Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Energy Storage

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

Research papers

Assessment of standalone streetlighting energy storage systems based on

hydrogen of hybrid PV/electrolyzer/fuel cell/ desalination and PV/
batteries
Mohamed Nasser a, b, Hamdy Hassan a, c, *
a
Energy Resources Engineering Department, Egypt-Japan University of science and technology (E-JUST), Alexandria, Egypt
b
Mechanical Power Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt
c
Mechanical Power Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Expanding the scope of renewable energy consumption is essential to achieve the aim of a sustainable and carbon
Streetlighting neutrality society. Hydrogen could be considered the future form of the leading energy system for multipurpose
Hydrogen storage applications. In the current study, the performance of a standalone streetlighting photovoltaic hydrogen storage
Electrolyzer/fuel cell
system (PV/H2) via hybrid polymer electrolyte membrane/fuel cell/single effect desalination system (PV/PEM/
Photovoltaics/battery
Levelized cost of electricity
FC/SED) is investigated and compared with the traditional (PV/Battery) system. A complete mathematical model
CO2 reduction of the two systems is constructed. A MATLAB/Simulink code is developed to simulate both systems under the
actual climatic conditions of New Borg El-Arab City, Egypt. The results indicate that the yearly load is 19,745
kWh, which can be fulfilled with 160 m2 of PV panels in the case of PV/H2 and 40 m2 for the PV/Battery system.
In addition, the overall system efficiency is 8.5 % and 17.8 % for the hydrogen and battery system, respectively.
Although the battery system is more efficient than the hydrogen system, the latter is more economical. The
Levelized cost of electricity for the PV/H2 is 1.06 $/kWh with a payback period of 6.44 years compared with 2.8
$/kWh and 11.7 years for PV/Battery systems. Therefore, the hydrogen system is recommended for supplying
electricity demand. The system reduces CO2 emissions by up to 25.6 Tons per year with up to 1024$ annual gain.

In a typical PV standalone system, all energy is transported to load

1. Introduction
To meet the global energy demand, fossil fuels deplete traditional
fuel supplies, accelerate global warming, and cause additional emissions
issues. This encourages alternate energy development. Renewable en­
ergy sources like wind and solar are becoming more prevalent [33].
These resources fluctuate daily and seasonally. Thus, renewable energy
systems need energy storage to maintain the electricity supply [38].
Compared to other renewable energy sources, solar energy has the ad­
vantages of being available year-round (even on cloudy days) and not
contributing to pollution. However, solar energy storage has several
drawbacks, including high costs and significant physical footprints [22].
Since it is impractical for utilities to provide service to every location,
solar power is the best option for off-grid, rural, and urban areas [33].
through batteries, which results in excessive cost owing to the vast
battery capacity required when the power provided by the PV system is
greater than the demand [14]. Integrating the PV/Battery system with
the electricity from the grid reduces the end-user electricity consump­
tion by 40 % [3]. The battery size of a grid-assisted PV/Battery system
should be about 18.3 % of the daily end-user load utilization to over­
come peak load demand [25]. The PV/Battery system can provide a
healthcare center with 24-h electricity demand [10]. A studied system
consists of PV panels with a rated power of 643 kW and a battery ca­
pacity of 102 kW [16]. It is found that this system can recover its capital
cost in about 11 years with several environmental advantages. This
system is not only limited to generating electricity only but can be used
in air conditioning and hot water supply by the electric chiller and water
heater [11].

