Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Design and optimization of a combined solar thermophotovoltaic power T

generation and solid oxide electrolyser for hydrogen production
⁎
Raheleh Daneshpour, Mehdi Mehrpooya
Department of renewable energies and environment, Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Laboratory, Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study proposes a novel integrated solar-TPV device with a solid oxide electrolyzer cell to utilize the solar
Solar-thermo-photovoltaic energy for hydrogen production. It explores the possibility of employing a high temperature solar-thermal-
Solid oxide electrolyser cell photovoltaic power generation technology as a power source for a steam electrolyzer as a high-efficiency and
Hydrogen production applicable hydrogen production method. Mathematical and electrochemical modeling of the subsystems is
conducted and performance of the system in different operating conditions such as current density, temperature,
and steam mole fraction of SOEC is analyzed. An STPV device of multiwalled carbon nanotube (MW-CNT)
absorber and 1D Si/SiO2 PhC emitter and InGaAsSb PV cell is employed to maximize the solar energy utilization.
A detailed system level model in this part is conducted and the solar to electrical efficiency of the scaled-up STPV
device reached to 17%. The results show that this STPV device can provide the power demand in SOEC system. A
planar cathode-supported high-temperature electrolyzer cell was designed to perform in an exothermic mode
and the result was validated by the experimental data precisely. The sensitivity analysis showed that 7458 kg/h
hydrogen can be produced in the proposed system with 54% electrical for SOEC efficiency. The major im-
plementation challenges are presented to provide a comprehensive insight into performance, potential devel-
opment, limitations and challenges of the integrated system. The proposed combined system shows the overall
efficiency can reach to 34%. This high efficiency makes this novel hybrid system a competitive option in solar-
based hydrogen production technologies.

1. Introduction better sustainability regarding cost, emission, efficiency and global

The population increase, worldwide economic growth and devel-
opment, and raising the standard of living, caused a tremendous in-
crease in energy consumption. Currently, most industrial and housing
energy demand is supplied by fossil fuels. However, fossil fuels are not
only geographically constrained but also they would not able to keep up
with this extravagant use of energy due to the fact that they are limited
by their nature. Along with availability issues, greenhouse gas emission
and its contribution to global warming have risen serious environ-
mental concern and hence, inclined the scientists to develop alternative
fuels [1,2]. However, hydrogen is a promising energy carrier because of
its zero end-use emission and continually replenished sources. Innova-
tion in hydrogen production is essential to cope with the environmental
challenges in an efficient, effective, clean and reliable way [1,3]. These
innovations will improve efficiencies, environmental protection, and
energy security [4].
A comprehensive review and evaluation of hydrogen production for
warming have accomplished by Dincer et al. [5]. Totally there are two
main categories of hydrogen production: conventional and renewable
technologies [6]. In conventional processes, fossil fuels produce hy-
drogen through hydrocarbon reforming or pyrolysis. The second cate-
gory applies renewable sources such as biomass or water for H2 pro-
duction. Water electrolysis is one of the most effective techniques of
water splitting which is an electrochemical reactor that uses electricity
to split water molecules to hydrogen and oxygen with no greenhouse
gas production. Thus, a drastic grow and interest on this non-conven-
tional environmentally friendly technique of hydrogen production is
expected [7]. However, the economics of water electrolysis is domi-
nated by the cost of electricity. Hence, implementing renewable energy
resources has received remarkable attention to reducing the energy cost
of H2 production by electrolysis as well as mitigating the environmental
impacts [8]. A comprehensive review on integrated electrolyzer sys-
tems with renewable energy sources is reported [9]. This concept
gained the scientists interest and included many research studies

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mehrpoya@ut.ac.ir (M. Mehrpooya).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.09.033
Received 13 March 2018; Received in revised form 19 August 2018; Accepted 11 September 2018
Available online 18 September 2018
0196-8904/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286

Nomenclature ρ reflectivity (–)

ε emissivity (–)
A area (m2) δ thickness (mm)
c speed of light in vacuum (m/s) η efficiency (%)
C optical concentration ratio ηi overpotential (V)
d distance between emitter and PV (mm)
D effective diffusion coefficient (m/s) Subscripts
e elementary charge (C)
E emissive heat flux (W/m2) abs absorber
F Faraday constant (C/mol) Act activation polarization
G gibbs free energy (J) b blackbody
G1.5 AM D air mass coefficient c cell
h universal plank coefficient (J·s) Conc. concentration polarization
H enthalpy (J) ext external
I current (A) int internal
I0 diode dark current (A) Ohm ohmic polarization
J current density (A/m2) ph photo current
K thermal conductivity (W/m·K) rev reversible
Kb Boltzman constant (J/K) s series resistances
LHV lower heating value (kJ/kg) sh shunt resistance
ṁ mass flow rate (kg/s) surr surround
PV photovoltaic
Q heat flux (W/m2) Abbreviations
Q̇ heat transfer rate (kW)
R gas constant (J/mol·K) MW-CNT multi wall carbon nano-tube
S entropy (J) PhC photonic crystal
T temperature (K) PV photovoltaic
P pressure (atm) STPV solar thermos photo voltaic
V voltage (V) SOEC solid oxide electrolyzer cell

Greek letters

α absorptivity (–)

