Journal of Power Sources 574 (2023) 233108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Power Sources

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpowsour

Effect of voltage elevation on cost and energy efficiency of power electronics

in water electrolyzers
Galdi Hysa a ,∗, Vesa Ruuskanen a , Antti Kosonen a , Markku Niemelä a , Lassi Aarniovuori a ,
Damien Guilbert b , Jero Ahola a
a
LUT University, P.O. Box 20, FI-53851, Lappeenranta, Finland
b Universite de Lorraine, GREEN, F-54000, Nancy, France

HIGHLIGHTS

• The effect of voltage elevation on industrial water electrolyzer system is studied.

• Thyristor and transistor-based rectifiers for water electrolyzers are analyzed.
• Voltage elevation improves the energy efficiency and cost of rectifiers.
• Buck-rectifier provides lowest specific energy consumption of electrolyzer stack.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The interest in green hydrogen has been increasing in recent years for several applications, such as energy
Water electrolyzer system storage and different industrial sectors. The green hydrogen is produced from water electrolysis supplied by
Rectifier topologies renewable electricity. The operation of industrial large-scale water electrolysis is characterized by a high DC
Energy conversion
current in the kiloampere range and a few hundred volts. Therefore, the rectifier unit plays an important
Energy efficiency
role in converting AC current of the electricity grid into DC current supplied to the electrolyzer. The power
electronic converters are also considered as one of the main cost components of the water electrolyzer system.
The objective of this paper is to study whether the operation at a higher voltage than typical values (200 V–
300 V) can be beneficial both for the cost and energy efficiency of the power converters in water electrolyzer
systems. In this study, three different rectifier topologies considered for an industrial-scale electrolyzer are
analyzed and compared in terms of energy efficiency and cost. The simulation models of each topology are
carried out in the Matlab/Simulink environment.

1. Introduction
The interest in the production of hydrogen from water electrolysis
supplied by renewable electrical energy has been continuously increas-
ing in recent years. The high interest in green hydrogen is due to its
several advantages, such as no need for fossil fuels and no emission of
pollutant gases [1,2]. The hydrogen gas, as a flexible energy carrier,
is used in several applications, such as energy storage, transportation,
chemical and metallurgical industry [3,4]. The amount of hydrogen
produced by a water electrolyzer is proportional to the mean value
of the DC current supplied to the electrodes of the electrolyzer [5]. In
addition, the cost of the hydrogen gas production depends on some sig-
nificant factors, such as the electricity cost, the electrolyzer stack cost,
and the energy efficiency and cost of the power electronic unit [4–6].
The operation of industrial-scale water electrolyzer systems is char-
acterized by high values of DC current in the kiloampere range and
relatively low voltages of a few hundred volts [7]. High-power high-
current rectification units are required for converting AC current of the
electricity grid into DC current supplied to the electrolyzer
[8,9]. Furthermore, the power electronics unit is one of the main cost
components of a water electrolyzer system [10,11]. All the above-
mentioned reasons show clearly the importance of power electronic
converters in this kind of application. In addition, the trend of operation
at higher voltages (1000 V–1500 V) is considered to lead to the energy
efficiency improvement of power converters in different applications,
such as electric vehicles, solar PV (photovoltaic) and wind energy
systems [12,13]. It is also assumed that operation at a higher voltage
level (higher than that of typical systems of 200 V–300 V) would be
beneficial both for the energy efficiency and cost efficiency of the
power supply topologies in water electrolyzer systems [14–16]. The
higher stack voltage is achieved by connecting more electrolytic cells
in series. However, the increased stack assembly can also increase

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: galdi.hysa@lut.fi (G. Hysa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2023.233108
Received 2 December 2022; Received in revised form 16 April 2023; Accepted 21 April 2023
Available online 9 May 2023
0378-7753/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
G. Hysa et al.
the leakage (shunt) currents especially in alkaline water electrolysis,
which may have a negative effect on the efficiency of the electrolyzer
itself [17,18]. The investigation of shunt currents requires a detailed
model of the electrolyzer stack, and it is not a subject of this study.
