14 % 0.05 0.006 11.14 %
CH 34.50 0.000 0.00 % 344.99 - 0.00 %
CY 0.05 1.757 97.44 % 0.46 17.568 97.44 %
CZ 0.33 0.000 0.00 % 3.31 - 0.00 %
DE 40.34 0.001 0.00 % 403.39 0.008 0.00 %
DK 0.11 0.001 0.67 % 1.08 0.007 0.67 %
EE 0.00 0.001 19.97 % 0.02 0.006 19.97 %
ES 50.15 0.001 0.00 % 501.46 0.007 0.00 %
FI 1.72 0.001 0.04 % 17.19 0.007 0.04 %
FR 84.93 0.001 0.00 % 849.33 0.007 0.00 %
GB 24.82 0.001 0.00 % 248.18 0.008 0.00 %
GR 0.00 0.001 15.37 % 0.03 0.006 15.37 %
HR 2.48 0.001 0.03 % 24.79 0.007 0.03 %
HU 0.01 0.000 0.00 % 0.12 - 0.00 %
IE 0.01 0.001 6.55 % 0.10 0.007 6.56 %
IS 9.11 0.001 0.01 % 91.12 0.010 0.01 %
IT 105.35 0.001 0.00 % 1 053.49 0.007 0.00 %
LT 0.46 0.001 0.16 % 4.58 0.007 0.16 %
LU 0.95 0.000 0.00 % 9.52 - 0.00 %
LV 0.01 0.001 10.25 % 0.06 0.007 10.26 %
MT 0.64 0.001 0.11 % 6.35 0.007 0.11 %
NL 0.00 0.001 12.20 % 0.05 0.007 12.20 %
NO 0.00 0.001 19.68 % 0.02 0.006 19.68 %
PL 15.53 0.001 0.00 % 155.35 0.007 0.00 %
PT 9.97 0.001 0.01 % 99.68 0.007 0.01 %
RO 0.00 0.001 15.75 % 0.03 0.006 15.75 %
SE 1.59 0.000 0.00 % 15.87 - 0.00 %
SI 3.38 0.001 0.02 % 33.80 0.007 0.02 %
SK 0.01 0.000 0.00 % 0.13 - 0.00 %
77

Country Ratio Ratio
AT 11.04 0.000 0.00 % 110.36 - 0.00 %
BE 1.20 0.111 8.48 % 11.98 1.110 8.48 %
BG 0.45 0.093 17.03 % 4.55 0.933 17.03 %
CH 34.90 0.000 0.00 % 349.02 - 0.00 %
CY 0.04 1.835 97.87 % 0.40 18.355 97.87 %
CZ 2.29 0.000 0.00 % 22.88 - 0.00 %
DE 36.60 0.122 0.33 % 365.99 1.218 0.33 %
DK 0.61 0.099 14.04 % 6.06 0.989 14.04 %
EE 0.22 0.078 25.90 % 2.24 0.783 25.90 %
ES 50.04 0.124 0.25 % 500.38 1.242 0.25 %
FI 1.34 0.095 6.59 % 13.43 0.948 6.59 %
FR 83.25 0.125 0.15 % 832.50 1.254 0.15 %
GB 23.54 0.125 0.53 % 235.37 1.252 0.53 %
GR 0.27 0.084 23.46 % 2.73 0.837 23.46 %
HR 2.68 0.109 3.91 % 26.79 1.091 3.91 %
HU 0.79 0.000 0.00 % 7.92 - 0.00 %
IE 1.02 0.109 9.64 % 10.20 1.088 9.64 %
IS 6.07 0.123 1.99 % 60.66 1.234 1.99 %
IT 104.35 0.125 0.12 % 1 043.48 1.246 0.12 %
LT 0.48 0.090 15.88 % 4.76 0.898 15.88 %
LU 1.51 0.000 0.00 % 15.12 - 0.00 %
LV 0.30 0.084 21.59 % 3.04 0.837 21.59 %
MT 0.67 0.091 11.90 % 6.74 0.910 11.90 %
NL 0.53 0.103 16.20 % 5.31 1.027 16.20 %
NO 0.24 0.079 24.93 % 2.39 0.792 24.93 %
PL 12.66 0.111 0.87 % 126.55 1.112 0.87 %
PT 9.83 0.119 1.20 % 98.29 1.191 1.20 %
RO 0.34 0.088 20.86 % 3.35 0.883 20.86 %
SE 1.24 0.000 0.00 % 12.45 - 0.00 %
SI 3.66 0.112 2.97 % 36.60 1.120 2.97 %
SK 0.76 0.000 0.00 % 7.61 - 0.00 %
78

