i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Design and economic analysis of high-pressure

proton exchange membrane electrolysis for
renewable energy storage

Jian Dang a, Yangyang Li a, Biao Liu a, Song Hu b, Fuyuan Yang a,*,

Minggao Ouyang a
a
School of Vehicle and Mobility, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
b
School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing

highlights graphical abstract

The economics of high-pressure

PEM electrolysis is analyzed.

Costs of technology routes with
and without compressors are
compared.

The impact of the fluctuation of
renewable energy is analyzed.

Critical influence of membrane
thickness in high-pressure elec-
trolyzer is discussed.

article info abstract

Article history: The proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis with a high-pressure cathode can
Received 22 June 2022 help avoid the utilization of a hydrogen compressor and improve the efficiency of
Received in revised form hydrogen transmission. The economic analysis of the entire process from hydrogen
15 November 2022 production to transportation was conducted in this study, and the advantages of high-
Accepted 21 November 2022 pressure PEM electrolysis were proved. The economic analysis has also illustrated the
Available online 29 December 2022 influence of the cathode pressure and membrane thickness involved in PEM electrolysis
on the energy consumption and capital expenditure of the electrolyzer from the per-
Keywords: spectives of hydrogen permeability, ohmic impedance, and structural design. Although
PEM the output pressure of hydrogen is increased several tens of times, the proper structure
High-pressure and unchanged thickness of the membrane can help satisfy the strength and safety re-
Expenditure quirements of the electrolyzer simultaneously. In addition, the energy consumption and
Compression cost increase associated with the high-pressure electrolyzer can be limited to an
Payback period acceptable range. The impact of the renewable energy scale on the decision and selection
for PEM or ALK is also analyzed; PEM has an advantage over ALK in large-scale renewable

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dangj18@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (J. Dang), fyyang@tsinghua.edu.cn (F. Yang).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.250
0360-3199/© 2022 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
10378 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3
energy hydrogen production scenarios because of its own wider upper and lower load
limits compared to those of ALK.
© 2022 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
A globally carbon-neutral society has become the common
goal and an increasing number of countries have been joining
the action recently. In addition, one important approach to
achieve this goal is to promote the production and utilization
of green hydrogen [1]. The possible hydrogen production
methods of carbon-based fuels and renewable energy have
been reviewed ([2,3]). Technical roads and challenges to
reduce the cost of green hydrogen produced by water elec-
trolysis including alkaline (ALK) electrolysis, proton exchange
membrane (PEM) electrolysis, solid oxide (SO) electrolysis, and
anion exchange membrane (AEM) electrolysis had been illus-
trated [4]. The technical maturity and commercialization of
the former two have progressed relatively. Therefore,
research on the practical applications of alkaline and PEM
electrolysis has progressed extremely rapidly [5].
The membrane and electrode structure adopted in PEM
electrolysis are thinner than those used in ALK; therefore, PEM
electrolysis offers a smaller ohmic resistance and higher cur-
rent density and efficiency. The polymer electrolyte membrane
has higher strength than a normal separator used in ALK to
withstand the large pressure difference between the two sides.
Thus, hydrogen under high-pressure can be produced directly
from the electrolyzer in this way instead of being compressed
with the mechanical compressors. Thus far, considerable
research has been focused on this hydrogen production tech-
nology. Kazim et al. [6] calculated the exergy efficiency of the
overall system including the electrolyzer, and the exergy effi-
ciency of the hydrogen and oxygen can be significantly
increased by improving the operating pressure. Exergy effi-
ciency was also been used by Martinez et al. [3] to analyze the
economy of different hydrogen production methods, and the
energy consumption of electrolysis. Degiorgis et al. [7] devel-
oped a laboratory-scale PEM electrolyzer operating under
pressures up to 20 bar, and they found that the overall energy
consumption of high-pressure electrolysis (from electricity to
high-pressure hydrogen) was superior. It was found that
adjusting the compression ratio of the compressor has a great
impact on energy consumption. Santarelli [8] operated the PEM
electrolyzer under medium and high-pressures (70 bar) with
advanced materials and improved design. They thought that a
considerable part of the water vapor present in the produced
hydrogen will condense under elevated pressure, which will
reduce the cost of hydrogen purification because the hydrogen
contains no moisture. Millet et al. [9,10] used a stainless-steel
pressure vessel connected to another flange to develop a PEM
electrolyzer operating in the pressure range of 1e50 bar. Their
research showed that the high-pressure has little effect on
voltage, but has a great impact on current efficiency and oxygen
purity. The increased energy is still significantly lower than the
energy required to compress hydrogen from atmospheric
pressure using a mechanical compressor, although the oper-
ating pressure has a negative impact on the energy consump-
tion of the electrolyzer. In addition, gas recombiners have been
used to manage explosion hazards in their research. Kolhe et al.
[11] studied the characteristics of the PEM electrolyzer under
different conditions of operating pressure and temperature and
they found that the conductivity of the PEM decreases non-
linearly with increasing pressure. Schalenbach et al. [12,13]
found that the pressure dependence of the gas solubility is
negligible under pressures lower than 50 bar based on the gas
crossover model; the impact of oxygen permeability on the
efficiency loss has been discussed as well. They also presented
a new additional electrode between the anode and cathode to
alleviate hydrogen crossover [14]. Suermann et al. [15] proposed
the intermediate differential pressure polymer electrolyte
water electrolysis that could improve OER kinetics; the elec-
trochemical compression up to 50 MPa based on Nafion 117 is
more effective than the 5-stages mechanical hydrogen
compressor, especially at high current densities. Sartory et al.
[16] claimed that high-pressure electrolysis shows potential for
more reliability and lower cost according to their experiments
(up to 155 bar) and modeling. Tjarks et al. [17] demonstrated
that the energy demand for hydrogen drying is reduced
because the water content of hydrogen decreases with an in-
crease in hydrogen pressure, which has been proved by Ishi-
kawa et al. [18]. The electrolyzer with the highest pressure
difference (700 bar) reported thus far has been developed and
its performance in terms of voltage/current efficiency and en-
ergy consumption for dehydration has been investigated. Kee
et al. [19] and Corgnale et al. [20] respectively presented the
high-pressure systems contained the electrochemical
hydrogen compressor. The former used the protonic-ceramic
compression with high temperature while the latter used
metal hydrides. Scheepers et al. [21] discussed the influence of
membrane thickness on system efficiency under different
pressure conditions and advocated that thinner membranes
should be used as much as possible to reduce energy con-
sumption. Further, there are also some preliminary studies on
ALK and SO water electrolysis about high-pressure technology.
Roy et al. [22] showed the influence of operating pressure on the
performance of ALK with the help of theoretical analysis and
simulation. The electrical energy efficiency of ALK will deteri-
orate because of several factors: the increase in reversible
voltage, slower coalescence of bubbles, ohmic loss caused by
metal hydrides, hydrogen loss in the oxygen separator. Holm
et al. [23] evaluated the economic feasibility of the high-
temperature and high-pressure ALK water electrolysis by
directly producing hydrogen at 200 bar. Balomenou et al. [24]
developed the solid oxide electrolyzer for space exploration for
operation under up to 1 MPa.
Bensmann et al. [25,26] compared the influence of different
compression paths and different compression pressure levels
on the energy consumption and efficiency of the overall
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3
system. The result indicated that atmospheric electrolysis
with mechanical compression is more economical than direct
high-pressure electrolysis when the pressure exceeds 45 bar
has been pointed out. Further, a method based on the mea-
surement of current for in-situ measurement of hydrogen
permeation has been developed [27]. Similarly, the conclusion
that the differential pressure operation is conducive to the
energy demand of hydrogen production within a certain
pressure range given by the same team [28]. Klose et al. [29]
and Martin et al. [30] presented and developed the composite
catalyst in the form of Pt-interlayer introduced directly into
the PEM by spraying to reduce the hydrogen permeation.
Garbe et al. [31] developed the Pt-doped membranes based on
the Nafion NR212 and it achieved the suppression of hydrogen
permeation under a certain pressure (30 bar). Zachert et al. [32]
analyzed the specific energy requirements of water electrol-
ysis (WE) and electrochemical hydrogen compressor (EHC),
both based on the PEM technology and pressurized up to
1000 bar; a very detailed calculation and modeling process has
been given.
The economic analysis of hydrogen systems with
hydrogen generation devices has been frequently discussed
and investigated. Gim et al. [33] elaborated on the economic
analysis of on-site hydrogen refueling station (OHRS) using
the life cycle assessment (LCA) method consisted of a one-
time initial capital investment (CI) of the system and oper-
ating cost accrued each year, in which the annual revenue,
annual operating cost, salvage value, discount rate, lifecycle
time, cost of electricity, labor cost, utility cost, maintenance
cost and other operating expenses are all considered in the
calculation. Lee et al. [34] adopted an economic analysis
method similar to that reported by Ref. [33]. Besides, the
relationship between the fixed investment and system ca-
pacity has been considered. Lee et al. [35,36] added the
sensitivity analysis of parameters using the Monte-Carlo
simulation method. However, their research did not indi-
cate the magnitude of the pressure and its influence on the
conclusions. Guo et al. [37] and Fragiacomo et al. [38,39] used
the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) as an important index
of economical evaluation. Guo et al. [37] analyzed the effects
of electrolyzer scale and outlet pressure levels on the LCOH
for ALK and PEM, respectively, and they reported that the
high-pressure electrolysis of hydrogen production can
significantly reduce LCOH without a significant increase in
the fixed investment. In addition, the impact of renewable
energy fluctuation on LCOH for ALK and PEM has been dis-
cussed. Fragiacomo et al. [38,39] carried out a comprehensive
technical and economic evaluation of the PEM hydrogen
production system that consists of the electrolyzer and
compressor.
Although there have been systematic studies on the eco-
nomic analysis of high-pressure PEM hydrogen production,
the economic analysis of the high-pressure PEM electrolyzer
itself is insufficient. As far as the author knows, no one
considered the capital expenditure (CAPEX) of the high-
pressure electrolyzer, especially when compared with that
of the atmospheric (balanced) electrolyzer. The numerical
simulation and calculation of hydrogen permeation under
high-pressure remain unclear, and this has led to opposite
conclusions obtained from some research on the issue “Is
10379
there economical advantages for hydrogen production by
high-pressure electrolysis?“. In addition, there are economic
differences attributed to different system capacity configura-
tions when coupling with fluctuating renewable energy
sources caused by the large difference in the load range be-
tween alkaline electrolysis and PEM electrolysis. This paper
has conducted a more detailed overview and discussion on
points.