The most conventional AC–DC power converter topologies for high-
power, high-current applications are multi-pulse thyristor rectifiers
[4,9]. These topologies have been used for many years in a wide
range of applications, especially in electrochemical processes and met-
allurgical industry [14]. The thyristor rectifier circuits can provide
high reliability and high efficiency, while their weaknesses are a low
power factor and generation of high harmonic contents to the output
DC current [15,16]. The discontinuous operation of naturally com-
mutated bridges produces a substantial amount of current harmonics.
Moreover, the low power factor is partially due to harmonics. Due to
these problems, it is required to use a distribution static compensator
(DSTATCOM) or passive filters in order to provide reactive power com-
pensation and harmonics reduction [7]. On the other hand, it should
be taken into consideration that the use of additional components, such
as passive filters, also increases the total cost of the whole system.
Furthermore, the development of insulated gate bipolar transistors
(IGBTs) for high current ratings has made it possible to use chopper
rectifiers, whose circuit topology is generally a combination of a diode
rectifier followed by a chopper converter [15,19,20]. Other AC–DC
converters have been proposed in the literature, such as IGBT-based
current source rectifiers [21]. The chopper rectifiers provide a lower
DC current ripple compared with thyristor rectifier topologies mainly
because of the higher switching frequency. The reduction of current
ripple is a significant advantage, which makes it possible to minimize
the electrical power consumption of the water electrolyzer [8].
As mentioned above, the rectification unit plays a significant role in
several electrochemical processes, including water electrolyzer systems,
which are taken into consideration in this study. Due to the fact that
water electrolyzers are typical DC loads connected to the main AC
electricity grid, the rectifier topologies are required to realize this
connection and enable the control of the power flow. In this study,
three different high-power high-current AC–DC conversion topologies
commonly used in industrial-scale electrolyzer systems are analyzed
and compared with each other. The simulations of each rectifier topol-
ogy are carried out in Matlab/Simulink environment. The novelty of
this paper is to study whether operation at a higher voltage than typical
values can be beneficial for the cost and energy efficiency of the power
converter in a water electrolyzer system.
This paper is organized as follows. Three topologies considered for
an industrial-scale water electrolyzer, their simulation models, and a
simplified electrical model of the water electrolyzer stack are presented
in Section 2. Section 3 shows the simulation results of each rectifier
topology and provides discussions related to power losses, specific
energy consumption, energy efficiency and cost of power converters.
Finally, Section 4 concludes the main results of the paper.
2. Materials and methods
In this study, three power supply rectifier topologies in an
industrial-scale water electrolysis system are analyzed and compared
with each other. The simulation models of each configuration are
implemented in the Matlab/Simulink environment, and the schematic
circuits are shown in Fig. 1.
2.1. 6-pulse thyristor rectifier
The 6-pulse thyristor rectifier circuit is connected to the main
electricity grid of 20 kV and 50 Hz by using a two-winding, three-phase
power transformer [4,16]. Both the primary and secondary windings
of the transformer have a star (Y) connection topology. The electrical
parameters of both transformer windings, such as resistance and leak-
age inductance, are 0.002 p.u. and 0.06 p.u., respectively [16]. The
2
Journal of Power Sources 574 (2023) 233108
values of magnetization resistance and magnetization inductance are
equal to 500 p.u. The line-to-line voltage of the secondary winding
of the transformer is considered to be 250 V [16]. Furthermore, the
control of the firing angle of the thyristors is implemented by using a
proportional–integral–derivative (PID) controller block, which makes it
possible to select and supply the desired value of the output DC current.
2.2. 12-pulse thyristor rectifier
The 12-pulse thyristor rectifier is connected to the electricity grid
through a three-winding, three-phase power transformer [9,16]. The
primary winding has a star (Y) connection, while one of the secondary
windings has a star (Y) connection and the next one is in a delta (D)
connection. The two secondary windings provide a phase shift of 𝜋∕6
between the generated voltages to supply two 6-pulse thyristor bridges
connected in parallel. The electrical parameters of the transformer are
also the same as explained in the previous topology. The 12-pulse
rectifier topology provides lower current harmonic values compared
with the 6-pulse thyristor rectifier [4]. The performance of rectifier
topologies can be typically improved by increasing the number of
switches. However, a 12-pulse thyristor rectifier is a good tradeoff
between the quality of the DC current and the cost of the converter
itself [7].