[10–12]. Baniasadi [13] presented a novel and efficient system which
use solar spectrum splitting in a desalination system and SOEC hy-
drogen production process. Some of the researchers compared the dif-
ferent feedstock materials and asserted that water is the best feed for
renewable power driven and industrial scale of hydrogen production
[14]. Some also investigated about seawater high temperature elec-
trolysis and the effect of contamination on the cell [15]. Dincer [16]
presented a comprehensive classification and comparison of green
methods for hydrogen production. Bicakova et al. [17] discussed var-
ious renewable-based hydrogen production methods. Among these re-
newable resources, solar energy is more interested in the researchers.
From 2000 to 2016 the total solar energy capacity and consumption has
increased by 29.6% [18]. This growth in solar energy is based on its
clean and interminable nature [19]. Steinfeld [20] performed an ex-
tensive review of solar-driven thermochemical hydrogen production
technologies and discussed different concepts of solar-based technolo-
gies for hydrogen production and their energy and exergy efficiencies.
Abid et al. [21] performed a comprehensive study on parabolic trough
solar collector and parabolic dish solar collector in an integrated Ran-
kine cycle and electrolyser cell for hydrogen production and used Nano
fluid in their systems. Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen produc-
tion by solid oxide electrolyser which uses solar dish system is proposed
and analyzed [22]. The results show that efficiency of the power cycle
and the electrolyzer cell can reach to 72.69% and 61.70%, respectively.
Moradi et al. [23] assessed the performance of an integrated system
including PEM electrolyser and concentrated solar power plant and
thermal energy storage and the overall efficiency of their system was
20.1%. In a research study [24] by utilizing a solar photovoltaic (PV)
with an efficiency of 19% for electricity production, a low-temperature
electrolyzer cell is powered for hydrogen production with efficiency
around 70%, so the total estimated efficiency is 13%. Although low-
temperature electrolysis is mature and commercial, due to its low
conversion efficiency and higher electricity consumption in comparison
with high-temperature solid oxide electrolyzer cell (SOEC), get less
attention [25]. So many experimental and theoretical modeling in-
vestigation has been done on high temperature electrolysis material,
design, configuration, durability and operating condition [26–31].
Arashi et al. [32] performed a fundamental research about high tem-
perature electrolysis using solar energy as its heat source. They reported
that the overall system efficiency is around 20–28%. Some scientists
also studied comprehensive economic evaluation about these systems
[33,34]. Some other scientists focused on co-electrolysis systems [35].
They investigated about comprehensive 1-D [36] and 2-D [37] mod-
eling for a tubular electrolysis cell. Some others developed the thermal
and electrochemical model to evaluate the performance of the H2O-CO2
co-electrolysis [38–40].
There are two major methods for utilizing solar energy for elec-
tricity production. One is the photovoltaic technology which converts
solar radiations to electricity directly. The second method uses a solar
collector to converts solar photons to thermal energy and uses produced
heat in a thermal engine for electricity generation. Both of these
methods have their own drawbacks. Hence, the scientists investigated a
new method which benefits both mentioned advantages and avoids
their drawbacks. Solar-Thermo-Photo-Voltaic (STPV) is a state-of-the-
art technology which has received more attention in recent years [41].
STPV is a system that absorbs the solar radiation in its intermediate
module and re-radiate the photons at a higher temperature which is
now contained tailored wavelength for the photovoltaic cell [42]. By
using this innovative method, PV efficiency can be increased re-
markably. In order to make this process efficient, the arriving photons

275
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya
from emitter should be greater than the bandgap energy of PV cells by
using the spectral control in the intermediate module. Recently many
experimental and theoretical investigation has been done about the
conversion efficiency enhancement [43–45]. This matter is possible by
modifying the radiative properties of the absorber-emitter module. In-
troducing photonic crystal and carbon, nanowires and nanoparticle-
based material into the structure of this module is investigated and
revealed favorable results [46]. For example, Lenert et al. [47] obtained
3.2% efficiency for their system by utilizing carbon nanotube as a solar
absorber and 1D photonic crystals as the emitter. Shortly after this re-
sult, Rinnerbauer et al. [48] declared that they achieved 3.47% con-
version solar to electrical efficiency by employing 2D Ta photonic
crystal as both absorber and emitter. Nam et al. [42] reported that their
experimental investigation of a planar STPV consisting of optimized 2D
Ta photonic crystals and InGaAsSb PV cell with a tandem filter de-
monstrated the efficiency of 10% at solar irradiation of around 130 kW/
m3. Hao Wang et al. [49] in another investigation asserted that by using
selective metamaterial as the solar absorber and emitter, conversion
efficiency varies between 8% and 10% with concentration factor from
20 to 200. Some scientists focused on the ternary compound alloy on
the photovoltaic and thermophotovoltaic application [50]. Perfor-
mance of quaternary InGaAsSb diode as the most efficient diode in TPV
systems has been investigated by Dashiell et al. [51]. In their analysis
for an emitter temperature of 950 °C and diode temperature of 27 °C,
the power density and thermal to electrical conversion efficiency re-
ported as 0.58 W/cm2 and 19.7% respectively. They also asserted that
the most significant limitation for this diode to reach its practical effi-
ciency is its intrinsic Auger recombination.
In this study, a novel integrated system consist of solar-thermo-
photovoltaic device and solid oxide electrolyzer cell is introduced and
analyzed. The efficient Solar-TPV system consisting multiwall carbon
nanotubes as the solar absorber and 1D Si/SiO2 photonic crystal as the
selective emitter is considered as the intermediate module of the solar-
driven power generation source. The InGaAsSb PV cell (Eg = 0.55 eV) is
chosen as the power generated device. The produced power is then
utilized in a SOEC system to produce pure hydrogen from water elec-
trolysis. The process performance is investigated through sensitivity
analysis of the effective parameters.
In this article the integration performance of the solar
Fig. 1. Process block diagram.
276
Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286
thermophotovoltaic system and solid oxide electrolyser cells in-
vestigated. The detail modeling and governing equations on the sub-
systems explained precisely in two subsections and MATLAB and
ASPEN software are employed to simulate the whole integrated process
and the obtained result validated by peer-reviewed articles. Then the
system has been analyzed based on energy and efficiency analysis.
Finally sensitivity analysis proposed and a conclusion reported in the
last section.
2. Process description
Fig. 1 shows the simplified schematic of the process which consists
of two main sub-systems: STPV device and SOEC system. The sun ra-
diations are collected by a solar collector and then radiates to the ab-
sorber surface area. The absorber is a key parameter in STPV system
and performs as a spectral selective surface which converts solar ra-
diation into thermal energy. This surface maximizes the solar energy
absorbance which consists of visible and near-infrared range and
minimizes the thermal emission which is in the infrared spectral re-
gime. To achieve the thermal stability the absorber surface needs to
operate at elevated temperatures with a high energy density. The
emitter is another selective surface which radiates thermal energy to-
wards the PV cell. According to the Shockley-Queisser limit [52] a
single-junction solar PV has a strong limitation in utilizing the solar
energy due to the point that photons with a lower level of required
energy to generate electron-hole pairs are practically useless and pho-
tons with a higher level of energy than the bandgap result in excess
energy at PV surface and reduce the efficiency. That’s why emitters by
tailoring the bandgap provide the most efficient spectrum for the PV
cell. The selected TPV diode for modeling in this study is the quaternary
InGaAsSb with 0.53-eV. However, the novel STPV system provides
electrical energy which goes through the SOEC to produce hydrogen.
Fig. 2 illustrates a schematic of the STPV system and its energy flow.
In an electrolyzer cell, the ultimate goal is to produce the hydrogen
from inlet water. To reach this achievement electrolyzer cell needs heat
and power. Steam electrolyzer which operates at high temperatures is
an efficient solution to reduce the electricity consumption remarkably.
Steam enters the cathode to reduce the hydrogen and releases oxide
ions. The produced ions pass through the electrolyte and reach to the
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286

Fig. 2. STPV schematic and its energy flow.