A new electrolyzer design for direct high-pressure
hydrogen production is proposed, and an economic anal-
ysis of the high-pressure electrolyzer (including fixed in-
vestment) is given. The problem of the influence of film
thickness and pressure on hydrogen permeation is
emphasized.

The economics of direct high-pressure hydrogen produc-
tion and normal-pressure hydrogen production with
compression are analyzed and compared. Similarly, the
investment cost of compressor, operation and mainte-
nance cost, and the investment cost of electrolyzer are
considered.

The economic differences of the different types of elec-
trolyzers (alkaline and PEM) coupled with renewable en-
ergy (e.g., wind power) are compared.
Methodology of economic analysis
The economic analysis needs to consider the CAPEX and the
operating expenditure (OPEX) of the electrolyzer or
compressor. Besides that, the additional profits and revenue
from high-purity oxygen and ancillary services for the grid
must be reckoned in. Meanwhile, the LCOH is considered as
the only indicator to assess the economic performance of
different technical routes and its unit is dollar per kilogram of
hydrogen (USD/kg H2). Equation (1) is used to calculate the
LCOH value for each component. The state of the art in China
has been considered the basis for the subsequent analysis so
that the results have more reference significance for the
development of water electrolysis in China.
LCOH ¼ CCAPEX þ COPEX : (1)
Naturally, the scale capacity has a significant influence on
the CAPEX of equipment. Equation (2) yields the general
relationship between the capacity and the cost for equip-
ment such as an electrolyzer, a compressor, etc., where n is
the cost exponent usually taken as 0.6 if there is no reference.
Further, C and A represent the cost and capacity of equip-
ment, respectively. The depreciation rate is estimated with a
straight line method that can be expressed in Equation (3),
where, Re and N represent the residual value and service
lifetime of equipment in years, respectively. Further, this
method is applicable to all fixed assets concerned with this
study.

n
C1 A1
¼ ; (2)
C2 A2
1  Re
rdep ¼  100%: (3)
N
10380 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3

Design and economic analysis of high-pressure PEM water
electrolyzer
The LCOH for the electrolysis system can be divided into the
initial investment cost of the electrolyzer and operating cost.
The CAPEX of the electrolyzer depends on the status of the
technology development, especially the material price and
manufacturing process. The scenario is that the developing
level of the PEM water electrolysis in China is relatively
backward, whereas the ALK water electrolysis is considerably
advanced. In addition, the CAPEX of the electrolyzer will be
impacted by the output pressure level of hydrogen as the
structure design for high-pressure will be more complicated
than that of the normal or low pressure. For example, more
seal rings and grooves are used to prevent hydrogen from
leaking when the electrolyzer works under a large pressure
difference between the anode and the cathode. The doped
catalysts [31] and modified membranes [40] will be adopted to
suppress the crossover of hydrogen.
In addition, the OPEX of the electrolyzer is composed of
several items including electricity, water cost, labor force,
land lease, and maintenance. Some assumptions associated
with these factors have been made during the analysis pro-
cess. Electricity price depends almost entirely on the source of
electricity. The electricity from renewable (photovoltaic,
onshore and offshore wind, etc.) and conventional (fossil fuel)
are energy sources both considered in this study. In addition,
appropriate consideration is given to the impact of seasonal
and policy changes on electricity prices. Similarly, the capital
investment of water and land will be impacted by different
regions in China. As for the labor force and maintenance, the
cost of this part is estimated as a percentage of the CAPEX and
2% is considered in this study. In summary, the LCOH of the
high-pressure electrolysis can be denoted as
and the common equipment in the balance of plant (BoP) like
the purification system, oxygen separator, control system,
water pump, and so on. Besides, the cost of water consumed
and maintenance will not be considered in this study because
of their ignorable difference between the two electrolysis
methods. Thus, the expression of the LCOH of the hydrogen
produced by balanced or unbalanced electrolyzer can be
simplified as
TCI
LCOH ¼ pe we þ : (5)
GH2 sN
The same operation conditions are considered to simplify
the comparison of the electrolysis energy consumption for the
balanced and unbalanced electrolyzers; for example, the
electricity consumption of the electrolysis is calculated based
on one special electrolyzer whose key information is dis-
played in Table 1. The energy consumption difference be-
tween the balanced and unbalanced electrolyzers is mainly
affected by the cathode pressure and thickness of the mem-
brane. Further, the electricity consumption we and efficiency
of electrolysis he can be derived as Equations (6) and (7),
respectively. The hydrogen flow obtained from the outlet of
the cathode should be equal to the difference between that
calculated based on the current and that across the mem-
brane. In addition, the efficiency of the electrolyzer, he, can be
expressed as a function of cell voltage Ucell and the hydrogen
penetration across the membrane, n_ H2 , which is expressed
mem
as follows:
Icell Ucell
we ¼ ; (6)
n_ H2 ;out
eLHV n_ H2 ;out
he ¼ ; (7)
Icell Ucell

!
TCI eLHV 1 n_ H2
mem
LCOH ¼ pe we þ pw ww þ cOPEX þ : (4) he ¼  : (8)
GH2 sN Ucell 2F Icell
The first two terms on the right of the equation represent
It is important to consider hydrogen permeation and
the expenditure of electricity and water consumed during the
diffusion through the membrane during electrolysis to
electrolysis process. The price and consumption are marked
determine the condition and limitation of safety. The con-
with p and w in this analysis. cOPEX includes the maintenance
centration of hydrogen in the anode cannot be allowed to
cost, and the operation costs made up by land and labor. GH2
exceed the limitation of 4% or lower. However, a large pres-
represents the hydrogen production rate of the electrolysis
sure difference between the anode and the cathode inside the
equipment and positively related to the TCI of equipment. The
electrolyzer will lead to a more severe permeation for
stream factor of equipment s and its operating life N will
determine the economic estimation period together. It is
considered difficult to obtain the accurate; the value of s is
Table 1 e Basic assumptions associated with the
different when the hypothetical hydrogen production sce-
simulation.
nario is different and a great deal of work for investigating and
survey need to be completed to provide its precise value. It is Parameters of the electrolyzer Value
assumed to be 0.5 in this study, and it will not be discussed Anode exchange current density, ja,0 1  107 A/cm2
further because it is not the focus in this research. Cathode exchange current density, jc,0 1  103 A/cm2
Anode charge transfer coefficient, aa 2
In this section, the cost of the high-pressure differential
Cathode charge transfer coefficient, ac 0.5
(unbalanced) and balanced PEM water electrolysis are
Electronic resistance, Re 0.0002 U
compared considering the electricity consumption and capital Water content of membrane, lmem 23
investment. It is meaningless to estimate the cost of compo- Operating temperature, Tcell 333 K
nents and equipment shared by the two electrolyzers, which Operating current density, jcell 1.2 A/cm2
includes the same parts in the balanced and unbalanced Anode pressure, pano 1.0 atm
electrolyzers such as porous transport layers, flow filed plates, Active area, Acell 200 cm2
Thickness of membrane (balanced), dmem 183 mm
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3 10381