2.3. IGBT-based buck-rectifier
The IGBT-based buck-rectifier circuit analyzed in this study com-
prises two major parts [16]. The first part is a 12-pulse diode rectifier,
which is connected to the main electricity grid through a three-winding,
three-phase power transformer. The electrical parameters and winding
connection type of the transformer are similar to the case of the 12-
pulse thyristor rectifier. The second part of the configuration is a
DC–DC buck converter. The switching frequency of the IGBT transistor
is selected to be 1 kHz, which is relatively low in order to reduce switch-
ing losses [7,16]. There is a DC link capacitor of 1 mF, which is located
between the diode rectification unit and the buck converter [16]. It is
used to provide stabilization of the DC link voltage. Furthermore, an
inductor of 96 μH is used for the output of the DC–DC buck converter
circuit [7].
2.4. Simplified electrical model of the electrolytic cell or stack
The electrolytic cell (stack) is implemented in Simulink by using
a simplified electrical model. The electrolyzer cell voltage is equal to
the sum of reversible voltage and other additional overvoltages of the
cell [1]. The reversible voltage is the minimum value of cell voltage,
which is required for the decomposition of water molecules [1,18].
Based on the assumption that the water electrolyzer operates under
constant pressure and temperature, the reversible voltage is considered
constant. The actual cell voltage behavior is highly nonlinear because of
the activation overpotential (described by the Butler–Volmer equation),
which corresponds to the electric charge transfer between chemical
species and electrodes. The charge transfer happens on the interface
of electrode–electrolyte by representing two layers of opposite charge,
and it is considered as a double-layer capacitor. However, this kind of
linearization analyzed in this study is valid in the ohmic region yet
overestimating the voltage in the activation region, and it is also widely
used in the literature [7,19]. Therefore, the overvoltage caused by the
cell (stack) current is linearly dependent on the current value (𝐼stack ),
as shown in the formula [5]:
𝑈stack = 𝑈oc, stack + 𝑅 𝐼stack = 𝑁cell (𝑈oc, cell + 𝑅cell 𝐼stack ), (1)
where 𝑈stack is the stack voltage, 𝑈oc, stack is the open-circuit voltage of
the stack, 𝐼stack is the stack current, 𝑅 is the stack resistance, 𝑈oc, cell
is the open-circuit voltage of a single cell, 𝑅cell is the cell resistance,
and 𝑁cell is the number of cells connected in series. Based on similar
G. Hysa et al.
Fig. 1. Rectifier topologies: (a) 6-pulse thyristor rectifier, (b) 12-pulse thyristor rectifier, (c) IGBT-based buck-rectifier.
types of load characteristics in MW-range applications used in the
literature [7,9,19], the open-circuit stack voltage and its resistance
are considered to be 255 V and 0.023 Ω, respectively. Therefore, there
are 170 cells connected in series while the open-circuit voltage of a
single cell is considered 1.5 V according to the linear current–voltage
characteristic in this study case. In addition, these stack parameters
(values) are linearly dependent on the number of electrolytic cells
connected in series. The current–voltage characteristics of the load
considered in this study are shown in Fig. 2(d).
3. Results and discussion
The models of three rectifier topologies are simulated and analyzed
in the Matlab/Simulink environment. First of all, the simulations are
3
Journal of Power Sources 574 (2023) 233108
carried out for several load ranges at the transformer secondary line-
to-line voltage of 250 V [16]. The output current and voltage waveforms
of each rectifier topology are shown in Fig. 2. Then, according to the
main goal of analyzing the converter efficiency at higher voltage rates,
the simulations are repeated for the increased value of transformer
secondary line-to-line voltage at 500 V and 750 V. The current handling
capacity of the rectifiers is kept the same in the comparison. The output
load resistance and open-circuit voltage value of the electrolyzer stack
are increased in the same proportion to the line-to-line secondary volt-
age of the transformer in order to keep the output DC current constant
despite the voltage increase. The DC current should be kept unchanged,
because it directly affects the hydrogen production rate of the water
electrolyzer [5]. In the case of doubling the voltage value, the stack
assembly is also increased from 170 to 340 cells connected electrically
G. Hysa et al.
Fig. 2. Output current and voltage waveform of the rectifier topologies and current–voltage characteristics of the load: (a) 6-pulse thyristor rectifier, (b) 12-pulse thyristor rectifier,
(c) IGBT-based buck-rectifier, (d) load characteristics.
in series. While the voltage is threefold, there are considered to be 510
cells connected in series.