anode side where they produce oxygen. The electrode reactions and the
overall chemical reaction take place in the cell are as follows:
H2 O + 2e− → H2 + 2e 2 − (1)
2e− + O 2 − → 1/2O2 (2)
H2 O + Welectricity → 1/2O2 + H2 (3)
These reactions belong to the cathode half reaction, anode half re-
action and overall reaction respectively [53]. SOEC consists of three
essential parts: anode, electrolyte, and cathode. A different configura-
tion of steam electrolyzer can be applied such as tubular and planar.
Tubular cells have some significant advantages such as easily sealing
and separating produced gases in the stack. On the other hand, planar
configuration offers lower manufacturing cost and due to the short
current path, the ohmic overpotential is remarkably low. The higher
packing density and ability to manufacture in electrolyte and electrode
supported design made the planar configuration more favorable. In this
study a planar cathode-supported SOEC fabricated with Lanthanum
Strontium Manganite (LSM) for the anode, Nickel Yttria-stabilized-
Zirconia (Ni/YSZ) for the cathode and Yttria-stabilized-Zirconia (YSZ)
is considered for investigation. SOEC module can operate in thermo-
neutral, exothermic and endothermic operation mode [54]. In exo-
thermic mode with current density of 7500 A/m2, the stack temperature
increases during the operation because of the heat accumulation and
hence, the inlet gas can be heated by heat recovery of the outlet hot
gases and so there is no need to the external heat sources, while in this
case the electrical energy consumption increases. In the endothermic
stack operation condition with current density around 5000, A/m2 the

Fig. 3. SOEC process flow diagram.

277
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286

cell electrical energy consumption and hydrogen production decreases.
This less H2 production is due to the less average current density. On
the other hand in this mode, the generated heat through the stack via
irreversibilities is lower than required thermal energy for the reaction.
Therefore, the stack needs to provide heat from the other sources to
reach the required temperature level, while heat recovery from hot
outlet streams is not enough. The third mode is thermoneutral stack
operation in which the generated heat through irreversible losses is
equal to the required heat by the reaction. As always there are some
losses via heat recovery process, so in this mode of operation, like en-
dothermic mode, an external heat source and equipment are required.
However, thermoneutral mode consumes more electricity rather than
endothermic operation mode. So, thermoneutral is not a favorable op-
erational mode. In this study due to the low cost of electricity pro-
duction by STPV device, an exothermic operation mode at the current
density of 7500 A/m2 and temperature of 1023 K has been selected to
be independent of any external heat sources [55]. Another significant
point is using sweeping gas on the anode side of the cell. Some litera-
ture used O2 as the sweeping gas, while it may cause corrosion because
of high temperature at the stack but using pure oxygen as the sweep gas
may result in higher efficiency as reported in some other research ar-
ticles [55]. Some other used air flow as the sweeping gas which it also
has some consideration as reported by Udagawa et al [54].
As it has been demonstrated in the process flowsheet at Fig. 3, inlet
water is at ambient temperature while the process operates at 750 °C, so
it needs to be heated up. That’s why the feed water mixes with a re-
cycled water (stream 17). Then it is pumped through a heat exchanger
(H-EX) to heat the water by means of a hot stream 15 which also has
exchanged its heat in a supper heater 1 (SUPER-H1). The hot stream 3 is
divided into two parts (streams 4 and 5) in order to utilize the outlet hot
streams from the solid oxide electrolyzer cell. Stream 4 heats up by the
anode exhaust gas at super heater 2 (SUPER-H2) while the stream 5
uses cathode exhaust hot stream to reach 750 °C in which the SOE stack
operates. Both heated streams (streams 6 and 7) now mixes again in
MIX-2. Then stream 8 enters a new mixer to mix with a part of a
mixture of H2O + H2 (stream 14) segregated from the cooled outlet
stream of the electrolyzer stack (stream 13). This stream 14 is rich in
hydrogen, so by implementing a design spec in the Aspen Plus, stream 8
contains 90% H2O and 10% H2. This mixing is designed to avoid Nickel
oxidation in the cell and remains in its metallic state. Since introducing
pure water into the cell and producing nickel oxide cause the significant
decrease in cell efficiency. In the electrolyzer stack, H2O is divided into
the hydrogen and oxygen according to the mentioned reactions by the
conversion of 60%. Outlet streams 11 and 12 from the stack are pure
oxygen and the mixture of hydrogen and water respectively.
Pure oxygen stream 11 exchange its heat with the steam 4 as
mentioned and then goes out as the valuable side product, while stream
12 after heat transfer with stream 5 is divided into two streams at
SPLIT-2. Next, its temperature decreases in another step in H-EX and
finally is separated to its constituents in SEPARATOR and creates
stream 17. This stream is recycled water and goes back to the process by
mixing with feed water at MIX-1 and stream PURE H2 that is the final
product and is ready to be stored.
hole-pairs towards the PV cell. In other words, by the spectral shaping,
the emitter directly surpasses the undesirable emission and enhancing
the desirable photon emission which is above the bandgap of PV cell. So
this narrow-band thermal radiation is tailored to the bandgap of the PV
cell and again some of these useful emissions lost between the emitter
and PV cell. The absorber- emitter energy balance for a planar device
can be described as follows [42]:
−→
n ·(−k∇T ) = qrad + hconv . (Tinf −T )@dA (4)
where k represents thermal conductivity (W/m·K), h is convection heat
transfer coefficient (W/m2·K) and qrad in this equation shows the ra-
diative heat flux from each surface and include the radiative heat flux
on the absorber side, emitter side, and side-wall. Each one can be cal-
culated by the following equations [56]:
∞
∫0 αabs (λ) GAM1.5D λdλ
qrad − abs = Copt
∞
− ∫ εabs (λ )[Eb (λ, Tabs )−Eb (λ, Tsurr )] dλ (5)
0
where Copt is concentration rate of solar radiation, αabs and εabs are
absorber absorptivity and emissivity respectively, and GAM,1.5D is the
standard solar spectrum, at air mass 1.5 D. The first part of Eq. (5)
determines the absorbed concentrated solar spectrum by the absorber
area and the second part indicates the amount of re-emission loss from
this surface. In this equation Eb (λ,T) is the spectral blackbody emissive
power from a surface at temperature T:
2πhc 2
Eb (λ, T ) =
λ5 [e hc / λkB T −1] (6)
where λ is the wavelength of the emitted radiation (nm), T is the ab-
solute temperature of the surface (K), h is universal plank coefficient
(J·s), kB is the Boltzmann coefficient (J/K), and c is the light speed in a
vacuum (m/s). On the emitter side, radiative heat flux contains the
emission to the PV cell, re-absorption of reflections from the PV cell and
emission of PV cell towards the emitter, these concepts provided in 3
terms in the following equation:

2.1. STPV system-level modeling

Fig. 4 shows the STPV in a 3D design, solar broadband spectrum

radiates to the solar collector and absorbs partially by the solar ab-
sorber. Actually, a certain amount of solar irradiation dissipated due to
reflection, transmission and re-emission losses of the absorber. How-
ever, the temperature of the absorber rises up and absorbed photons are
converted to the heat and conducted to the selective emitter while
losing a certain amount of heat through the sidewalls. The temperature
of the absorber and emitter depend on the incident solar irradiation flux
and their surface radiation characterizations. Hot emitter thermally Fig. 4. 3D schematic of planar STPV with absorber to emitter area ratio 1/7 and
radiates the photons that can contribute to the generating electron- the energy flow.