Country Ratio Ratio
AT 11.08 0.000 0.00 % 110.78 - 0.00 %
BE 1.32 0.117 8.10 % 13.23 1.166 8.10 %
BG 0.47 0.097 17.20 % 4.69 0.973 17.20 %
CH 34.87 0.000 0.00 % 348.71 - 0.00 %
CY 0.04 1.850 97.92 % 0.39 18.502 97.92 %
CZ 2.30 0.000 0.00 % 22.95 - 0.00 %
DE 36.57 0.127 0.35 % 365.72 1.274 0.35 %
DK 0.60 0.103 14.59 % 6.02 1.029 14.59 %
EE 0.22 0.081 26.42 % 2.24 0.806 26.42 %
ES 50.02 0.130 0.26 % 500.20 1.302 0.26 %
FI 1.30 0.098 6.99 % 13.00 0.977 6.99 %
FR 83.29 0.131 0.16 % 832.90 1.312 0.16 %
GB 23.41 0.132 0.56 % 234.09 1.316 0.56 %
GR 0.27 0.087 23.99 % 2.74 0.865 23.99 %
HR 2.62 0.114 4.16 % 26.22 1.138 4.16 %
HU 0.82 0.000 0.00 % 8.18 - 0.00 %
IE 1.03 0.113 9.83 % 10.33 1.126 9.83 %
IS 6.03 0.125 2.03 % 60.32 1.249 2.03 %
IT 104.62 0.130 0.12 % 1 046.16 1.305 0.12 %
LT 0.48 0.093 16.26 % 4.77 0.927 16.26 %
LU 1.56 0.000 0.00 % 15.60 - 0.00 %
LV 0.30 0.086 22.30 % 3.00 0.862 22.30 %
MT 0.24 0.127 34.17 % 2.44 1.268 34.17 %
NL 0.57 0.108 15.89 % 5.71 1.079 15.89 %
NO 0.24 0.082 25.30 % 2.42 0.819 25.30 %
PL 12.60 0.116 0.91 % 126.04 1.162 0.91 %
PT 9.83 0.125 1.25 % 98.29 1.249 1.25 %
RO 0.35 0.092 20.96 % 3.48 0.922 20.96 %
SE 1.24 0.000 0.00 % 12.37 - 0.00 %
SI 3.67 0.117 3.09 % 36.72 1.170 3.09 %
SK 0.79 0.000 0.00 % 7.86 - 0.00 %
79
Country Ratio Ratio
AT 10.54 0.000 0.00 % 105.42 - 0.00 %
BE 1.54 0.195 11.24 % 15.41 1.950 11.24 %
BG 0.68 0.159 18.98 % 6.79 1.592 18.98 %
CH 34.47 0.000 0.00 % 344.72 - 0.00 %
CY 0.00 1.858 99.98 % 0.00 18.577 99.98 %
CZ 3.46 0.000 0.00 % 34.58 - 0.00 %
DE 34.70 0.217 0.62 % 347.01 2.171 0.62 %
DK 0.72 0.165 18.61 % 7.24 1.654 18.61 %
EE 0.34 0.133 27.85 % 3.44 1.326 27.85 %
ES 49.92 0.227 0.45 % 499.21 2.267 0.45 %
FI 1.29 0.156 10.80 % 12.87 1.559 10.80 %
FR 81.75 0.228 0.28 % 817.49 2.284 0.28 %
GB 22.69 0.226 0.99 % 226.90 2.261 0.99 %
GR 0.43 0.144 25.09 % 4.30 1.439 25.09 %
HR 3.18 0.187 5.56 % 31.76 1.868 5.56 %
HU 1.13 0.000 0.00 % 11.31 - 0.00 %
IE 1.60 0.187 10.50 % 15.95 1.872 10.50 %
IS 5.39 0.197 3.53 % 53.87 1.973 3.53 %
IT 104.16 0.227 0.22 % 1 041.58 2.270 0.22 %
LT 0.57 0.150 20.94 % 5.66 1.499 20.94 %
LU 1.72 0.000 0.00 % 17.18 - 0.00 %
LV 0.42 0.140 24.99 % 4.21 1.403 24.99 %
MT 0.13 0.211 61.24 % 1.34 2.111 61.24 %
NL 0.88 0.183 17.22 % 8.80 1.830 17.22 %
NO 0.36 0.132 26.80 % 3.61 1.323 26.80 %
PL 11.06 0.190 1.69 % 110.62 1.901 1.69 %
PT 9.73 0.213 2.14 % 97.32 2.129 2.14 %
RO 0.52 0.151 22.70 % 5.15 1.513 22.70 %
SE 1.15 0.000 0.00 % 11.48 - 0.00 %
SI 3.62 0.196 5.13 % 36.15 1.956 5.13 %
SK 1.11 0.000 0.00 % 11.06 - 0.00 %
80
Appendix 4 – Europe Generation Mix