3.1. Current ripple
Multi-pulse thyristor rectifiers are well known for generating high
values of current ripple [5,8]. Based on the simulation results of cur-
rent waveforms, the 6-pulse thyristor rectifier produces higher current
ripple than the 12-pulse thyristor rectifier. Fig. 2(a) shows that the
main current ripple content for the 6-pulse bridge is generated at the
frequency of 300 Hz, which is six times the frequency of the power
supply. In the case of the 12-pulse thyristor rectifier shown in Fig. 2(b),
the amplitude of the dominating harmonic component at the frequency
of 600 Hz is lower compared with the 300 Hz harmonic component
of the 6-pulse bridge. An IGBT-based buck-rectifier is usually more
expensive than thyristor rectifiers because of the higher number of
semiconductors, but it also provides significantly lower current ripple
compared with these two topologies, as shown in Fig. 2(c). As there is
no phase shift between the voltage and current waveforms shown in the
simulation graphs of each topology, the electrolytic stack impendance
can be assumed to be purely resistive. This assumption is based on
the simplified electrical model of the stack analyzed in our study case,
while the stack voltage is linearly dependent on the current. In addition,
the effect of capacitance is neglected, because their values reported in
the literature vary in a wide range from some tenths to thousands of
microfarads per square centimeter depending on the electrode material
properties [22,23].
4
Journal of Power Sources 574 (2023) 233108
Furthermore, the current harmonics reduce the energy efficiency
of the electrolyzer by causing additional heat losses and negatively
affecting the lifetime of the electrolytic cells [5,8]. In each rectifier
topology, the current quality can be improved by selecting a proper
filter design according to the specific requirements of the application.
In the case of multi-pulse thyristor rectifiers, filtering of relatively
low-frequency harmonics with a high amplitude requires filters with
a high size and cost [6]. The cost of harmonics filter depends on the
technical requirements of this kind of application, but their presence
improves the system efficiency and reliability. However, this study
focuses mainly on the energy efficiency of the rectifiers themselves, and
the harmonics filter design is not taken into consideration.
3.2. Power losses and efficiency of the rectifier topologies
The power losses of each electronic component of the AC–DC con-
verter topologies are calculated separately based on the current and
voltage waveforms. The conduction losses constitute a significant part
of the total losses of the overall rectifier system. These losses are
roughly calculated based on the threshold voltage (𝑈0 ) and on-state
resistance (𝑅on ) of each semiconductor, which are defined from the
respective datasheets. Furthermore, the semiconductors are selected
depending on the safe voltage and current ratings of semiconductor
components that are commercially available. The conduction losses of
the semiconductor components are calculated by the formulas [24]:
1
𝑇
𝑃con = 𝑈0 𝑖(𝑡) + 𝑅on 𝑖(𝑡)2 d𝑡 (2)
𝑇 ∫0
G. Hysa et al.
Fig. 3. Power losses of the 6-pulse thyristor rectifier (a) at 𝑈2L = 250 V, (b) at different voltage levels.
Fig. 4. Power losses of the 12-pulse thyristor rectifier (a) at 𝑈2L = 250 V, (b) at different voltage levels.
∑
𝑁
𝑃con, TOT = 𝑃con,𝑛
𝑛=1
where 𝑃con represents the conduction losses of a single semiconductor,
𝑃con, TOT are the total conduction losses of the rectifier bridge, 𝑖 is the
current passing through the semiconductor, and 𝑁 is the number of
semiconductor components in the rectifier bridge.
In the case of 6-pulse and 12-pulse thyristor rectifiers, the con-
duction losses of each topology are calculated, and the respective
results at the transformer secondary line-to-line voltage of 250 V are
shown in Figs. 3(a) and 4(a). The conduction losses of the thyristor
bridges remain almost constant despite the voltage increase, because
they depend directly on the DC current, which is kept unchanged
for different voltage levels. The power losses of thyristor rectifiers at
different voltage levels are shown in Figs. 3(b) and 4(b). Moreover, the
switching losses of the thyristors are also estimated, but these losses
represent a very small amount of total losses and are shown to be
negligible in the literature.