278
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286

∞
qemit = − ∫0 εemit (λ ) Eb (λ, Temit ) dλ Table 1
Input parameters of PV cell.
2 2
∞ εemit (λ ) Eb (λ , Temit ) ρc (λ ) Fd Aemit − Ac
+ ∫0 1−ρemit (λ ) ρc (λ ) FdAemit − Ac
dλ PV cell parameters Value

∞ εemit (λ ) εc (λ ) Eb (λ, Tc ) Fd Aemit − Ac External quantum efficiency (ηext) 0.82

+ ∫0 1−ρemit (λ ) ρc (λ ) FdAemit − Ac
dλ
(7)
Internal quantum efficiency (ηint) 0.9
Dark Current at 20 °C (I0) 10.8 (µA)
Series resistance (Rs) 29.9 (mΩ)
where εemit is emissivity of the emitter and ρemit and ρc are reflectivity of Shunt resistance (Rsh) 204 (Ω)
the emitter and PV cell respectively. The view factor FdAemit→Ac con- Ideality factor (n0) 1.123
siders the probability of reaching the emitted photon from the dAemit on
the emitter to Ac of the PV cell and is calculated as follows:
(A) and voltage (V). Eq. (11) shows the IV characterization of the PV
FdAemit − Ac = ∫ cosθemit
πS 2
cosθc
dAc
IV
cell and its maximum power output is calculated by ∂ ∂V ( )
= 0.
Pmax
Ac (8) PV cell is assumed to be maintained at 293 K by applying a heat sink
module which dissipates the additional heat that may harm the PV cell.
In this formula, θemit and θc represent the angles among normal
The data used for STPV power calculation are presented in Table 1.
vector of the emitter and PV cell surface and S is the line connecting
these two surfaces (m).
2.2. Solid oxide electrolyzer electrochemical modeling
The last radiative heat flux assigned to the side wall heat losses and
is calculated as follows:
Electrolysis reaction in SOEC is an electrochemical splitting of water
∞
qside − wall = − ∫0 εside − wall (λ )[Eb (λ, Tside − wall )−Eb (λ, Tsurr )] dλ (9)
into hydrogen and oxygen which can be achieved only by providing
electrical and thermal energy. The total energy demand is:
where the εside-wall is the emissivity from the side wall of the STPV de- ΔH = ΔG + T ΔS (12)
vice. In these equations as it shows the Tabs, Temit, Tside-wall and Tsurr
represent the absolute temperature of absorber, emitter, side-wall and The required heat for the electrolysis increases by increasing the
surrounding respectively. operating temperature [55]. The required electrical energy for splitting
The total generated photocurrent in the InGaAsSb PV cell (Iph) is H2O is gained by multiplication of applied voltage over the two elec-
considered as the effect of both direct emission and indirect reflection trodes and the current flow:
between the emitter and the PV cell and is calculated as follows [47]: W = Vcell × Ifaraday (13)
∞ λ εemit (λ ) Eb (λ, Temit ) Ifaraday = RUn H2 Oin zF (14)
Iph = ∫A ∫0
c
e ηext (λ ) FdAemit − Ac
hc 1−ρemit (λ ) ρc (λ ) FAemit −Ac 2
dλdA
(10)
where RU is the water utilization, z is the number of the transmitted
where e is an elementary electric charge (coulomb), h is plank coeffi- electron (in water electrolysis it is 2), n is the water molar flow rate and
cient (J·s), c is the light speed in vacuum (m/s) and ηext represents the F is the Faraday’s constant, 96,487 C/mol. By assuming reversible op-
external quantum efficiency of the PV cell and Ac is the cell surface area eration, Δ Sirr is zero, = T ΔS , and W = ΔH −T ΔS = ΔG ; hence,
(m2). Fig. 5 illustrates the single diode equivalent circuit model for an ΔG
externally illuminated PV cell. This model commonly used for solar Vrev =
zF (15)
cells [57] and consists of a current source and a diode. Current source
demonstrates the generated photocurrent in the circuit and the diode And based on some empirical data [58] it can be calculated as fol-
formed from series and shunt resistances. The electrical power gen- lows:
eration of the cell can be obtained by using the following equation for Vrev = −0.000281T + 1.2771 (16)
single diode equivalent circuit model of the cell:
However, the actual cell voltage is affected by many different
e (V + IRs ) ⎞ ⎞ V + IRs overpotentials and therefore is higher than the reversible voltage in
I = Iph−I0 ⎜⎛exp ⎛ ⎜ −1⎟− ⎟

⎝ nkb Tc ⎠ ⎠ Rsh
⎝
where the Iph represents photocurrent (A), I0 is the diode dark current
(A), Rs and Rsh are the series and shunt resistances (Ω) and are de-
termined by the experimental data reported by Dashiell et al. [46].
e / nkb Tc is the thermal voltage and I and V represent the terminal current
(11) order to be able to overcome resistances. These overpotentials are
ohmic, activation and concentration overpotentials:
Vcell = VNernst + ηOhmic + ηActivation + ηConcentration (17)
Nernst voltage is the voltage of the cell when no current is flowing,
so it is also called open circuit voltage and can be expressed as follows:

Fig. 5. Equivalent circuit model for an illuminated photovoltaic cell [51].

279
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286

RT ⎛ PH2 O ⎞ Table 2
VNernst = Vrev . + ln ⎜ ⎟ Input parameters of the solid oxide electrolyzer [55].
zF ⎝ PH2 PO0.5
2 ⎠ (18)
Parameters Value
Ohmic losses or resistance polarization is the electrical resistance of
the electrodes, interconnections, electrical contacts and ionic resistance Geometry
Cell size (A) 20 cm × 20 cm
of the electrolyte and depends on the material and geometry of the cell.
Cell active area 3240 (cm2)
Actually, it is the electrical energy waste in the form of heat production Anode thickness (δ) 17.5 × 10−6 (m)
according to the Ohm’s law. For ohmic overpotential of the cell, ionic Electrolyte thickness (δ) 12.5 × 10−6 (m)
resistant of the electrolyte is a more effective parameter and the gov- Cathode thickness (δ) 312.5 × 10−6 (m)
erning equation is as follows: Pores diameter (Dpore) 0.5 × 10−6 (m)
Porosity 0.3
ηOhmic = JR (19) Tortuosity 5