hydrogen from the cathode to the anode. Increasing the

thickness of the membrane can effectively resist the perme-
ation to some degree. The electrolysis voltage is positively
related to the thickness of the membrane. Equation (8) in-
dicates that it is beneficial to improve the electrolysis effi-
ciency by reducing voltage and hydrogen penetration.
Therefore, the relationship between hydrogen penetration
and voltage is a trade-off, and there exists an optimal mem-
brane thickness that allows for the maximum efficiency for a
given cathode pressure.
Thus, the zero-dimension mass transfer model of the high-
pressure differential electrolyzer is established in Simulink. In
Equation (9), the cell voltage is expressed as the sum of the
reversible potential and overpotentials caused by polarization.
Indeed, the ohmic overpotential loss of the membrane will
deteriorate as the thickness of the membranes increases.
Further, this part of the hydrogen will not be collected, and it
will not be built into the effective quantity of hydrogen gener-
ation; this means part of the current input into the electrolyzer
will not produce hydrogen. Naturally, this crossover phenom-
enon causes current loss Iloss, and it will reflect in the energy
consumption through n_ mem
H2 (Equation (8)). The influence of the
cathode pressure and membrane thickness on the crossover of
hydrogen is expressed as Equation (10), where, D and S repre-
sent the diffusion coefficient and solubility of hydrogen,
respectively; Kmem represents the permeability of the mem-
brane, and ccata
H2 represents the hydrogen concentration in the
cathode catalyst layer [41]. Indeed, the amount of hydrogen
crossover is directly affected by the cathode pressure, pcat
(anode is assumed to operate under atmospheric pressure), and
the membrane thickness, dmem. The basic parameters set for
the simulation are listed in Table 1. The influence of the
membrane thickness instead of the additional catalyst on the
efficiency and economy is discussed and analyzed in this study
because the effect of the additional catalyst on the permeability
of hydrogen remains unclear. As discussed above, the thick-
ness of the membrane will increase the energy consumption
according to Equations 6e10 and influence the conclusions.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
RT pH2 pO2 RT j facturer, application, and location. According to the report
Ucell ¼Urev þ ln þ arcsinh
2F aH2 O aa F 2j0;a
RT j jdmem
þ arcsinh þ þ jRe ;
ac F 2j0;c sm
n_ mem
H2 ¼ n_ dp _ diff
H2 þ nH2 ;
 conv

H2  pO2
Kmem cata pcat ano
E 1 1
n_ H2 ¼
dp
cH2 exp A  ; (11)
m dmem R T0 Tcell
"
#
ccata Ediff 1 1
n_ H2
diff H2
¼D exp A
 : (12)
dmem R T0 Tcell
The only difference between the balanced and unbalanced
electrolyzers in terms of operating conditions is the cathode
pressure; the anode pressure remains the same (both are at-
mospheric pressure). New sealing and insulation methods
must be adapted to overcome the huge pressure difference
between the anode and the cathode of the unbalanced elec-
trolyzer. Table 2 summarizes the differences between the
design and critical components of the balanced and unbal-
anced electrolyzers, such as the membrane electrode assem-
bly (MEA) and porous transport layer (PTL); O-rings are used
instead of sealing gaskets. Further, it is extremely challenging
to protect the fragile membrane from tearing when the O-
rings and seal grooves are arranged close to the membrane
under the large pressure difference. Additional protective
measures besides the catalyst layers and PTLs arranged on
both sides of the membrane need to be considered, and the
sub-gaskets are used to provide stronger protection to the
membrane in this study (Fig. 1). The sub-gaskets are suffi-
ciently strong to be torn by the sealing grooves and O-rings. An
additional PTL, whose area is equal to that of active area, is
used to maintain close contact between the catalyst and the
PTL because the thickness of the sub-gaskets is slightly higher
than that of the CCM. Further, it is necessary to place an
elastic disc spring between the flow field plate and end plate to
compensate for the deformation of the anode PTL squeezed by
the high-pressure hydrogen at the cathode. The electrolyzer is
tested and validated experimentally using hydrostatic and
electrolysis tests in Tsinghua; the experimental results proved
that this design can ensure the membrane is intact under the
pressure difference of 100 bar between the anode and the
cathode.
The technologies and manufacturing costs vary by manu-
released by the International Renewable Energy Agency
(9)
(IRNEA) in 2020, the stack represents slightly less than half of
the whole system cost for PEM electrolysis (Figure 2). For the
commercial PEM electrolyzer, the bipolar plates account for a
(10)

Table 2 e Major features of the two types of electrolyzers.

Items Balanced Unbalanced
(Atmospheric pressure) (High-pressure differential)
Hydrogen pressure (cathode) < 30 bar > 100 bar
Oxygen pressure (anode) 1 ~2 bar 1 ~2 bar
Sealing method Sealing gaskets O-rings
Insulation method Plastic sheets Varnished
PTL (cathode) Carbon cloth or felt Ti-media is preferred
PTL (anode) Ti-media (Sintered powder or fibers) Ti-media (Sintered powder or fibers)
Pattern of flow field Parallel usually Radial or parallel
Membrane Nafion 115 or 117 Nafion 117
Geometry of electrolyzer Square usually Circular
10382 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3

Fig. 1 e Structure of MEA and its protection.

Fig. 2 e Cost breakdown for a 1 MW PEM electrolyzer, moving from full system, to stack, to CCM [4].

significant proportion of the costs because titanium coated
with precious metals (platinum or iridium) is often used. The
catalyst coated membrane (CCM) represents another large
part of the cost because of the rare metals as well. In the
design for the unbalanced electrolyzer, new structure designs
for sealing and membrane protection are considered while the
other components such as PTL, CCM, and flow field are the
same as that for the balanced electrolyzer. Therefore, the
main difference between the capital expenditure for the two
types of electrolyzers is the additional cost of the new struc-
ture under the high-pressure operation condition. The costs
for these extra parts used for the 200-bar pressure electrolyzer
are listed in Table 3.
Another important part involves estimating the operating
expenditure because the high-pressure and unbalanced
operation can deteriorate the durability of the electrolyzer.
However, the impact of this mechanism on lifetime remains
unclear, quantitatively. A great deal of effort still should to be
invested in evaluating this quantitative degradation mecha-
nism with the help of acceleration experiments at the elec-
trolyzer level but not the electrocatalyst level. Therefore, the
relationship of the high-pressure operation and maintenance
costs are not considered in this study. It has been assumed

Table 3 e Cost breakdown for unbalanced electrolyzer (RMB against the US dollar exchange rate is calculated at 0.15).
Components Material Cost increase (USD/kW)
Sub-gaskets PEN ~11 (22 USD/m2)
Machining of sub-gaskets e ~5
PTLs of cathode Ti (Thickness ¼ 0.5 mm, fiber) ~110 (1950 USD/m2)
O-rings Silicone rubber ~9 (includes die cost)
Machining of metal parts Ti and stainless steel ~300
Increase in usage of stainless steel stainless steel ~150 (3000 USD/t)
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3 10383