In the case of IGBT-based buck-rectifier, the highest amount of
power losses are due to the conduction losses of the 12-pulse diode-
based rectifier, the IGBT conduction losses, and the IGBT switching
losses. Fig. 5 shows the power losses for each part of the buck-rectifier
at the transformer secondary line-to-line voltage of 250 V. The conduc-
tion losses of the diode bridges are calculated in the same way as in the
case of thyristor rectifiers. The switching losses of the IGBT transistor
Journal of Power Sources 574 (2023) 233108
are lower than the IGBT conduction losses because of the relatively
low switching frequency of 1 kHz. The switching losses of the IGBT are
(3)
calculated based on the formula [24]:
√ 𝐼 𝑈DC
𝑃IGBT sw = 𝑓sw (𝐸on + 𝐸off ) 2 rms , (4)
𝐼nom 𝑈nom
where 𝑓sw is the switching frequency, 𝐸on and 𝐸off are the switch-on
and switch-off energy of the transistor, 𝐼nom and 𝑈nom are the nominal
current and voltage rate of the transistor, 𝑈DC is the DC link voltage,
and 𝐼rms is the root mean square value of the output current.
The total power losses of the IGBT-based buck-rectifier during the
operation at different voltage levels are presented in Fig. 6. In a similar
way as in the case of thyristor rectifiers, the conduction losses of the
diode bridges and the IGBT remain approximately constant despite
increased voltage rates, because the current value is kept unchanged.
However, the switching losses of the IGBT are increased during the
operation at higher voltage values, which also increases the total losses
of the rectifier topology. Furthermore, the higher number of semicon-
ductors of the buck-rectifier and the presence of the IGBT produce
higher converter losses compared with the thyristor-based rectifiers.
In addition, the specific energy consumption (SEC) of the power
converters and the electrolyzer stack is calculated in order to compare
the rectifier topologies with each other. The production rate of the
hydrogen gas by an electrolytic cell is proportional to the supplied DC
current [6,16]:
𝐼stack
𝑛H2 = 𝜂F , (5)
𝑧𝐹
5
G. Hysa et al.
Fig. 5. Power losses of the IGBT-based buck-rectifier.
Fig. 6. Power losses of the IGBT-based buck-rectifier at different voltage levels.
where 𝑛H2 is the hydrogen production rate (mol/s), 𝜂F is the Faraday
efficiency (considered to be 100 % in our case), 𝐼stack is the mean value
of stack current, 𝑧 is the number of moles of electrons transferred in the
reaction (𝑧 = 2 in the case of hydrogen), and 𝐹 is the Faraday constant
(96 485 C/mol) [5]. The specific energy consumption of the electrolyzer
stack can be calculated by using the formula [16]:
𝑡
∫0 𝑖(𝑡) 𝑢(𝑡)d𝑡
𝐸s = 𝑡
, (6)
∫0 𝑚H2 d𝑡
where 𝐸s is the specific energy consumption of the stack, 𝑚H2 is the
hydrogen mass rate (kg/h), and 𝑖(𝑡) and 𝑢(𝑡) are the instantaneous stack
current and the stack voltage, respectively. Furthermore, the SEC of the
rectifiers is calculated by using the similar formula as in the case of the
electrolyzer stack, but the converter power losses are used instead of
the stack power. Based on the simulation results illustrated in Fig. 7, the
SEC of the power converters is reduced by operating at higher voltage
levels. The SEC of the thyristor-based rectifiers is reduced by about
65 %, while the SEC of the buck-rectifier is reduced by approximately
59 % for the increase in the transformer secondary line-to-line voltage
from 250 V to 750 V. Furthermore, the SEC of the electrolyzer stack
is calculated for each case of the rectifier topologies. Minimization of
the DC current ripple plays an important role in reducing the power
6
Journal of Power Sources 574 (2023) 233108
losses of the water electrolyzer. Therefore, the SEC of the electrolyzer
stack has the lowest value when it is supplied by the IGBT-based buck-
rectifier, which provides lower current ripple compared with the other
topologies. The difference between the thyristor-based rectifiers and
the buck-rectifier is largest at a low partial load, which is especially
common when the electrolyzer is connected with solar or wind power.