No water constraint
Natural Natural Solar Wind Wind Hydro Hydro Nuclear
Country Gas with Gas (GW) Offshore Onshore RoR Res (GW)
CCS (GW) (GW) (GW) (GW) (GW) (GW)
AT 0.02 0.02 0.16 - 0.10 5.54 2.96 -
BE 0.05 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.10 0.11 - -
BG 0.01 0.02 0.54 0.04 0.08 - 1.57 -
CH 0.03 0.02 40.03 - - 0.03 8.21 -
CY 0.31 0.02 8.89 0.58 0.77 - - -
CZ 0.03 0.02 0.11 - 0.05 0.44 0.65 -
DE 0.26 0.02 0.16 0.04 0.11 4.78 0.74 -
DK 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.84 59.03 0.01 - -
EE 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.04 43.71 0.01 - -
ES 0.03 0.02 549.14 0.02 330.22 0.01 18.19 -
FI 0.01 0.02 48.81 87.88 0.10 3.26 1.35 -
FR 0.06 0.02 34.24 0.45 262.49 10.31 8.21 -
GB 0.03 0.02 28.59 0.33 284.13 1.87 - -
GR 0.01 0.02 76.37 48.12 27.92 - 2.46 -
HR 0.02 0.02 0.37 0.02 4.08 0.42 1.39 -
HU 0.01 0.02 0.29 - 0.07 0.03 0.03 -
IE 0.02 0.02 0.16 106.80 20.06 0.22 - -
IT 0.03 0.02 508.97 0.03 0.57 0.03 6.36 -
LT 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.13 0.13 - -
LU 0.03 0.02 0.15 - 0.04 0.03 0.01 -
LV 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.32 1.54 - -
MT 0.01 0.02 0.78 1.20 0.05 - - -
NL 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.19 0.04 - -
NO 0.01 0.02 0.16 206.94 0.21 7.55 23.57 -
PL 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.07 35.71 0.38 0.16 -
PT 0.02 0.02 7.12 0.06 15.39 2.98 1.44 -
RO 0.01 0.02 64.94 68.27 0.81 0.01 3.80 -
SE 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.23 0.28 - 16.18 -
SI 0.02 0.02 0.40 - - 1.05 0.22 -
SK 0.02 0.02 0.15 - 0.07 0.03 0.41 -
81

AT 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 5.54 2.96 -
BE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 - -
BG 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 1.57 -
CH 0.00 0.00 40.45 - - 0.00 8.21 -
CY 0.32 0.00 9.71 0.58 0.77 - - -
CZ 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.44 0.65 -
DE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.78 0.74 -
DK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.03 0.01 - -
EE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.73 0.01 - -
ES 0.00 0.00 51.85 0.00 332.25 0.00 18.19 -
FI 0.00 0.00 49.40 86.67 0.00 3.26 1.35 -
FR 0.00 0.00 31.48 0.00 259.89 10.31 8.21 -
GB 0.00 0.00 28.46 0.00 284.13 1.87 - -
GR 0.00 0.00 71.60 48.12 27.92 - 2.46 -
HR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.08 0.42 1.39 -
HU 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.03 -
IE 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.19 22.95 0.22 - -
IT 0.00 0.00 14.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.36 -
LT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 - -
LU 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.03 0.01 -
LV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 - -
MT 0.00 0.00 0.78 1.20 0.05 - - -
NL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 - -
NO 0.00 0.00 0.00 206.98 0.00 7.55 23.57 -
PL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.86 0.38 0.16 -
PT 0.00 0.00 6.34 0.00 15.51 2.98 1.44 -
RO 0.00 0.00 69.06 68.27 0.00 0.00 3.80 -
SE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 16.18 -
SI 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 1.05 0.22 -
SK 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.41 -
82