   
that there is no difference in the operation and the mainte- Eex þ h Tcom
in ; pin out ; pout
 h Tcom ¼ 0;
com com
(13)
nance expenditure for the unbalanced and balanced operating
conditions. Further, the difference in the accessory system of    
in ; pin
s Tcom in ; pout
 s Tcom ¼ 0;
com com
(14)
the two is not obvious except for the hydrogen side separator
used to separate the high-pressure hydrogen from the where Eex is the term to be solved, and it represents the
mixture. The vessel used for hydrogen-water separation on amount of heat required to compress each mole of hydrogen.
the high-pressure side requires a stronger structural design, Tin, pin, Tout, and pout represent the temperature and pressure
which requires more steel and higher costs. of hydrogen at the inlet and the outlet in each process,
respectively.
Economic analysis of the hydrogen compressor When if the controlled temperature and pressure of the
inlet and outlet of each working process are known, the cor-
The cost for the hydrogen compressor includes two parts: the responding specific entropy and specific enthalpy can be ob-
initial investment and the cost for the electricity consump- tained by checking the table, and the energy consumed in the
tion required to compress the hydrogen. A fairly classic and adiabatic compression process can be solved using Equations
simple calculation method has been reported in earlier in (13) and (14). Simply, the energy consumption of the isobaric
literature for the energy consumption of compression; this cooling process can be approximately replaced by the heat
method is adopted in this article. Before describing this absorbed by the process. Meanwhile, the entropy change is
method, a few assumptions need to be considered. First, the not equal to zero but should be
compressor is adiabatic and reversible when considering the
    Eco
in ; pin
s Tcom in ; pout
 s Tcom  ¼ 0;
com com
energy balance; however, this does not match the actual (15)
DT
situation. Second, compressed hydrogen is considered
absolutely pure and does not contain any water vapor. The where Eco represents the heat exchange in the middle isobaric
compression process of the compressor is composed of two cooling process, and its unit is the same as the previous item
types of working processes based on the aforementioned Eex in Equation (13).
assumptions; adiabatic compression and isobaric cooling, as Bensmann et al. [25] reports the working process of a me-
shown in Fig. 3. An adiabatic compression process and chanical compressor with an outlet pressure of 31 bar (abso-
isobaric cooling can form a basic working unit according to lute pressure) and an inlet pressure of atmospheric pressure.
the theoretical compressor cycles. The number of basic The compression process is composed of four stages of
working units of compressors with different outlet pressures compression. The compression ratio of 2.34 ~2.36 for a single
is different, and the number of basic working units continues compression process can be estimated when the compression
to decrease given the development of the compressor ratio of each stage of the compression process is assumed to
technology. be equal. The working process of the compressor can be ob-
The enthalpy and entropy of the process can be used to tained as summarized in Table 4.
describe the state of energy for a single working process According to Equations (13) and (15), the energy consumed
(whether it is compression or cooling). The adiabatic in the four-stage adiabatic compression process and in the
compression process is focused on in this study. There is no three cooling processes can be calculated as
heat exchange with the outside world during this process
Eex ¼ 5343:35kJ=kg; (16)
except for the external work input; further, irreversible factors
are not considered. Therefore, the change of entropy becomes
Eco ¼ 937:36kJ=kg: (17)
zero as indicated by Equations (13) and (14).
Further, the total energy consumption is 1.74 kWh/kg. And
it is not considered the isentropic efficiency and mechanical
efficiency, which had been taken as 80% and 90% in the study
of Bensmann et al. [25], respectively. Thus, the actual energy
consumption of this compressor with an outlet pressure of
30 bar is 2.42 kWh/kg for hydrogen compression; however, the

Table 4 e Working processes and state parameters of the

compressor used in Ref. [25].
Stage T (K) p h (kJ/ s (kJ/ Dh Ds (kJ/
number (bar) kg) kg/K) (kJ/kg) kg/K)
1 in 333.00 1.00 4434.34 55.02 1331.07 e
out 425.00 2.36 5765.41 55.01 3.53
2 in 333.00 2.36 4435.04 51.48 1332.50 e
out 425.00 5.57 5767.54 51.46 3.52
3 in 333.00 5.57 4436.70 47.94 1335.88 e
out 425.00 13.14 5772.58 47.92 3.53
4 in 333.00 13.14 4440.62 44.39 1343.90 e
Fig. 3 e Two basic working processes of the hydrogen out 425.00 31.02 5784.52 44.37 e
compressor (adiabatic compression and isostatic cooling).
10384 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3

outlet pressure of the studied electrolyzer is 200 bar in this

study. 200 bar is selected because the current transportation
pressure of high-pressure hydrogen in China is 200 bar. This
article compares the economy of the two methods wherein
the hydrogen pressure of the electrolyzer is 200 bar and that of
the nonpressurized electrolysis is mechanically compressed
to reach 200 bar. Therefore, a compressor with an outlet
pressure of 220 bar is selected for energy consumption anal-
ysis. The basic parameters of the compressor are listed in
Table 5.
Table 5 indicates that the studied compressor has a two-
stage compression and a one-stage cooling link in the mid-
dle, and therefore, the heat exchange in the cooling process is
greatly reduced. In addition, the initial inlet pressure is 13 bar
instead of the normal pressure, and the compression ratio of
each stage is approximately 4.12. The initial inlet pressure is
higher for a compressor with a higher final pressure. This
conclusion can be obtained from Fig. 4. Similarly, the working Fig. 4 e Relationship between the compressor inlet and
processes of this compressor can be obtained, which is listed outlet compression ratios and the compressor power.
in Table 6.
Similarly, the energy consumption of a diaphragm
compressor with an outlet pressure of 220 bar can be obtained Table 6 e Working processes and state parameters of the
compressor used in this article.
based on Table 6 as
Stage T (K) p h (kJ/ s (kJ/ Dh (kJ/ Ds (kJ/
Eex ¼ 3922:25kJ=kg; (18) number (bar) kg) kg/K) kg) kg/K)
1 in 323.00 13.00 4296.88 43.69 1910.99 e
Eco ¼ 639:60kJ=kg: (19) out 453.00 53.56 6207.87 42.97 4.92
2 in 323.00 53.56 4317.70 38.05 2011.26
Therefore, the theoretical reversible energy consumption out 453.00 220.67 6328.96 37.15 e
of the compressor is 1.27 kWh/kg H2. If the reversible effi-
ciency of 72% is also considered, the actual energy con-
sumption is 1.76 kWh/kg H2. However, this value is obtained with the help of Fig. 4 once the ratio of the
considerably lower than the original energy consumption compressor inlet and outlet pressure is determined in the
value of 2.24 kWh/kg H2 (ratio of motor power to mass flow) subsequent compressor selection.
given by the compressor, and this is because of the lower For the investment cost of the compressor, the relationship
reversible efficiency. Fig. 4 shows the equivalent energy between the cost and power of the compressor with different
consumption, wcom (ratio of motor power to compression flow rates can be obtained based on Equation (2). The initial
mass flow rate), and the ratio of inlet and outlet pressure, investment of the hydrogen compressor with the outlet
rcom, for each compressor (red cross) based on the specifi- pressure of 220 bar is 240,000 USD, and the working power and
cations of 140 different diaphragm compressors. Theoreti- compression flow of the compressor is 160 kW and 800 Nm3/h,
cally, there is no direct quantitative relationship between respectively. Further, the approximate investment cost cor-
these two indicators; however, they are correlated with each responding to different outlet pressure levels can be obtained
other. Therefore, a rough fitting is performed and an by combining Equation (2). Another operating expenditure is
approximate logarithmic relationship is found between wcom for compressor maintenance because of the easily damaged
and rcom (solid blue line in Fig. 4) based on these commercial components of the hydrogen compressor; this part of the
products data. Although this curve is not applicable to all expenditure is estimated at 20,000 USD/year. The stream
compressors, it can be used for simple energy consumption factor of equipment s and the nominal life of the compressor
estimation for most compressors. Thus, the compressor en- N are respectively 0.5 and 20 years, and the depreciation rate is
ergy consumption level close to the actual scenario can be calculated at 8%.

Table 5 e Key parameters of the compressor used in our study.

Item Specification Item Specification
Inlet pressure (MPa) 1.0e1.7 Cylinder diameter (mm) 150/85
Outlet pressure (MPa) 22 Piston stroke (mm) 180
Temperature before compression (K) 323 Crank shaft speed (r/min) 420
Temperature after compression (K) 453 Motor speed (r/min) 420
Volume flow (Nm3/h) 800 Shaft power (kW) 130
Stages 2 Requirement of cooling water (t/h) 13
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3 10385