Activation polarization parameters

In this equation J is operating current density and R is the sum- Anode exchange current density 6500 (A/m2)
mation of ionic, electronic and contact resistant of the cell and is cal- Cathode exchange current density 2500 (A/m2)
culated as follows: Anode activation energy 100,000 (J/mole)
Cathode activation energy 117,000 (J/mole)
R = ρa δa + ρc δc + ρel δel (20)
Concentration polarization parameters
where ρ and δ are electrical resistivity (Ω) and thickness (m) of anode, Anode effective diffusion coefficient (Daeff) 2 × 10−5 (m2/s)
Cathode effective diffusion coefficient (Dcaeff) 5.11 × 10−5 (m2/s)
cathode, and electrolyte respectively. Electrical resistivity depends on
the temperature and is defined as follows:
10300 Table 3
ρ = 2.99 × 10−5exp( ) Comparison of experimental data with modeled results.
T (21)

where T in absolute temperature. The activation overpotential on both SOEC STPV

electrodes occurs in order that ions can overcome the electric field Current Cell voltage (V) @1023 K Abs/Emitter Power (W/cm2)
produced because of charged particles transferring across the interface. density (A/ Temperature (K)
Another effective phenomena in generating activation polarization is m2) EXP. [60] Model EXP. [47] Model
the chemical equilibrium state of ions at the electrode-electrolyte in-
750 1.01376 1.0134 890 0.0315 0.0274
terface [48]. Hence, the free energy of activation consists of two parts
1500 1.04846 1.04773 940 0.0560 0.0452
including the chemical energy of activation and electrical contribution 2240 1.08159 1.0783 990 0.0834 0.0725
to it. A compact applicable expression to calculate the activation po- 3000 1.1163 1.105 1050 0.1297 0.1147
larization is Bulter-Volmer equation which is defined as follows: 3730 1.14942 1.1307 1120 0.1924 0.1815
4472 1.18412 1.1621 1140 0.2250 0.2101
αnFηAct , i (1−α ) nFηAct , i ⎞ ⎤ 5222 1.2204 1.1975 1290 0.4074 0.4224
J = J0 ⎡
⎢exp
⎛ ⎜
⎞−exp ⎛⎜− ⎟ ⎟
⎥
⎣ ⎝ RT ⎠ ⎝ RT ⎠⎦ (22)

where R is the gas constant which is 8.314 J/(mol·K), T is the cell Table 4
Equations used for calculation of STPV’s component efficiency.
temperature, F is the Faraday constant, n is the number of electron and
α is the charge transfer coefficient and is mostly assumed to be 0.5 in Components efficiency
modeling. So the equation turns to:
Absorber efficiency qin − qreflect − qre − emit − qside − wall
ηabsorber = ⎛ ⎞
Fηact , i ⎝ qin ⎠
J = 2J0, i sinh ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
Emitter efficiency qE − PV , E ≥ Eg
⎝ zRT ⎠ (23) ηemit =
qE − PV + qsurr
Cell efficiency ηcell =
Pe
By applying Taylor series, the following linear approximation is qE − PV , E ≥ Eg
obtained:
RT J
ηact , i = sinh−1 Table 5
F 2J0, i (24)
Main specification for SOEC system simulation.
where J0,i is exchange current density for i which is anode and cathode
General Parameters Value
and depends on the kinetics of the electrode reaction:
Ambient Temperature (°C) 30
Eact , i
J0, i = γi exp ⎛− ⎞ Ambient Pressure (bar) 1
⎝ RT ⎠ (25) Equation of state Peng-Robinson

Hence, the total activation polarization is: Stack Simulation Specification

Reactor type RSTOIC
ηActivation = ηAct , c + ηAct , a (26) Feed water flowrate (kmol/h) 414
Stack operating pressure (bar) 1.5
The concentration polarization occurs due to mass transfer limita- Stack pressure drop (bar) 0.5
tions through the porous electrodes and so is a function of a con- Stack operating temperature (°C) 750
Operating current density (A/m2) 7500
centration gradient of the reactants in each electrodes surfaces.
H2% inlet to the cathode 10
Actually, it is mainly caused by a low steam concentration at the Steam conversion in reactor (%) 60
cathode side and is calculated as follows [55]:
Pump Specification
c JRTδ Pump required power (kW) 0.37
⎡⎛ 1 + eff ⎞⎤ Capacity (m3/h) 11.82
RT ⎢ ⎜ 2FD H P0
ηConc, c = Ln ⎢ 2 O H2 ⎟⎥ Pressure change (bar) 0.5
nF JRTδ c ⎥
⎢ ⎜ 1− 2FD eff P 0 ⎟⎥ Product temperature (°C) 37.2
⎣⎝ H2 O H2 O ⎠⎦ (27)