Furthermore, the overpotential of stack increases as a function of
current density leading to the increase of SEC as a function of load
current, while the effect of Faraday efficiency is neglected in this study.
3.3. Transformer efficiency
Moreover, the transformer power losses are another major con-
tributor to the total power losses, which plays an important role in
determining the efficiency of the overall rectifier system [7,15]. As
mentioned in the results, the current harmonics in the case of the
buck-rectifier are lower compared with the thyristor rectifiers. The
lower value of current harmonics provides lower conduction losses
and eddy-current losses in the rectifier transformer [25]. The relative
(per unit) conduction losses of the transformer and the semiconductor
conduction losses remain approximately constant by increasing the
voltage rates and power of the system at the same time, but keeping the
current value unchanged. According to the transformer data of the EU
Commission Regulation [26], the energy efficiency of a transformer is
improved for higher-power operation, as shown in Fig. 8. For the above-
mentioned reasons, the improvement in the transformer efficiency at
higher voltage rates has also a positive effect on the energy efficiency
of the overall rectifier system.
3.4. Cost of power electronic semiconductors for higher voltage ratings
Based on the simulation results, it is obvious that the energy ef-
ficiency of rectifier topologies is increased when operating at higher
voltage rates. Since the power electronics unit is one of the main
cost components of the water electrolyzer system and the cost of
electrolyzer is a significant contributor to the hydrogen production
cost, it is important to keep the cost of the power converter as low
as possible [10]. The actual cost of power electronics unit represents
approximately 15 %–20 % of the total cost of electrolyzer system [11].
This cost share percentage of power electronics in an industrial water
electrolyzer can tend to increase in the future, while the cost of stack
itself is pretended to decrease by scaling up the system [10]. Based
on several manufacturers’ data [27,28], the cost of power semicon-
ductors and especially the cost of IGBTs is typically higher at higher
voltage rates. In our case study, we operate at higher voltage values by
keeping the same IGBT and other semiconductor components that are
commercially available based on their safe current and voltage rates. By
increasing the voltage level while keeping the same power electronics
components, it is possible to increase the energy efficiency and reduce
the cost (euro/W) of the power converters.
Besides the energy efficiency improvement of the electronic con-
verter, the increased voltage level can have negative effects on a water
electrolyzer. The higher stack voltage is achieved by connecting more
electrolytic cells in series. Thus, the increased stack assembly can also
increase the leakage (shunt) currents, which may have a negative effect
on the efficiency of the electrolyzer itself [17]. This is a problem
especially with alkaline water electrolysis stacks. A detailed model
of the electrolyzer stack is required to analyze the effect of leakage
currents in the operation of an electrolytic stack, but this topic is
outside the scope of this study.
G. Hysa et al. Journal of Power Sources 574 (2023) 233108

Fig. 7. (a) Specific energy consumption (Wh/kg) of the rectifier topologies at 𝐼DC = 3200 A, (b) specific energy consumption (kWh/kg) of the rectifiers and the electrolyzer stack
at 𝐼DC = 3200 A, (c) specific energy consumption (kWh/kg) of the electrolyzer stack at 𝑈2L = 250 V, (d) specific energy consumption (kWh/kg) of the rectifiers and the electrolyzer
stack at 𝑈2L = 250 V.

4. Conclusions

The study presented an investigation and comparison of three dif-

ferent power supply AC–DC converters for high-power high-current
applications, such as industrial water electrolyzer systems for produc-
tion of hydrogen gas. The rectifier topologies taken into consideration
were a 6-pulse thyristor rectifier, a 12-pulse thyristor rectifier, and
an IGBT-based buck-rectifier. According to the main objective of this
study related to the effect of voltage elevation on the energy effi-
ciency of power converters in water electrolyzer systems, simulations
of each topology were carried out in the Matlab/Simulink environment
for several values of transformer secondary line-to-line voltage. The
output load resistance and open-circuit voltage of the electrolyzer
model were increased in the same proportion to the increase in the
voltage level in order to keep the output DC current constant, which
has a direct effect on the hydrogen production rate. The IGBT-based
buck-rectifier has higher total power losses compared with thyristor
rectifier topologies because of the higher number of semiconductor
components and the higher switching frequency, but it also provides
lower current harmonic contents. The power losses of the thyristor
rectifiers remain approximately the same despite the voltage increase,
Fig. 8. Efficiency improvement of the transformer for higher power ratings.
because their losses are directly dependent on the current, which is kept
constant. The power losses of the buck-rectifier are increased during the
operation at higher voltage rates mainly because of the switching losses

7
G. Hysa et al.
of the IGBT. However, the specific energy consumption of the rectifier
topologies is reduced by operating at higher voltage levels. The SEC of
the thyristor-based rectifiers is reduced by about 65 %, while the SEC of
the buck-rectifier is reduced by approximately 59 % with the increase
in the transformer secondary line-to-line voltage from 250 V to 750 V.