Influence of renewable energy
The economic evaluation of the hydrogen production system
will be affected by the capacity of the renewable energy gen-
eration system when water electrolysis is used for energy
storage in the renewable energy scenario. The most important
factor is the dynamic performance of the hydrogen produc-
tion system, which has been summarized in published reports
and the literature. It includes three key indicators: start-up
time, load range, and response speed to variable load. How-
ever, startup time and response speed are not considered
because they have no significant influence on the economics.
The load range, especially its lower limit, has an enormous
impact on the capacity selection of the electrolysis system and
should not be ignored. Table 7 lists the dynamic performances
of the two types of mainstream water electrolyzers and the
recommended load boundaries. It is easy to find that the lower
limit of the operating load of ALK (alkaline) water electrolysis
is considerably lower than that of the PEM water electrolysis
because of safety. The gas crossover of hydrogen and oxygen
in the ALK electrolyzer at low load is more serious than that of
the PEM electrolyzer. The upper limit of the operating load of
the PEM is also higher than that of the ALK electrolysis. The
operating current density of the PEM electrolyzer is speculated
to be higher, whereas it can only be overloaded for a short
period of time, e.g., for no more than 10 min [42].
As stated in the study of Guo et al. [37], the required ca-
pacity of the electrolysis system for PEM and ALK is not the
same in terms of the upper limit of the operating load; if only
hydrogen generation is used for energy storage and the scale
of renewable energy is determined, fewer electrolyzers will be
required for PEM (Fig. 5(b)) although the capital cost C of the
ALK electrolyzer (500 USD/kW for system of 10 MW) would be
considerably lower than that of the PEM electrolyzer (1400
USD/kW for system of 10 MW) [4]. In addition, the lower limit
of the operating load of the electrolyzer and the corresponding
energy consumption determine the difference in the amount
of hydrogen produced in the fluctuating renewable energy
scenario. This study calculated the amount of hydrogen pro-
duced by the matched PEM electrolysis and ALK electrolysis
based on an output power of a MW-level wind driven gener-
ator (WDG) (Fig. 5); this will lead to different economic eval-
uation results. Finally, high-purity oxygen is a by-product of
the PEM water electrolysis, and it has a high application value
but has been ignored. However, the economic value of the
high-purity oxygen produced by the PEM is also considered to
be similar to that produced via ALK; the added value of oxygen
is not considered in this article.
The following assumptions are considered for the analyzed
scenario:

Table 7 e Comparison of the dynamic operation of the

All power from the wind is used to produce hydrogen by
ALK and PEM electrolysis.
electrolysis, which is known as off-grid hydrogen produc-
Alkaline water PEM water tion. The power generation characteristics of the wind
electrolysis electrolysis
farms of different scales are not distinguished, and they
Load range 15e100% [42,43] 0e160% [42,43] are processed according to the power generation charac-
(of nominal load)
teristics presented in Fig. 5. The annual power generation
15e100% [44] 0e160% [44]
time tTotal is assumed to be 2500 h (converted to peak
Start-up (warm) 1e10 min [42] 1 se5 min [42]
1 min [43] 1 s [43] power).
Start-up (cold) < 50 min [42] < 20 min [42]
Although the ALK electrolysis is slightly better than the
10 min [43] 5 min [43] PEM electrolysis in terms of energy consumption of the
Ramp-up 0.2e20% per s [42,43] 100% per s [42,43] electrolyzer, the system electrolysis energy consumption
(Ramp-down) of the two is similar. No distinction is made and the energy
Shut-down 1e10 min [42,43] s [42,43]
consumption is set to 55 kWh/kg H2.

Fig. 5 e (a) Fluctuating wind power and (b) capacity range of the two types of electrolyzers to be coupled.
10386 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3

Although the upper limit of the load range Lup run for a long number of start-stop cycles; this is closer to reality when
time, the working time limit of the upper limit of the load coupled with fluctuating renewable energy sources. Based on
and its influence on durability are not considered because the wind power characteristics shown in Fig. 5, we counted
the wind turbine is at peak power for a short time. the number of times, nss, the electrolyzer was below the lower

Although the more ideal results of the lower limit of the limit of the load (start-stop required); it was 352 for PEM and
load range are listed in Table 7, those in line with the 691 for ALK. The rated start-stop time of the electrolyzer N is
current commercial technology level are selected in this assumed to be 8000 times. Over the whole life cycle, TLife,
study; they are 25% for ALK and 5% for PEM. Wind power LCOH is equal to
below this load cannot be used, and the proportion (a) of
X1
the total wind power below 25% and 5% of the rated load of LCOH ¼ wele pe þ ; (21)
X2
the electrolyzer to the total power generation is calculated;
they are 12.6% and 0.3% for ALK and PEM, respectively.
C TLife
X1 ¼ nss x; (22)
Lup N
Let the peak power of the wind farm be denoted by x and
the sale price of hydrogen by eH2 . All calculation results are ð1  aÞxtTotal
summarized in Table 8. X2 ¼ TLife : (23)
wele
For investors or policy makers, the fewer years it takes for
the total returns to balance the initial investment, the better.
Therefore, Results and discussion
ð1  aÞxtTotal C
yeH2  up x ¼ 0; (20) Electrolysis energy consumption and membrane thickness
wele L
where y represents the number of years required to balance The energy consumption of the high-pressure electrolyzer is
the benefits and expenses. Indeed, the value of y is indepen- impacted by the thickness of the membrane. Fig. 6 shows the
dent of x, i.e., the scale of renewable energy generation does effects of the cathode pressure and membrane thickness on
not affect economics. However, the power generation char- the electrolysis voltage, hydrogen crossover, and electrolysis
acteristics of the renewable energy, (a, tTotal), technical level of efficiency of the electrolyzer based on the assumptions stated
the electrolyzer, (C, Lup), and sale price of hydrogen, eH2 , in Table 1. Indeed, for the same thickness of membrane, the
considerable affect the economics. cathode pressure is reflected only in the Nernst voltage and
Further, the scale of renewable energy has a non negligible has almost no effect on the electrolysis voltage (Fig. 6(a)).
impact on the cost of hydrogendLCOH, which is completely However, the change in efficiency shows an opposite trend,
opposite to the previous analysis. According to the definition and it is closely related to pressure (Fig. 6(c)). Fig. 6(b) indicates
in Section 2.1, electricity price, pe, needs to be considered that the hydrogen crossover flow rate increases rapidly with
when coupling with renewable energy. Further, the lifetime of an increase in cathode pressure, which can be alleviated by
the electrolyzer is not estimated in hours (Table 9), but in increasing the membrane thickness. Safety risks can also be
reduced by increasing the current density; however, Fig. 6 is
based on the hypothetical results presented in Table 1, and it
Table 8 e Economics of coupling with fluctuating wind does not consider other current densities.
power. According to the simulation results of the electrolysis en-
ergy consumption (Fig. 6(b)), the deterioration degree of en-
Item PEM ALK
up up
ergy consumption varies with increasing pressure under
Power capacity x=LPEM x=L
 up   ALK
up  different membrane thicknesses. The thinner the membrane,
Total capital CPEM =LPEM x CALK =LALK x
expenditure
the more obvious is the influence of the cathode pressure. In
Total power ð1  aPEM ÞxtTotal ð1  aALK ÞxtTotal addition, the existence of the optimal membrane thickness
available under high-pressure can be determined based on the variation
Annual eH2 ð1  aPEM ÞxtTotal =wele eH2 ð1  aALK ÞxtTotal =wele trend of the three red dotted lines shown in Fig. 6(c); this trend
revenue from can also be directly found from Fig. 7(c). Fig. 7 shows the effect
hydrogen sales
of membrane thickness on efficiency and hydrogen

Table 9 e Comparison between balanced and unbalanced (high-pressure in the cathode and atmospheric pressure in the
anode) electrolysis.
Balanced electrolysis Unbalanced electrolysis (20 MPa)
Energy consumption of electrolysis 51.2 kWh/kg H2 52.4 kWh/kg H2
Lifetime of electrolyzer 80,000 h [4] 80,000 h
Nominal hydrogen production rate 9.695 kg/h @ 500 kW 9.470 kg/h @ 500 kW
Additional expenditure based on 0 as the benchmark 585 USD/kW (Table .3)
balanced electrolysis (stack)
Additional expenditure based on 0 as the benchmark 80 USD/kW
balanced electrolysis (BoP)
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3 10387

Fig. 6 e Effect of hydrogen pressure and membrane thickness on (a) cell voltage, (b) hydrogen penetration, (c) electrolysis
efficiency.