280
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286

1/2 ṁ H2 × LHVH2
RT ⎡ ⎛ JRTδa ⎞ ⎤ ηoverall =
ηConc, a = ln ⎢ 1 + ⎥ Qsolar (33)
nF ⎢ ⎜ 4FD eff 0 ⎟
O2 PO2 ⎠ ⎥
⎣⎝ ⎦ (28)
Based on this equation the calculated overall efficiency of the
where n is the number of electrons, F is Faraday constant, Deff is ef- system is 33%.
fective diffusion coefficient (m2/s) of the mentioned components (H2O
and O2), P is partial pressure of the mentioned component (atm) and δc 5. Result and discussion
and δa are the cathode and anode thickness (m).
Thus, total concentration polarization is: The STPV system modeling and electrochemical analysis of SOEC
ηConcentration = ηConc, c + ηConc, a (29) are performed in MATLAB software while the thermodynamic analysis
of the SOEC is done with Aspen-Plus software. Table 5 provides the
Table 2 presents the cell parameters, use assumptions and the re- main specification for SOEC system simulation and Table 6 provides the
quired data for cell voltage calculation [37,60,61]. The electrical power thermodynamic properties of all streams in the simulated high-tem-
consumption is evaluated by: perature electrolyzer at Aspen Plus.
PCell = VCell JACell NCell (30) For evaluation of the SOEC performance, the effect of cell operating
temperature on the cell potential and power densities based on the
where P is power consumption of the cell, V is actual voltage, J is changing operating current density is investigated. As shown in Fig. 6,
current density, A is the active area of the cell and N is the number of cell potential and power density increase by current density while the
cells. effect of increasing the cell temperature decreases the cell potential and
consequently the power density. This result could be predicted based on
3. Validation the reverse relationship between the thermal and electrical requirement
of the cell. For investigation of the effect of different polarizations in
Accuracy of the model in each part is validated by comparing the cell performance, Fig. 7 has been extracted by drawing activation,
model outputs with experimental data. SOEC model was compared with ohmic and concentration polarization against current density alteration
experimental results reported by Ebbesen et al. [60]. STPV device at the operating temperature of 1023 K. The most dominant irreversible
modeling was evaluated by comparing the result with experimental voltage loss in the cell is activation overpotential and then ohmic loss
data reported by Lenert et al. [35]. The comparison is reported in has the significant effect and less effective one is concentration polar-
Table 3. Results of the present work have an acceptable agreement with ization. As it was predicted, by increasing the current density in the
the data in the previous literature. In SOEC model there is more range of this analysis the cell polarizations increase as well. While
agreement in lower current densities. The small discrepancy is due to ohmic overpotential has a linear trend, the activation loss has a non-
the losses in the experimental setup and minor difference like cell size linear path.
and sweeping gas usage. Fig. 8, shows the polarizations variation in a specific operating
temperature range and current density 7500 A/m2. Variations are ac-
4. Energy analysis and efficiency cording to the recognized phenomena. In lower temperatures, the
ohmic polarization is high, while by increasing the temperature this
In STPV devices solar energy is converted in different levels until kind of loss decreases dramatically. Activation polarization increases
radiate to the PV cell hence, the overall conversion efficiency is a linearly towards the temperature, while temperature has a negligible
multiplication of conversion efficiency in each step. Therefore the effect on the concentration polarization. By enhancing the operating
overall efficiency is defined as follows [42]: temperature from 850 K up to 1000 K the voltage loss is significant,
ηoverall = ηcollector × ηabsorber ×ηemitter ×ηcell around 0.8 V. As it is observed and expected from the thermodynamic
(31)
concept, the Nernst voltage decreases slightly by increasing the tem-
Table 4 presents the relative equations for calculation of the com- perature.
ponent efficiency. For more clarification about activation polarization, which has the
In the SOEC, energy efficiency has a reverse proportion of the cell pivotal role in high-temperature electrolysis polarizations, Fig. 9 was
potential. Current density increases with cell potential and subse-
quently hydrogen production increases. So in SOEC, there is always a Table 6
matter of trade-off between energy efficiency and hydrogen production. Thermodynamic properties of the streams for simulated SOEC.
As experimental tests showed, lower hydrogen production which is the Stream Temperature (°C) Pressure (bar) Mole Flow (kmol/h)
consequence of low current density results in less cell degradation and
high lifetime. All these system considerations highlight the importance Feed water 30.00 1 414.00
1 37.15 1 644.49
of trade-off in efficiency, cost and hydrogen production rate in a high-
2 37.17 1.5 644.49
temperature electrolyzer cell. Another significant point in the calcula- 3 100.00 1.5 644.49
tion of SOEC efficiency is that although pure oxygen is produced during 4 100.00 1.5 322.24
this process as a byproduct and only hydrogen considers as the useful 5 100.00 1.5 322.24
output. SOEC efficiency can be obtained from the following equation: 6 750.00 1.5 322.24
7 750.00 1.5 322.24
ṁ H2 × LHVH2 8 750.00 1.5 644.49
ηSOEC = 9 748.42 1 771.75
̇
Pst + Ppump + QSOEC (32)
10 750.00 1 978.75
11 750.00 1 207.00
In which the lower heating value for hydrogen is 120,210 kg/kj and
12 750.00 1 771.75
Pst and Ppump are the electrical demand of stack and pump respectively. 13 739.97 1 771.75
The overall hybrid system performance based on the assumptions 14 739.97 1 127.27
and defined equations can be evaluated. According to the first law of 15 739.97 1 644.49
the thermodynamics, the overall efficiency is the ratio of the produced 16 50.00 1 644.49
17 50.00 1 230.49
hydrogen at the solid oxide electrolyzer cell based on the lower heating
Pure H2 50.00 1 414.00
value (LHV) and the received solar radiation by solar absorber of the Pure O2 30.00 1 207.00
solar-thermophotovoltaic system as follows:

281
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286

1.50 18,000

1.40 16,000

1.30 14,000

1.20 12,000
Cell Potential (V)

Power (W/m2)
1.10 10,000

1.00 8,000

Cell Potential - T=973 K

0.90 6,000
Cell Potential - T=1073
Cell Potential - T=1023 K
0.80 Cell Potential - T=1123 K 4,000
Power - T=973 K
0.70 Power - T=1023 K 2,000
Power - T=1073 K
Power - T=1123 K
0.60 0
500 2,500 4,500 6,500 8,500 10,500
Current Density (A/m2)
Fig. 6. Effect of changing in current density to cell potential and power consumption in different temperatures.

0.4 1.4

0.35 1.2

0.3
1

Cell Potential (V)

Polarizations (V)

0.25 Activation Polarization

Ohmic Polarization 0.8
0.2
Concentration Polarization
0.6
0.15 Cell Voltage

0.4
0.1

0.05 0.2

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Current Density (A/m2)
Fig. 7. Effect of changing current density on the cell polarizations.

drawn to analyze this specific polarization at 1023 K by changing the
current density. This kind of overvoltage produces because of electrode
kinetics. The charge which is going to transmit between the chemical
species and electrodes should overcome this overpotential and its
amount depends on the electrodes’ catalytic properties. Activation
overpotential consists of cathodic and anodic losses and the share of
anodic activation polarization is far larger than the cathodic one as
shown in Fig. 9. Activation polarization is nonlinear as it is calculated
by Bulter-Volmer equation and transmitting the electric current
through the cell.
Fig. 10 shows the effect of anode and cathode concentration po-
larization on the total concentration loss. Anode concentration is very
low and negligible and it is due to very low anode thickness and lower
anode functionality, while in the thicker cathode the concentration
polarization is much more.
Fig. 11 shows variation of steam utilization factor with power and
cell potential. Steam utilization factor is preferred to be as low as
possible as it is obvious from this figure. However, in a given H2 pro-
duction rate, reduction in steam utilization factor increase the cathode
steam flow rate. In this regard concentration overpotential causes
stream starvation at the stack outlet. Therefore, it is important to
choose the appropriate steam utilization factor by considering the op-
timum overall efficiency.
Fig. 12 shows the variation of stack power and required heat with
operating temperature variation. Obviously, by increasing the oper-
ating temperature, the electrical power consumption decreases. Also in
higher temperatures, cell potential losses decreases and thus internal
heat generation decreases too. That’s why the heat rate increases with
the operating temperature.
Performance and overall efficiency of the hybrid system can be

282
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286

1.2 2.4

2.2
1

2
0.8 Vnernst

Cell Potential (V)

Polarizations (V)

Ohmic Polarization
1.8
0.6 Activation Polarization
Concentration Polarization 1.6
Cell Potential
0.4
1.4

0.2
1.2

0 1
850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
Temperature (K)
Fig. 8. Changes in different polarizations and overall cell potential with change of operating temperature.

0.3

0.25 Anode Activation

Activation Polarization (V)

Cathode Activation
0.2
Activation loss

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Current density (A/m2)
Fig. 9. Activation polarization change by changing the current density.

0.012
Concentration Polarization (V)

0.01 Concentration Polarization

Cathode Concentration
0.008
Anode Concentration

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Current Density (A/m2)
Fig. 10. Concentration polarization change by changing the current density.