AT 0.01 0.02 0.10 - 0.07 5.54 2.96 -
BE 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.11 - -
BG 0.01 0.02 0.35 0.03 0.05 - 1.57 -
CH 0.02 0.02 40.13 - - 0.02 8.21 -
CY 0.32 0.02 9.12 0.58 0.77 - - -
CZ 0.02 0.02 0.07 - 0.03 0.44 0.65 -
DE 0.24 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.07 4.78 0.74 -
DK 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.64 59.03 0.01 - -
EE 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 43.72 0.01 - -
ES 0.02 0.02 50.92 0.01 330.20 0.01 18.19 -
FI 0.01 0.02 49.36 87.55 0.06 3.26 1.35 -
FR 0.04 0.02 32.35 0.31 262.77 10.31 8.21 -
GB 0.02 0.02 28.75 0.28 284.13 1.87 - -
GR 0.01 0.02 75.34 48.12 27.92 - 2.46 -
HR 0.01 0.02 0.25 0.02 4.08 0.42 1.39 -
HU 0.01 0.02 0.19 - 0.05 0.03 0.03 -
IE 0.01 0.02 0.11 106.85 20.21 0.22 - -
IT 0.02 0.02 11.24 0.02 0.41 0.02 6.36 -
LT 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.13 - -
LU 0.02 0.02 0.10 - 0.03 0.03 0.01 -
LV 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.21 1.54 - -
MT 0.01 0.02 0.78 1.20 0.05 - - -
NL 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.13 0.04 - -
NO 0.01 0.02 0.11 206.95 0.15 7.55 23.57 -
PL 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.05 37.28 0.38 0.16 -
PT 0.01 0.02 6.70 0.05 15.50 2.98 1.44 -
RO 0.01 0.02 66.44 68.27 0.54 0.01 3.80 -
SE 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.17 0.18 - 16.18 -
SI 0.01 0.02 0.27 - - 1.05 0.22 -
SK 0.01 0.02 0.10 - 0.05 0.02 0.41 -
83