The IGBT-based buck-rectifier provides the lowest value of specific
energy consumption of the electrolyzer stack due to lower DC current
ripple compared with the two other topologies. Finally, by increasing
the voltage level while keeping the same power electronic components
based on their safe rate limits, it can be possible both to increase the
energy efficiency and reduce the cost (euro/W) of the power converters
in water electrolyzer systems.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Galdi Hysa: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft,
Software. Vesa Ruuskanen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Soft-
ware, Supervision. Antti Kosonen: Methodology, Writing – review
& editing, Supervision. Markku Niemelä: Conceptualization, Super-
vision. Lassi Aarniovuori: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing
– review & editing. Damien Guilbert: Conceptualization, Writing –
review & editing. Jero Ahola: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing
– review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
Special thanks should be given to ABB for supporting of this re-
search work.
References
[1] A. Ursúa, P. Sanchis, Static–dynamic modelling of the electrical behaviour of
a commercial advanced alkaline water electrolyser, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37
(24) (2012) 18598–18614, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.09.125.
[2] A. Buttler, H. Spliethoff, Current status of water electrolysis for energy storage,
grid balancing and sector coupling via power-to-gas and power-to-liquids: A
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 2440–2454, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.003.
[3] C.-J. Winter, Hydrogen energy — Abundant, efficient, clean: A debate over
the energy-system-of-change, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34 (14) (2009) S1–S52,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.05.063.
[4] B. Yodwong, D. Guilbert, M. Phattanasak, W. Kaewmanee, M. Hinaje, G.
Vitale, AC-DC converters for electrolyzer applications: State of the art and
future challenges, Electronics 9 (6) (2020) 912, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
electronics9060912, Number: 6 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing
Institute.
[5] V. Ruuskanen, J. Koponen, A. Kosonen, M. Hehemann, R. Keller, M. Niemelä,
J. Ahola, Power quality estimation of water electrolyzers based on current and
voltage measurements, J. Power Sources 450 (2020) 227603, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.227603.
[6] A. Ursúa, L. Marroyo, E. Gubía, L.M. Gandía, P.M. Diéguez, P. Sanchis, Influence
of the power supply on the energy efficiency of an alkaline water electrolyser,
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34 (8) (2009) 3221–3233, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2009.02.017.
Journal of Power Sources 574 (2023) 233108
[7] J. Solanki, N. Fröhleke, J. Böcker, P. Wallmeier, Comparison of Thyristor-
Rectifier with hybrid filter and Chopper- Rectifier for high-power, high-current
application, PCIM Eur. (2013) 8.
[8] F.-W. Speckmann, S. Bintz, K.P. Birke, Influence of rectifiers on the energy
demand and gas quality of alkaline electrolysis systems in dynamic operation,
Appl. Energy 250 (2019) 855–863, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.
05.014.
[9] M. Chen, S.-F. Chou, F. Blaabjerg, P. Davari, Overview of power electronic con-
verter topologies enabling large-scale hydrogen production via water electrolysis,
Appl. Sci. 12 (4) (2022) 1906, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app12041906.
[10] M. Holst, S. Aschbrenner, T. Smolinka, C. Voglstätter, G. Grimm, Cost forecast for
low-temperature electrolysis - technology driven bottom-up prognosis for PEM
and alkaline water electrolysis systems, Fraunhofer ISE (2021) 79.
[11] M. Keddar, Z. Zhang, C. Periasamy, M.L. Doumbia, Power quality improvement
for 20 MW PEM water electrolysis system, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy (2022)
S0360319922035777, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.08.073.