Fig. 7 e Relationship among the thickness of membrane, concentration of hydrogen in oxygen, and efficiency of electrolysis
at the cathode pressure of (a) 1 bar, (b) 90 bar, and (c) 200 bar.

concentration in oxygen at three pressure levels. The red line
represents the electrolysis efficiency and the blue line repre-
sents the hydrogen concentration in oxygen. Even a very thin
membrane (50 mm) can meet the safety requirements at the
atmospheric cathode pressure (equal to anode pressure)
(Fig. 7(a)). However, the membrane thickness in an atmo-
spheric pressure electrolyzer is generally above 100 mm. In this
case, the choice of membrane thickness is based on durability
rather than safety. A large number of studies [45e47] have
shown that membrane degradation is a main form of elec-
trolyzer failure. There is a dramatic deterioration in hydrogen
concentration in oxygen when cathode pressure is increased
to 90 bar; however, the overall efficiency decreases by only
~2% (Fig. 7(b)). The thickness of the membrane must be greater
than 50 mm to ensure the safe operation of the electrolyzer.
Even if the conventional Nafion 117 (thickness of about
183 mm) is used, the hydrogen concentration in oxygen still
exceeds 2%, which is generally set as a safety limitation for
industrialized products.
These conclusions are based on the simulation model of
hydrogen crossover (Section 2.1); the effect of the catalyst on
the gas permeating from the other side of the electrode is not
considered in the model. The oxygen content at the cathode
outlet is almost negligible because of the platinum catalyst at
the cathode and the high-pressure environment, whereas the
iridium catalyst at the anode does not help hydrogen oxida-
tion [12,48]. Nevertheless, it has become a common phe-
nomenon in current commercial PEM electrolyzers to use
noble metals as coatings at the anode to protect key compo-
nents such as the titanium PTL and bipolar plates from
corrosion and oxidation. The concentration of hydrogen in
oxygen in the electrolyzer with the platinum-coated PTL and
platinum-coated bipolar plate at the anode are measured
under the cathode pressure of 90 bar, as shown in Fig. 7(b). At a
current density of 1.2A/cm2, it is only 0.17% (point marked by
the pentagram in the figure), which is far lower than the result
provided by the simulation model. The use of platinum in the
anode surprisingly contributes to the reduction of the
hydrogen concentration in oxygen. Fig. 7(c) shows the simu-
lation results when the cathode pressure is 200 bar. Similarly,
electrolysis efficiency is reduced by about 2% and the con-
centration of hydrogen in oxygen suggests that the membrane
thickness has to be increased to at least 250 mm to be safe. This
result does not correspond to the real scenario, and the effect
10388 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3

of platinum on the anode should be considered. Nafion 117 is
assumed to meet the safety conditions because experimental
data are lacking. Although the use of platinum can reduce the
hydrogen concentration in oxygen and ensure safety, it
cannot inhibit the crossover of hydrogen. Therefore, it cannot
fundamentally improve the electrolysis efficiency (or energy
consumption).
Therefore, although the operating pressure of the high-
pressure electrolyzers are considerably different from that of
the balanced atmospheric electrolyzers, the membrane
thickness selected inside these two types of electrolyzers are
almost the same. This leads to a difference in energy con-
sumption between the two that is not as large as expected. A
comparison of specific energy consumption values is provided
in Table 9. The specific energy consumption of the high-
pressure electrolysis is only 1.2 kWh/kg H2 higher than that
of the balanced electrolysis for the same membrane thick-
ness. This difference in the energy consumption has little ef-
fect on the conclusion in the following analysis. The
additional capital expenditure based on the balanced elec-
trolysis is also listed in Table 9. Besides the differences in
membrane thickness as discussed in Section2.1, frame of
electrolyzer, and methods of sealing, the other components of
the high-pressure electrolyzer (type and load of catalyst in
cathode and anode, PTL in anode, etc.) are exactly the same as
those of the balance electrolyzer, which leads to the difference
in their investment costs to not be significant. The cost of
restrengthening the hydrogen/water separator in the acces-
sory system is estimated to be 80 USD/kW. Besides, the
hydrogen production rate of the balanced electrolyzer is about
0.2 kg/h more than that of the unbalanced electrolysis for the
electrolyzer with a nominal power of 500 kW (only stack); the
influence of this difference is also considered. Millet et al. [9]
performed the experiment of the PEM electrolyzer under
different pressure from 1 to 130 bar, as shown in Table 10. A
similar conclusion can be drawn from their experimental re-
sults: a change in pressure from 1 bar to 130 bar reduces
hydrogen production by 1.56 kg/h per 500 kW and increases
energy consumption by about 0.07 kWh/kg H2. The difference
is that the electrolyzer used by Millet et al. [9] is a balanced
electrolyzer with a high-pressure both in the anode and the
cathode. Further, a thicker membrane, Nafion 1110 (254 mm) is
used in their electrolyzer. Fig. 6(c) confirms that the negative
effect caused by increased pressure will be weakened to some
extent by the increase in membrane thickness. Thus, a
smaller increase in energy consumption than 1.2 kWh/kg H2 is
seen in their results. In addition, the data listed in Table 10 are
based on lower current density (lower operating power),
which means more hydrogen is lost at the same power
(500 kW) compared to our results of 0.225 kg/h per 500 kW.
Consideration of compressor
Table 11 summarizes the cost calculation results for the me-
chanical compressor. A compressor of at least 24 kW is
required for a gas flow of 9.7 kg/h (108.6 Nm3/h) and an inlet
and outlet pressure of 10 bar and 200 bar respectively. A
compressor of 30 kW is selected as the nominal power in this
study. The capital expenditure can be estimated to be
approximately 87,900 USD according to Equation (2) and the
capital expenditure of the 220 bar compressor. The compres-
sion energy consumption of the compressor with the outlet
pressure of 200 bar is about 2.48 kWh/kg H2 based on Fig. 4.
The fixed investment and maintenance cost of compres-
sors have been proved to be too important to be ignored. The
higher the cathode pressure, the more significant is the cost of
this part. Fig. 8(a) shows the changes in the LCOH caused by
two technical routes (high-pressure electrolysis, atmospheric
electrolysis combined with mechanical compression) with
different output pressure levels. It is more economical to
produce hydrogen via unbalanced electrolysis under the
condition that the cathode pressure is less than 398 bar (the
anode remains at atmospheric pressure) and the fixed cost of
the compressor is not considered. The balanced electrolysis
combined with mechanical compression becomes a better
choice with an increase in the pressure. The intersection of
the blue and green lines in Fig. 8 indicates that the two
methods are economically equivalent. The location of this
intersection is critical to the decision maker; however, it is
affected by many factors such as the energy consumption
level, life, equipment operating coefficient of compressor, and
so on. For example, the blue dotted line is based on the
compression energy consumption reduction of 1 kWh/kg H2,
Table 11 e Expenditure for mechanical hydrogen
compressor with the output pressure of 200 bar.
Item Value
Energy consumption for compression 2.48 kWh/kg H2
Capital expenditure 2930 USD/kW
Maintenance expenditure 20,000 USD/year

Table 10 e Main test results obtained with the high-pressure PEM water electrolysis stack (Nafion 1100, 0.5 A/cm2, 88  C, 8-
cells) [9].
Parameter Unit Measured values at operating pressure, bar
1 25 50 75 100 130
Electric current A 123.5 126.5 124.5 125.0 125.0 124.0

Operating temperature C 86 87 85 89 84 88
H2 production rate Nm3/h 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.36
H2 purity % vol. 99.98 99.76 99.18 98.56 98.01 97.34
Stack voltage V 13.57 13.59 13.63 13.72 13.80 13.84
Power consumption kW 1.676 1.719 1.711 1.708 1.725 1.716
Specific energy consumption kWh/Nm3 3.99 4.00 4.07 4.27 4.54 4.77
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3 10389

Fig. 8 e Levelized cost of hydrogen of the two electrolysis methods affected by different factors (a) Cathode pressure up to
600 bar (electricity price is 15 USD/MWh), (b) price of electricity (pcat ¼ 200 bar and operating factor is 0.5).

which indicates an increase in the pressure range favorable
for balanced electrolysis. Therefore, the results of all cases in
this paper cannot be provided temporarily. The fixed invest-
ment and the operating and maintenance costs of the me-
chanical compressor (blue line in Fig. 8(b)) further highlight
the advantages of the unbalanced electrolysis at any price
level of electricity used for the electrolysis.
Cases coupled with renewable energy
High-pressure PEM electrolysis has more advantages than
ALK electrolysis when used in the renewable energy sce-
narios. The economics of using different technical routes (PEM
and ALK) in renewable energy scenarios are presented in this
section; they can be reflected using two indicators: cost of
hydrogendLCOH, and the number of years y in which the
benefit is equal to the investment.
Fig. 9 shows the change trend of the above two indicators
in the renewable energy scenario affected by the scale of
renewable energy, hydrogen selling price, and capacity factors
of wind turbines. Under the wind power price of 15 USD/MWh,
the cost of hydrogen will rapidly drop to less than 1 USD/kg
with an increase in the power generation scale of the
renewable energy and the improvement in the operating co-
efficient of wind power equipment (Fig. 9(a)). However, this
rate of decline will slow down rapidly, and the final hydrogen
cost will become stable at around 0.82 USD/kg and hardly
change thereafter. Fig. 9(b) shows the effect of different
hydrogen selling prices and capacity factor, s, on the payback
period of the electrolyzer investment. Overall, the economics
of investing in ALK is better than that in PEM in terms of
hydrogen cost and payback period. However, with improve-
ments in the power-generation technology level (capacity
factor reduction) and scale development, the performance of
ALK and PEM in LCOH and payback period tends to be
consistent. For a 100-MW power generation scale and a ca-
pacity factor of 0.5, the difference in LCOH is 0.009 USD/kg; in
the case of a hydrogen price of 4.5 yuan and a capacity factor
of 0.5, the difference in the return on investment period is
1.3 h only.
The above discussion of the payback period does not
consider the investment in wind-turbine equipment, which
will lead to completely different conclusions. Fig. 10(a) and (b)
show cases with and without the investment in wind turbines,
respectively: Only investing in the electrolysis equipment can
generate a net profit in a very short time (100 h) for both PEM

Fig. 9 e Impact of renewable energy scale, P, and capacity factor, s, on (a) levelized cost of hydrogen (electricity price is 15
USD/MWh), and (b) payback period, y (10 MW-class electrolyzer scale).
10390 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3

Fig. 10 e Impact of different electricity price, eH2 , and capacity factor, s, on payback period when (a) considering the
investment in wind turbines, or (b) without considering the investment in wind turbines.