AT 0.01 0.02 0.11 - 0.07 5.54 2.96 -
BE 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.07 0.11 - -
BG 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.03 0.06 - 1.57 -
CH 0.02 0.02 140.15 - - 0.02 8.21 -
CY 0.31 0.02 8.91 0.58 0.77 - - -
CZ 0.01 0.02 0.08 - 0.04 0.44 0.65 -
DE 0.20 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.08 4.78 0.74 -
DK 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.69 59.03 0.01 - -
EE 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 43.71 0.01 - -
ES 0.02 0.02 550.52 0.02 330.37 0.01 18.19 -
FI 0.01 0.02 49.26 87.41 0.06 3.26 1.35 -
FR 0.04 0.02 32.87 0.32 261.98 10.31 8.21 -
GB 0.02 0.02 28.73 0.28 284.13 1.87 - -
GR 0.01 0.02 75.52 48.12 27.92 - 2.46 -
HR 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.02 4.08 0.42 1.39 -
HU 0.01 0.02 0.20 - 0.05 0.03 0.03 -
IE 0.01 0.02 0.11 107.12 20.16 0.22 - -
IT 0.02 0.02 510.84 0.02 0.43 0.02 6.36 -
LT 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.13 - -
LU 0.02 0.02 0.10 - 0.03 0.03 0.01 -
LV 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.22 1.54 - -
MT 0.01 0.02 0.78 1.20 0.05 - - -
NL 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.14 0.04 - -
NO 0.01 0.02 0.11 206.94 0.16 7.55 23.57 -
PL 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.05 37.17 0.38 0.16 -
PT 0.01 0.02 6.87 0.05 15.46 2.98 1.44 -
RO 0.01 0.02 66.22 68.27 0.58 0.01 3.80 -
SE 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.18 0.19 - 16.18 -
SI 0.01 0.02 0.29 - - 1.05 0.22 -
SK 0.01 0.02 0.10 - 0.05 0.02 0.41 -
84
AT 0.03 0.03 0.19 - 0.12 5.54 2.96 -
BE 0.06 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.12 0.11 - -
BG 0.01 0.03 0.61 0.05 0.10 - 1.57 -
CH 0.04 0.03 139.59 - - 0.04 8.21 -
CY 0.29 0.03 7.91 0.58 0.77 - - -
CZ 0.03 0.03 0.13 - 0.06 0.44 0.65 -
DE 0.44 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.14 4.78 0.74 -
DK 0.03 0.03 0.08 1.06 59.03 0.01 - -
EE 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.04 43.69 0.01 - -
ES 0.05 0.03 549.39 0.03 327.89 0.02 18.19 -
FI 0.02 0.03 49.08 88.67 0.11 3.26 1.35 -
FR 0.10 0.03 31.63 0.77 265.20 10.31 8.21 -
GB 0.04 0.03 28.78 0.53 284.13 1.87 - -
GR 0.01 0.03 77.53 48.12 27.92 - 2.46 -
HR 0.02 0.03 0.42 0.03 4.08 0.42 1.39 -
HU 0.02 0.03 0.33 - 0.09 0.03 0.03 -
IE 0.03 0.03 0.19 106.05 18.45 0.22 - -
IT 0.05 0.03 510.00 0.04 0.83 0.03 6.36 -
LT 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.16 0.13 - -
LU 0.04 0.03 0.17 - 0.05 0.03 0.01 -
LV 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.37 1.54 - -
MT 0.02 0.03 0.78 1.20 0.05 - - -
NL 0.06 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.26 0.04 - -
NO 0.02 0.03 0.19 206.89 0.31 7.55 23.57 -
PL 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.09 34.35 0.38 0.16 -
PT 0.03 0.03 7.54 0.09 15.36 2.98 1.44 -
RO 0.02 0.03 64.33 68.27 0.97 0.01 3.80 -
SE 0.02 0.03 0.18 0.36 0.33 - 16.18 -
SI 0.03 0.03 0.46 - - 1.05 0.22 -
SK 0.02 0.03 0.18 - 0.09 0.04 0.41 -
85
Energy Generation Mix

Natural Natural Solar Wind Wind Hydro Hydro Total
Country Gas with Gas Offshore Onshore RoR Res Hydrogen
CCS Storage
AT 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 28 % 15 % 56 %
BE 2% 1% 5% 1% 4% 7% 0% 80 %
BG 0% 1% 14 % 1% 2% 0% 61 % 21 %
CH 0% 0% 76 % 0% 0% 0% 4% 19 %
CY 2% 0% 72 % 5% 6% 0% 0% 15 %
CZ 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 13 % 18 % 65 %
DE 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11 % 2% 86 %
DK 0% 0% 0% 1% 98 % 0% 0% 1%
EE 0% 0% 0% 0% 99 % 0% 0% 1%
ES 0% 0% 58 % 0% 35 % 0% 2% 5%
FI 0% 0% 35 % 61 % 0% 2% 1% 1%
FR 0% 0% 8% 0% 66 % 3% 2% 21 %
GB 0% 0% 8% 0% 84 % 1% 0% 7%
GR 0% 0% 49 % 31 % 18 % 0% 2% 0%
HR 0% 0% 3% 0% 45 % 5% 15 % 31 %
HU 1% 1% 17 % 0% 4% 3% 3% 71 %
IE 0% 0% 0% 83 % 16 % 0% 0% 1%
IT 0% 0% 82 % 0% 0% 0% 1% 17 %
LT 1% 2% 4% 2% 10 % 15 % 0% 66 %
LU 1% 1% 6% 0% 2% 1% 1% 88 %
LV 0% 1% 1% 1% 10 % 69 % 0% 17 %
MT 0% 1% 28 % 43 % 2% 0% 0% 27 %
NL 3% 2% 6% 3% 14 % 4% 0% 68 %
NO 0% 0% 0% 87 % 0% 3% 10 % 0%
PL 0% 0% 0% 0% 73 % 1% 0% 25 %
PT 0% 0% 18 % 0% 42 % 8% 4% 27 %
RO 0% 0% 48 % 49 % 0% 0% 3% 0%
SE 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 90 % 7%
SI 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 20 % 4% 71 %
SK 1% 1% 7% 0% 3% 2% 30 % 56 %
86