[12] E. Serban, M. Ordonez, C. Pondiche, DC-bus voltage range extension in 1500
V photovoltaic inverters, IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electr. 3 (4) (2015)
901–917, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2015.2445735.
[13] C. Jung, Power up with 800-V systems: The benefits of upgrading voltage power
for battery-electric passenger vehicles, IEEE Electrif. Mag. 5 (1) (2017) 53–58,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MELE.2016.2644560.
[14] P.S. Maniscalco, V. Scaini, W.E. Veerkamp, Specifying DC chopper systems for
electrochemical applications, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 37 (3) (2001) 8.
[15] J. Rodriguez, J. Pontt, C. Silva, E. Wiechmann, P. Hammond, F. Santucci, R.
Alvarez, R. Musalem, S. Kouro, P. Lezana, Large current rectifiers: State of
the art and future trends, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 52 (3) (2005) 738–746,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2005.843949.
[16] J. Koponen, A. Poluektov, V. Ruuskanen, A. Kosonen, M. Niemelä, J. Ahola,
Comparison of thyristor and insulated-gate bipolar transistor -based power supply
topologies in industrial water electrolysis applications, J. Power Sources 491
(2021) 229443, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.229443.
[17] R.S. Jupudi, G. Zappi, R. Bourgeois, Prediction of shunt currents in a bipolar
electrolyzer stack by difference calculus, J. Appl. Electrochem. 37 (8) (2007)
921–931, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10800-007-9330-4.
[18] G. Sakas, A. Ibáñez Rioja, V. Ruuskanen, A. Kosonen, J. Ahola, O. Bergmann,
Dynamic energy and mass balance model for an industrial alkaline water
electrolyzer plant process, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (7) (2022) 4328–4345,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.11.126.
[19] J. Solanki, N. Fröhleke, J. Böcker, A. Averberg, P. Wallmeier, High-current
variable-voltage rectifiers: state of the art topologies, IET Power Electr. 8 (6)
(2015) 1068–1080, http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/iet-pel.2014.0533.
[20] P. Aqueveque, E. Wiechmann, R. Burgos, On the efficiency and reliability of high-
current rectifiers, in: Conference Record of the 2006 IEEE Industry Applications
Conference Forty-First IAS Annual Meeting, Vol. 3, IEEE, Tampa, FL, 2006, pp.
1290–1297.
[21] Q. Combe, A. Abasian, S. Pierfederici, M. Weber, S. Dufour, Control of a three-
phase current source rectifier for H2 storage applications in AC microgrids,
Energies 15 (7) (2022) 2436, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15072436.
[22] A. Gabler, C.I. Müller, T. Rauscher, M. Köhring, B. Kieback, L. Röntzsch, W.
Schade, Ultrashort pulse laser-structured nickel surfaces as hydrogen evolution
electrodes for alkaline water electrolysis, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 (16) (2017)
10826–10833, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.02.006.
[23] T. Rauscher, C.I. Bernäcker, S. Loos, M. Vogt, B. Kieback, L. Röntzsch, Spark-
plasma-sintered porous electrodes for efficient oxygen evolution in alkaline water
electrolysis, Electrochim. Acta 317 (2019) 128–138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.electacta.2019.05.102.
[24] M. Bierhoff, F. Fuchs, Semiconductor losses in voltage source and current source
IGBT converters based on analytical derivation, in: 2004 IEEE 35th Annual Power
Electronics Specialists Conference (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37551), IEEE, Aachen,
Germany, 2004, pp. 2836–2842.
[25] S. Kennedy, Design and application of semiconductor rectifier transformers, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl. 38 (4) (2002) 927–933, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2002.
800595.
[26] C. Eu, COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 548/2014 - of 21 May 2014 - on
implementing directive 2009/125/EC of the European parliament and of the
council with regard to small, medium and large power transformers, Off. J. Eur.
Union (2014) 15.
[27] R. Islam, Y. Guo, J.G. Zhu, Performance and cost comparison of NPC, FC and
SCHB multilevel converter topologies for high-voltage applications, IEEE Int.
Conf. Electr. Mach. Syst. (2011) 7.
[28] M.R. Islam, Y. Guo, J. Zhu, A transformer-less compact and light wind turbine
generating system for offshore wind farms, IEEE Int. Conf. Power Energy (2012)
605–610, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PECon.2012.6450285.