283
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286

1.35 14,000

1.33
12,000
1.31
Cell Potential (V)
1.29 10,000

Power (W/m2)
1.27
8,000
1.25
6,000
1.23

1.21 4,000
Cell Potential
1.19
Power 2,000
1.17

1.15 0
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
Steam Utilization Factor
Fig. 11. The effect of steam utilization factor on cell potential and power consumption.

18,000 2,35,000

17,000
2,34,500
16,000

15,000
2,34,000
14,000

Q stack (W)
Power (W)

13,000 2,33,500

12,000
Power 2,33,000
11,000
Qst
10,000
2,32,500
9,000

8,000 2,32,000
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150
Temperature (K)
Fig. 12. Change of power and stack heat by changing the operating temperature.

Table 7 overall efficiency changes subsequently. Table 7 shows the STPV and
Efficiency of the subsystems and hybrid system in two different cases. SOEC and overall system efficiency based on the simulated parameters
Parameter Efficiency (%) H2 Production rate (kg/h)
in two cases. In both cases, solar radiation is 75 W/cm2 and absorber
temperature around 1230 K. In case 1, SOEC stack operates at 700 °C
STPV SOEC Overall and in the case 2 the stack operating temperature is 750 °C.
Case 1 17 51 32 7295
Case 2 17 54 34 7458 6. Conclusion

In this study, a novel integrated system including solar-thermo-

calculated by changing the effective parameters in STPV, such as con-
centration solar ratio and absorber to emitter area ratio which changes
the absorption of solar irradiance and affects the total efficiency. Also in
SOEC side by changing the operating temperature, SOEC efficiency, and
photovoltaic device and a high-temperature solid oxide electrolyzer cell
is proposed and investigated for pure hydrogen production as the main
product and nearly pure oxygen as the valuable byproduct. In this in-
tegrated system, the required power for steam electrolyzer is provided
by a series of STPV devices. A detailed system model analysis on STPV