Fig. 11 e Impact of capacity factor, s, and scaling P on levelized cost of hydrogen at the electricity price of (a) pe ¼ 15 USD/
MWh, or (b) pe ¼ 75 USD/MWh.

(left) or ALK (right), even when the capacity factor is below 0.1
and the hydrogen selling price is below 1.5 USD/kg (Fig. 10(b));
The investment in wind turbines will greatly extend the
payback period because of its high investment cost (781 USD/
kW, based on 2021 data) (Fig. 10(a)). For the cheaper electrol-
ysis method, ALK (left), it is possible to control only the
payback period within 20 years if the capacity factor exceeds
0.2 and the hydrogen selling price is higher than 1.2 USD/kg.
Finally, the effect of electricity price on LCOH is illustrated
in Fig. 11. Although the price of electricity used for off-grid
hydrogen production is not determined by the grid, it signifi-
cantly impacts the final hydrogen cost. Fig. 11(a) and (b) show
the results for two costs of electricity of 15 USD/MWh and 75
USD/MWh, respectively. Similar to the conclusion related to
the payback period, PEM (left) is not as economical as ALK
(right), regardless of the level of electricity prices. However,
this gap is expected to gradually decrease with the develop-
ment of scale, increase in the capacity factor, and reduction in
the electricity price level. When the capacity factor is 0.5 and
the power generation scale is 100 MW, the LCOH obtained by
the ALK (left) and PEM (right) electrolysis differs by 0.009 USD/
kg at an electricity price of 15 USD/MWh and 75 USD/MWh. In
other words, this difference has nothing to do with the elec-
tricity price. The LCOH can be basically controlled within 1
USD/kg when the electricity price is 15 USD/MWh, whereas
the LCOH will not be lower than 4 USD/kg when the electricity
price is 75 USD/MWh.
Conclusions
Relevant economic analyses were conducted based on the
energy consumption and cost analysis of the high-pressure
difference PEM water electrolysis for hydrogen production
within this study.

Economic analysis; a comparison of the unbalanced and
balanced electrolysis indicated that the former has almost
no advantages in terms of energy consumption, cost, or life
over the latter; however, this changed when the energy
efficiency of the entire hydrogen chain from hydrogen
production to hydrogen storage was studied. High-
pressure differential PEM electrolysis was found to be
more economical in a certain pressure range than using
balanced electrolysis followed by mechanical compressor.
The advantages of the unbalanced electrolysis were high-
lighted when the investment cost and the operation and
maintenance cost of the compressor are considered.
Further, the PEM electrolysis is gaining competitive ad-
vantages given the development of various technical levels
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3 10391

(scale, reduction of electricity prices, increase of capacity PTL porous transport layer
factor of wind turbines, etc.) in the renewable energy sce- SO solid oxide
nario; however, reducing its cost remains extremely chal- TCI total capital investment
lenging at the moment. WDG wind driven generation

Policy development for hydrogen production technology
Symbols
routes; for policy makers, the high-pressure PEM electrolysis
A power capacity
of water for hydrogen production is expected to become
c concentration of a substance in a solvent
mainstream in the future. Given the scenario of large-scale
C cost of equipment
renewable energy utilization, off-grid hydrogen production
dmem thickness of membrane
may not be an effective approach to shortening the payback
D diffusion coefficient
period compared with grid-connected hydrogen production.
e sale price
Hydrogen production from the water electrolysis should be
E energy of the reaction
efficiently coordinated with renewable energy and power
G hydrogen production rate
grids to maximize revenue. Given the high cost of grid
h enthalpy
construction in remote areas or the need for seasonal energy
j0 exchange current density
storage, off-grid hydrogen production is necessary. In this
Kmem permeability of membrane
case, the economics of investing in ALK or PEM are com-
kL mass transfer coefficient
parable because the electricity prices decrease and the scale
L limit of load range
of the electrolyzer increases.
n(nss) cost exponent(number of start-stop)

Further research; there are still some points that need to be
n_ molar flow per unit area
improved in this research. First, the calculation of the fixed
p pressure or price
investment of the high-pressure differential electrolyzer is
Re residual value
performed using laboratory-level devices, which is insuf-
Re electrical ohmic resistance
ficient to represent the cost of this technology after being
rdep rate of depreciation
scaled up. Second, the influence of the coating metal in
rcom ratio of outlet pressure and inlet pressure
anode (platinum) on the hydrogen concentration in oxygen
s entropy or stream/capacity factor
is not considered in the hydrogen crossover model; this is
S solubility
crucial for the choice of membrane thickness. Third, only
t time generated per year in hours
the mode of the off-grid hydrogen production is considered
Tlife life cycle in years
in the analysis of the economics when coupled with the
N life (number of times or years)
renewable energy, which is of no significance for current
w energy consumption
large-scale grid-connected demonstration research.
y payback period in years