The Effect of Water Availability On The European Green-Hydrogen Based Power System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effect of Water Availability On The European Green-Hydrogen Based Power System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effect of Water Availability on the European

Green-Hydrogen Based Power System

Steven Sergij Salim

Renewable Energy Systems

Department of Technology System

Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences

Printed: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo

Steven Sergij Salim

Figure 4-4 Capacity per country .................................................................................................................... 44

1.1 Research Questions

”What is the effect of water availability on the European green hydrogen-based

1.2 Research Outline

From the current model of highRES-Europe https://github.com/highRES-model, an expansion

1.3 Research Limitation

Code Country Solar PV Wind Onshore Wind Offshore

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Energy System

2.1.1 Power System and Demand

Figure 2-3 Typical structure of a power system [46]

Drivers of electricity demand and supply

Table 2-1 Drivers of electricity demand according to [49]

2.1.2 Electricity Generation Technology

fluctuating nature. On contrary, non-VRE technologies specify the nature of controllable

2.1.3 Energy Storage Technology

Figure 2-4 Example of options for storing renewable electricity [56]

2.1.4 Power System Modeling and Optimization

Figure 2-6 Feasible region on linear programming [65]

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Characteristically, hydrogen is a

Figure 2-7 Chemical properties of Hydrogen [66]

Table 2-3 Physical properties of hydrogen [67]

Figure 2-9 Colors indication of hydrogen [68]

Figure 2-10 Green hydrogen value chain [69]

Electrolyzer Stack Component Electrolyzer Balance of Plant

Cathode: 2𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) + 2𝑒 − → 𝐻2 (𝑔) + 2𝑂𝐻− (𝑎𝑞) Equation 2-2

Figure 2-13 Tthe operating principle of an alkaline electrolyzer [71]

Cathode: 2𝐻 + (𝑎𝑞) + 2𝑒 − → 𝐻2 (𝑔) Equation 2-5

Cathode: 𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙𝑔) + 2𝑒 − → 𝐻2 (𝑔) + 𝑂 2− Equation 2-7

2.2.2 Hydrogen Storage

Figure 2-16 Hydrogen Storage Technology Options [75]

2.2.3 Fuel Cell

Figure 2-19 Operating principle of alkaline fuel cell [88]

Anode: 2𝐻2 (𝑔) + 4𝑂𝐻 − → 4𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) + 4𝑒 − Equation 2-8

Cathode: 2𝑂2 (𝑔) + 2𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) + 4𝑒 − → 4𝑂𝐻 − Equation 2-9

Anode: 𝐻2 (𝑔) → 2𝐻 + + 2𝑒 − Equation 2-10

Figure 2-21 Operating principle of solid–oxide fuel cell (SOFC) [88]

Anode: 𝑂 2− + 𝐻2 (𝑔) → 𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) + 2𝑒 − Equation 2-12

• Freshwater - Less than 1,000 ppm

Figure 2-22 Schematic of reverse osmosis method [94]

Figure 2-23 Zero Liquid Discharge framework as introduced by [96]

2.3 Climate Variability on Variable Renewable Energy Generation Technology

Figure 2-24 Average PV and Wind Hourly Capacity Factor [103]

2.4 Hydrological Cycle and Water-Energy Nexus

𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤⁄ Equation 2-14

Figure 2-25 Water Cycle on Earth [104]

Figure 2-26 Water–energy nexus illustration [106]

Chapter 3: Methodology and Data; highRES Model Description

Figure 3-1 HighRES modelling framework [39]

• Technical constraints on power plant operation

File name Description

3.1.1 Hydrogen Production Limit Implementation

Figure 3-2 HighRES expansion framework

with syntax as below:

Figure 3-4 hydrogen production limit parameter