284
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya
device is performed. In addition, a sensitivity analysis is executed to
evaluate the effects of current density and temperature on high-tem-
perature electrolyzer cell performance. The result indicates that a trade-
off between cell potential, power density, and efficiency with respect to
current density should be done. The efficiency of the STPV and SOEC in
the designed condition are approximately 17% and 54% respectively. It
is recognized that STPV’s are efficient scalable solar energy converters
which can be a promising method for utilizing solar energy as an
electricity source in high-temperature electrolyzer cells in the near fu-
ture. As STPV’s are an emerging technology that is currently under wide
investigation by scholars. The efficiency of these devices can be en-
hanced by better spectral control and ability to operate efficiently under
higher temperatures. They still exhibit only 30–50% of their thermo-
dynamic efficiency limit [47] and have the potential to enhance the
efficiency by further optimization in geometry and material. To achieve
higher efficiency, it is required to optimize the design parameters in
each subsystem in future works. Also it recommended to build the ex-
perimental setup for further investigation about the actual efficiency
and validating the theoretical results. In the further investigation, the
different configuration of the STPV cell and different material as the
absorber and emitter should be taken into consideration and the results
can be compared with the current article.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of
university of Tehran for this research under grant number 27636/01/
01.
References
[1] Aghaie M, Mehrpooya M, Pourfayaz F. Introducing an integrated chemical looping
hydrogen production, inherent carbon capture and solid oxide fuel cell biomass
fueled power plant process configuration. Energy Convers Manag Sep.
2016;124:141–54.
[2] Mohammadi A, Mehrpooya M. Exergy analysis and optimization of an integrated
micro gas turbine, compressed air energy storage and solar dish collector process. J
Clean Prod 2016;139:372–83.
[3] Mehrpooya M, Rahbari C, Moosavian SMA. Introducing a hybrid multi-generation
fuel cell system, hydrogen production and cryogenic CO2 capturing process. Chem
Eng Process Process Intensif Oct. 2017;120:134–47.
[4] Dincer I, Acar C. Innovation in hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42(22):14843–64.
[5] Dincer I, Acar C. Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for better
sustainability. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015.
[6] Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas A. A comparative overview of hydrogen production pro-
cesses. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:597–611.
[7] Mueller-Langer F, Tzimas E, Kaltschmitt M, Peteves S. Techno-economic assessment
of hydrogen production processes for the hydrogen economy for the short and
medium term. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(16):3797–810.
[8] AlZahrani AA, Dincer I. Design and analysis of a solar tower based integrated system
using high temperature electrolyzer for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2016;41(19):8042–56.
[9] Mohammadi A, Mehrpooya M. A comprehensive review on coupling different types
of electrolyzer to renewable energy sources. Energy 2018;158.
[10] AlZahrani AA, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Performance evaluation of a geothermal based
integrated system for power, hydrogen and heat generation. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2013;38(34):14505–11.
[11] Ursúa A, San Martín I, Barrios EL, Sanchis P. Stand-alone operation of an alkaline
water electrolyser fed by wind and photovoltaic systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2013;38(35):14952–67.
[12] Zamfirescu C, Dincer I. Assessment of a new integrated solar energy system for
hydrogen production. Sol Energy 2014;107:700–13.
[13] Baniasadi E. Concurrent hydrogen and water production from brine water based on
solar spectrum splitting: process design and thermoeconomic analysis. Renew
Energy 2017;102:50–64.
[14] Kumar S. Clean Hydrogen ProductionMethods 2015;2.
[15] Lim CK, Liu Q, Zhou J, Sun Q, Chan SH. High-temperature electrolysis of synthetic
seawater using solid oxide electrolyzer cells. J Power Sources 2017;342:79–87.
[16] Dincer I. Green methods for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37(2):1954–71.
[17] Bičáková O, Straka P. Production of hydrogen from renewable resources and its
effectiveness. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(16):11563–78.
[18] AL-Rousan N, Isa NAM, Desa MKM. Advances in solar photovoltaic tracking sys-
tems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82(January 2017):2548–69.
[19] Kizilkan O, Kabul A, Dincer I. Development and performance assessment of a
285
Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286
parabolic trough solar collector-based integrated system for an ice-cream factory.
Energy 2016;100:167–76.
[20] Steinfeld A. Solar thermochemical production of hydrogen a – review. Sol Energy
2005;78(5):603–15.
[21] Abid M, Ratlamwala TAH, Atikol U. Solar assisted multi-generation system using
nanofluids: a comparative analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(33):21429–42.
[22] Mohammadi A, Mehrpooya M. Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen production
by solid oxide electrolyzer coupled with dish collector. Energy Convers Manag
2018;173:167–78.
[23] Moradi Nafchi F, Baniasadi E, Afshari E, Javani N. Performance assessment of a
solar hydrogen and electricity production plant using high temperature PEM elec-
trolyzer and energy storage. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017:1–12.
[24] Parra D, Patel MK. Techno-economic implications of the electrolyser technology
and size for power-to-gas systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(6):3748–61.
[25] Ferrero D, Lanzini A, Santarelli M, Leone P. A comparative assessment on hydrogen
production from low- and high-temperature electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2013;38(9):3523–36.
[26] Mansilla C, Sigurvinsson J, Bontemps A, Maréchal A, Werkoff F. Heat management
for hydrogen production by high temperature steam electrolysis. Energy
2007;32(4):423–30.
[27] Ni M, Leung MKH, Leung DYC. An electrochemical model of a solid oxide steam
electrolyzer for hydrogen production. Chem Eng Technol 2006;29(5):636–42.
[28] Ni M, Leung MKH, Leung DYC. Mathematical modeling of the coupled transport and
electrochemical reactions in solid oxide steam electrolyzer for hydrogen produc-
tion. Electrochim Acta 2007;52(24):6707–18.
[29] Kotisaari M, Thomann O, Montinaro D, Kiviaho J. Evaluation of a SOE stack for
hydrogen and syngas production: a performance and durability analysis. Fuel Cells
2017;17(4):571–80.
[30] Sandeep KC, et al. Experimental studies and modeling of advanced alkaline water
electrolyser with porous nickel electrodes for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2017;42(17):12094–103.
[31] Stempien JP, Liu Q, Ni M, Sun Q, Chan SH. Physical principles for the calculation of
equilibrium potential for co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide in a Solid
Oxide Electrolyzer Cell (SOEC). Electrochim Acta 2014;147:490–7.
[32] Arashi H, Naito H, Miura H. Hydrogen production from high-temperature steam
electrolysis using solar energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1991;16(9):603–8.
[33] Liepa MA, Borhan A. High-temperature steam electrolysis: technical and economic
evaluation of alternative process designs. Int J Hydrogen Energy
1986;11(7):435–42.
[34] Lin M, Haussener S. Techno-economic modeling and optimization of solar-driven
high-temperature electrolysis systems. Sol Energy 2017;155:1389–402.
[35] Stempien JP, Ni M, Sun Q, Chan SH. Production of sustainable methane from re-
newable energy and captured carbon dioxide with the use of Solid Oxide
Electrolyzer: a thermodynamic assessment. Energy 2015;82:714–21.
[36] Luo Y, Shi Y, Li W, Ni M, Cai N. Elementary reaction modeling and experimental
characterization of solid oxide fuel-assisted steam electrolysis cells. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2014;39(20):10359–73.
[37] Luo Y, Shi Y, Li W, Cai N. Comprehensive modeling of tubular solid oxide elec-
trolysis cell for co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide. Energy
2014;70:420–34.
[38] Ni M. An electrochemical model for syngas production by co-electrolysis of H2O and
CO2. J Power Sources 2012;202:209–16.
[39] Ni M. 2D thermal modeling of a solid oxide electrolyzer cell (SOEC) for syngas
production by H2O/CO2 co-electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37(8):6389–99.
[40] Zhang C, et al. Modelling of solid oxide electrolyser cell using extreme learning
machine. Electrochim Acta 2017;251:137–44.
[41] Bierman DM, et al. Enhanced photovoltaic energy conversion using thermally based
spectral shaping. Nat Energy 2016;1(6):16068.
[42] Nam Y, et al. Solar thermophotovoltaic energy conversion systems with two-di-
mensional tantalum photonic crystal absorbers and emitters. Sol Energy Mater Sol
Cells 2014;122:287–96.
[43] Veeraragavan A, Ph D, Shum PW. Modeling of heat losses from a PCM storage tank
for solar thermophotovoltaic systems. J Energy Eng 2017;143(5):1–12.
[44] Liao T, Chen X, Yang Z, Lin B, Chen J. Parametric characteristics of a solar ther-
mophotovoltaic system at the maximum efficiency. Energy Convers Manag
2016;126:205–9.
[45] Xu S, Shuai Y, Zhang J, Huang X, ping Tan H. Performance optimization analysis of
solar thermophotovoltaic energy conversion systems. Sol Energy 2017;149:44–53.
[46] Jiang D, Yang W. Refractory material based frequency selective emitters/absorbers
for high efficiency and thermal stable thermophotovoltaics. Sol Energy Mater Sol
Cells 2017;163(December 2015):98–104.
[47] Lenert A, et al. A nanophotonic solar thermophotovoltaic device (Supplementary
Information). Nat Nanotechnol 2014;9(9):126–30.
[48] Rinnerbauer V, et al. Metallic photonic crystal absorber-emitter for efficient spectral
control in high-temperature solar thermophotovoltaics. Adv Energy Mater
2014;4(12):1–10.
[49] Wang H, Chang JY, Yang Y, Wang L. Performance analysis of solar thermo-
photovoltaic conversion enhanced by selective metamaterial absorbers and emit-
ters. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2016;98:788–98.
[50] Zayan A, Stevens M, Vandervelde TE. GaAsBi alloys for photovoltaic and thermo-
photovoltaic applications. In: Conf. Rec. IEEE Photovolt. Spec. Conf., vol.
2016–Novem, no. 2; 2016. p. 2839–43.
[51] Dashiell MW, et al. Quaternary InGaAsSb thermophotovoltaic diodes. IEEE Trans
Electron Dev 2006;53(12):2879–88.
[52] Shockley W, Queisser HJ. Detailed balance limit of efficiency of p-n junction solar
R. Daneshpour, M. Mehrpooya
cells. J Appl Phys 1961;32(3):510–9.
[53] Houaijia A, Roeb M, Monnerie N, Sattler C. Solar power tower as heat and elec-
tricity source for a solid oxide electrolyzer: a case study. Int J Energy Res
2015;39(March 2015):1120–30.
[54] Udagawa J, Aguiar P, Brandon NP. Hydrogen production through steam electro-
lysis : control strategies for a cathode-supported intermediate temperature solid
oxide electrolysis cell. J Power Sources 2008;180:354–64.
[55] AlZahrani AA, Dincer I. Thermodynamic and electrochemical analyses of a solid
oxide electrolyzer for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42(33):21404–13.
[56] Wang EN. Numerical Study of a Solar Thermophotovoltaic Energy; 2012. p. 1–7.
286
Energy Conversion and Management 176 (2018) 274–286
[57] Chan W, Huang R, Wang C, Kassakian J, Joannopoulos J, Celanovic I. Modeling
low-bandgap thermophotovoltaic diodes for high-efficiency portable power gen-
erators. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2010;94(3):509–14.
[58] Ren J, Gamble SR, Roscoe AJ, Irvine JTS, Burt G. Modeling a reversible solid oxide
fuel cell as a storage device within AC power networks. Fuel Cells
2012;12(5):773–86.
[60] Dalgaard Ebbesen S, Graves C, Mogensen M. Production of synthetic fuels by co-
electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide. Int J Green Energy 2009;66(January
2013):646–60.
[61] AlZahrani AA, Dincer I. Thermodynamic and electrochemical analyses of a solid
oxide electrolyzer for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016:1–10.