Declaration of competing interest Subscripts

act activation
The authors declare that they have no known competing ano anode
financial interests or personal relationships that could have cat cathode
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. cata catalyst
diff diffusion
drag drag flow
Acknowledgement dp difference of pressure
up upper limit
This research is supported by the Tsinghua-Toyota Joint w water
Research Institute Cross-discipline Program and China Post- com compression
doctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2021M691733)..
Greek
ε low heat value of hydrogen
Annotation a charge transfer coefficient
l water content of membrane
Acronyms s conductivity of membrane
ALK alkaline m dynamic viscosity
CAPEX capital expenditure h energy efficiency
CCM coated catalyst membrane
LCA life cycle assessment
references
LCOH levelized cost of hydrogen
OPEX operation expenditure
MEA membrane electrode assemblies
[1] Gielen D, Gorini R, Leme R, Prakash G, Wagner N, Janeiro L,
OHRS on-site hydrogen refueling station
Collins S, Kadir M, Asmelash E, Ferroukhi R, et al. World
PEM proton exchange membrane energy transitions outlook: 1.5 c pathway. 2021.
10392 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3
[2] Wang Y, Zhang S. Economic assessment of selected
hydrogen production methods: a review. Energy Sources B
Energy Econ Plann 2017;12:1022e9.
[3] Martinez-Rodriguez A, Abanades A. Comparative analysis of
energy and exergy performance of hydrogen production
methods. Entropy 2020;22.
[4] Taibi E, Miranda R, Carmo M, Blanco H. Green hydrogen cost
reduction. 2020.
[5] Lucchese P, Mansilla C, Tilli O, Prost J, Samsatli S, Leaver J,
Dickinson R, Grand-Clement L, Funez C. Power-to-hydrogen
and hydrogen-to-x: system analysis of the techno-economic,
legal, and regulatory conditions. 2020.
[6] Kazim A. Exergoeconomic analysis of a pem electrolyser at
various operating temperatures and pressures. Int J Energy
Res 2005;29:539e48.
[7] Degiorgis L, Santarelli M, Cali M. Hydrogen from renewable
energy: a pilot plant for thermal production and mobility. J
Power Sources 2007;171:237e46.
[8] Santarelli M, Medina P, Cali M. Fitting regression model and
experimental validation for a high-pressure pem
electrolyzer. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;35:2519e30.
[9] Millet P, Ngameni R, Grigoriev S, Mbemba N, Brisset F,
Ranjbari A, Etievant C. Pem water electrolyzers: from
electrocatalysis to stack development. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2009;35:5043e52.
[10] Millet P, Grigoriev S, Porembskiy V. Development and
characterisation of a pressurized pem bi-stack electrolyser.
Int J Energy Res 2013;37:449e56.
[11] Kolhe M, Atlam O. Empirical electrical modeling for a proton
exchange membrane electrolyzer. In: Proceedings of the 2011
international conference on applied superconductivity and
electromagnetic devices. ASEMD; 2011. p. 131e4. 2011.
[12] Schalenbach M, Carmo M, Fritz D, Mergel J, Stolten D.
Pressurized pem water electrolysis: efficiency and gas
crossover. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38:14921e33.
[13] Schalenbach M, Hoefner T, Paciok P, Carmo M, Lueke W,
Stolten D. Gas permeation through nafion. part 1:
Measurements. J Phys Chem C 2015;119:25145e55.
[14] Schalenbach M, Stolten D. High-pressure water electrolysis:
electrochemical mitigation of product gas crossover.
Electrochim Acta 2015;156:321e7.
[15] Suermann M, Kiupel T, Schmidt T, Buchi F. Electrochemical
hydrogen compression: efficient pressurization concept
derived from an energetic evaluation. J Electrochem Soc
2017;164:F1187e95.
[16] Sartory M, Wallnofer-Ogris E, Salman P, Fellinger T, Justl M,
Trattner A, Klell M. Theoretical and experimental analysis of
an asymmetric high pressure pem water electrolyser up to
155 bar. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:30493e508.
[17] Tjarks G, Gibelhaus A, Lanzerath F, Muller M, Bardow A,
Stolten D. Energetically-optimal pem electrolyzer pressure in
power-to-gas plants. Appl Energy 2018;218.
[18] Ishikawa H, Haryu E, Kawasaki N, Daimon H. Development
of 70 mpa differential-pressure water electrolysis stack.
Honda R&D Technical Review 2016;28(1):9.
[19] Kee B, Curran D, Zhu H, Braun R, DeCaluwe S, Kee R, Ricote S.
Thermodynamic insights for electrochemical hydrogen
compression with proton-conducting membranes.
Membranes 2019;9.
[20] Corgnale C, Sulic M. Techno-economic analysis of high-
pressure metal hydride compression systems. Metals 2018;8.
[21] F. Scheepers, M. Stabler, A. Stabler, E. Rauls, M. Muller, M.
Carmo, and W. Lehnert, “Improving the efficiency of pem
electrolyzers through membrane-specific pressure
optimization,” Energies, vol. 13, 2020.
[22] Roy A, Watson S, Infield D. Comparison of electrical energy
efficiency of atmospheric and high-pressure electrolysers.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2006;31:1964e79.
[23] Holm T, Borsboom-Hanson T, Herrera O, Merida W. Energy
conversion and management. Eur Phys J B 2021;237.
[24] Balomenou S, Tsiplakides D, Papazisi K-M, Farmaki M-E,
Bimpiri N, Waernhus I, Thambiraj N, Vik A, Buergler B,
Lamaze B. High pressure water electrolyser development for
space exploration surface missions. ECS Trans
2021;103:431e6.
[25] Bensmann B, Hanke-Rauschenbach R, Arias I,
Sundmacher K. Energetic evaluation of high pressure pem
electrolyzer systems for intermediate storage of renewable
energies. Electrochim Acta 2013;110:570e80.
[26] Bensmann B, Hanke-Rauschenbach R, Muller-Syring G,
Henel M, Sundmacher K. Optimal configuration and pressure
levels of electrolyzer plants in context of power-to-gas
applications. Appl Energy 2016;167:107e24.
[27] Bensmann B, Hanke-Rauschenbach R, Sundmacher K. In-situ
measurement of hydrogen crossover in polymer electrolyte
membrane water electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2014;39:49e53.
[28] Trinke P, Bensmann B, Reichstein S, Hanke-Rauschenbach R,
Sundmacher K. Hydrogen permeation in pem electrolyzer
cells operated at asymmetric pressure conditions. J
Electrochem Soc 2016;163:F3164e70.
[29] Klose, C P, Trinke, Bohm T, Bensmann B, Vierrath S, Hanke-
Rauschenbach R, Thiele S. Membrane interlayer with pt
recombination particles for reduction of the anodic
hydrogen content in pem water electrolysis. Membranes
2018;165.
[30] Martin A, Abbas D, Trinke P, Bo€ hm T, Bierling M, Bensmann B,
Thiele S, Hanke-Rauschenbach R. Communicationdproving
the importance of pt-interlayer position in pemwe
membranes for the effective reduction of the anodic hydrogen
content. J Electrochem Soc 2021;168(9):094509.
[31] S. Garbe, E. Samulesson, T. Schmidt, and L. Gubler,
“Comparison of pt-doped membranes for gas crossover
suppression in polymer electrolyte water electrolysis,” J
Electrochem Soc, vol. 168, 2021.
[32] L. Zachert, M. Suermann, B. Bensmann, and R. Hanke-
Rauschenbach, “Energetic evaluation and optimization of
hydrogen generation and compression pathways
considering pem water electrolyzers and electrochemical
hydrogen compressors,” J Electrochem Soc, vol. 168, 2021.
[33] Gim B, Yoon W. Analysis of the economy of scale and
estimation of the future hydrogen production costs at on-site
hydrogen refueling stations in korea. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37:19138e45.
[34] Lee B, Heo J, Choi N, Moon C, Moon S, Lim H. Economic
evaluation with uncertainty analysis using a monte-carlo
simulation method for hydrogen production from high
pressure pem water electrolysis in korea. INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGYY 2017;42:24612e9.
[35] Lee B, Chae H, Choi N, Moon C, Moon S, Lim H. Economic
evaluation with sensitivity and profitability analysis for
hydrogen production from water electrolysis in korea. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:6462e71.
[36] Lee B, Heo J, Kim S, Sung C, Moon C, Moon S, Lim H.
Economic feasibility studies of high pressure pem water
electrolysis for distributed h-2 refueling stations, vol. 162.
ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT; 2018. p. 139e44.
[37] Xiuying G, Xianming L, Zhuang X, Guangli H, Ping M. Cost
analysis of hydrogen production by electrolysis of renewable
energy. Energy Storage Science and Technology 2020;9.
[38] Fragiacomo P, Genovese M. Technical-economic analysis of a
hydrogen production facility for power-to-gas and hydrogen
mobility under different renewable sources in southern Italy,
vol. 223. ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT; 2020.
[39] P. Fragiacomo and M. Genovese, “Numerical simulations of
the energy performance of a pem water electrolysis based
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 3 7 7 e1 0 3 9 3
high-pressure hydrogen refueling station,” Int J Hydrogen
Energy, vol. 45, 2020.
[40] Goo B-H, Paek SY, Al Munsur AZ, Choi O, Kim Y, Kwon OJ,
Lee SY, Kim H-J, Kim T-H. Polyamide-coated nafion
composite membranes with reduced hydrogen crossover
produced via interfacial polymerization. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2022;47(2):1202e16.
[41] Trinke P, Bensmann B, Hanke-Rauschenbach R. Current
density effect on hydrogen permeation in pem water
electrolyzers. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:14355e66.
[42] Taibi E, Miranda R, Vanhoudt W, Winkel T, Lanoix J-C,
Barth F. Hydrogen from renewable power: technology
outlook for the energy transition. 2018.
[43] Taibi E, Miranda R, Vanhoudt W, Winkel T, Lanoix J-C,
Barth F. Renewable power-to-hydrogen - innovation
landscape brief. 2019.
[44] Birol F. The future of hydrogen: seizing today's opportunities,
vol. 20. IEA Report prepared for the G; 2019.
10393
[45] Rakousky C, Reimer U, Wippermann K, Kuhri S, Carmo M,
Lueke W, Stolten D. Polymer electrolyte membrane water
electrolysis: restraining degradation in the presence of
fluctuating power. J Power Sources 2017;342:38e47.
[46] Siracusano S, Van Dijk N, Backhouse R, Merlo L, Baglio V,
Arico A. Degradation issues of pem electrolysis meas. Renew
Energy 2018;123:52e7.
[47] Khatib F, Wilberforce T, Ijaodola O, Ogungbemi E, El-Hassan Z,
Durrant A, Thompson J, Olabi A. Material degradation of
components in polymer electrolyte membrane (pem)
electrolytic cell and mitigation mechanisms: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2019;111:1e14.
[48] Trinke P, Bensmann B, Hanke-Rauschenbach R.
Experimental evidence of increasing oxygen crossover with
increasing current density during pem water electrolysis.
Electrochem Commun 2017;82:98e102.