Abbreviations: comp, Compressor; cons, Consumed; CRF, Capital recovery factor; EZ, Electrolyzer; FC, Fuel cell; gen, Generated; H2, Hydrogen; H2O, Water; HHV,
Higher heating value; LCE, Levelized cost of electricity; NOCT, Nominal operating cell temperature; O2, Oxygen; OM, Operation and maintenance cost; PBP, Payback
period; PCnet, Net present cost; PEM, Proton exchange membrane electrolyzer; PV, Photovoltaic; RC, Replacement cost; SED, Single effect desalination; SV, Salvage
value.
* Corresponding author at: Energy Resources Engineering Department, Egypt-Japan University of science and technology (E-JUST), Alexandria, Egypt
E-mail addresses: mohamed.nafea@ejust.edu.eg (M. Nasser), hamdyaboali@yahoo.com, hamdy.aboali@ejust.edu.eg (H. Hassan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.106985
Received 25 November 2022; Received in revised form 20 February 2023; Accepted 24 February 2023
Available online 6 March 2023
2352-152X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Nasser and H. Hassan
Nomenclature
CO2 Oxygen concentration
cp Specific heat (J/kg.K).
E Battery capacity (kWh).
F Faraday constant (96,485C/mol).
GI Solar radiation (W/m2).
Hv Latent heat of vaporization.
I Current (A).
İ Interest rate, %.
i Fuel cell current density (A/cm2)
J Current density (A/cm2).
L Membrane thickness (m).
m Mass flow rate (kg/s).
NPV Number of PV panels.
Ṅ Molar flow rate (mol/s).
P Power (Watt).
R Gas constant (J/kg.K or J/mol.K).
T Temperature (K or ◦ C).
V Voltage (Volt).
X The concentration of salt, ppm.
The PV/Battery system's electricity cost with 24-h operation is about
0.687 $/kWh in Turkey [38], 0.4 $/kWh in Nigeria, and 0.72 $/kWh in
Bangladesh [22]. An appropriate optimization approach can reduce this
cost to 0.20594 $/kWh [21]. A prestigious study is conducted on street
lighting based on a standalone system in Oman [5]. The results showed a
significant variation in electricity cost in the case of the small and large
systems; this cost is 19.9 $/kWh and 0.08 $/kWh, respectively.
Furthermore, the climatic conditions of KSA affect the electricity cost,
which varies from 0.305 to 0.399 $/kWh [17]. The road lighting class
plays a vital role in electricity cost because of luminance intensity and
distribution, which affect the lighting load [13]. Using a cooling system
for the battery increases its lifespan and improves the state of charge
[28,53]. The battery system shows good potential for electric vehicles
[41,54].
Currently, commercially available standalone street lighting systems
that use the conventional design coupling PV and batteries cannot work
functionally around the year in places with a variation of solar radiation
[26,50]. Therefore, introducing a hydrogen fuel cell is introduced to
enhance the system's feasibility and performance. The main concern in
the hybrid system (PV/fuel cell/battery) is the hydrogen supply to the
fuel cell for electricity production. The PV panels can be used to generate
the required hydrogen by using the water electrolyzer to accomplish a
sustainable system [33]. This concept is discussed in [7,40]. The results
revealed that the electricity cost is 0.346 $/kWh, and the hybrid system
can produce 13.6 GWh per year with a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions. The annual solar radiation in Cameroon ranges from 4.28 to
5.8 kWh/m2, which significantly impacts the hybrid system's electricity
cost [49]. The results revealed that the electricity cost varies from 0.071
to 1.52 $/kWh.
In contrast, electrolyzing water to create hydrogen as a storage me­
dium for renewable energy can be considered the most promising
strategy for transitioning to a renewable and sustainable economy [12].
Also, hydrogen technology is the least harmful option among other
renewable energy storage approaches [8]. The battery is removed from
the PV/Battery system to reduce the system's capital cost and depend
only on the produced hydrogen. The stored hydrogen is then used
through the fuel cell to produce the required electrical load. The ad­
vantages of PEM/fuel cell are its fast startup, compact design, flexibility
in input fuel, low cost, lightweight, and solidity of electrolyte [42].
Besides using the PEM/fuel cell for hydrogen production and storage,
the PEM fuel cell generates a significant amount of heat. Approximately
2
Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985
Greek letters
γ Polytropic index
η Efficiency
λ(x) Water content at the location x
μp Thermal power coefficient (W/◦ C)
ξ Parametric coefficients
σ Local ionic conductivity
Subscripts
a Ambient/Anode
act Activation
B Rejected brine
bat Battery
c Cathode
conc Concentration
D Distillate water
F Feedwater
L Load
ref. Reference
45–60 % of the energy content of the hydrogen fed into the cell is
released as heat [52]. Stack lifespan and efficiency can be maintained
with the help of a well-designed cooling system that removes waste heat
from the stack. A fuel cell system's size, cost, and energy efficiency can
be improved through efficient thermal management and fuel cell heat
recovery. A hybrid cooling system with nanoparticles can reduce the
cost by up to 14 % [15,23].
PEM fuel cells can produce heat that can be harnessed and used for
various combined heating/cooling, Rankine cycles, and thermoelectric
generators [2,37]. Moreover, this heat can be used to produce the
desalinated water required for the PEM by using one of the thermal
desalination systems as a single-effect distillation system (SED) [43].
Evaluation of renewable power systems' hydrogen generation ca­
pacities in Egypt revealed that system performance relies heavily on
climatic conditions, and the system production and efficiency are
considerable [34,35]. The performance of PV, electrolyzer and fuel cell
modules for hydrogen production and power generation for a house was
studied [56]. The results indicated that a 28 m2 PV panel with a
hydrogen storage system can provide the house with 70 % of its annual
load [56]. PV/fuel system for standalone applications was studied [9]. It
is found that the system efficiency is about 7 %. The PV/ fuel cell system
shows decent potential in constructing a standalone electricity system. A
PV/H2 system for providing the emergency room with the required load
is studied [38]. The results indicated that a 300 m2 PV array, 5 kW PEM
electrolyzer, 45 m3 hydrogen storage tank, and fuel cell are able to meet
the required load with energy efficiency and exergy of 4.06 % and 4.25
%, respectively. The electricity cost from the system is 0.626 $/kWh
with 25 years of lifetime.
A techno-economic performance of two standalone systems for
providing the yearly power of a streetlighting system based on solar
energy for a sustainable solution is developed and numerically investi­
gated under the climatic conditions of Alexandria, Egypt. The first sys­
tem (PV/H2) provides a solution using hydrogen as an energy carrier,
including PVs and an electrolyzer for hydrogen production, which is
reused to produce the required power via a fuel cell. The freshwater used
for producing the hydrogen is supplied by a single-effect desalination
system powered by the produced heat from the fuel cell. While the
second one stores electricity produced from the PV system via battery.
For this purpose, an integrative model of the whole system is constructed
and solved using MATLAB software. The performance of the two pro­
posed systems is compared based on energy efficiency, Levelized cost of
M. Nasser and H. Hassan
electricity, and the payback period of the hydrogen and battery cycles
over an entire year. The importance of this research is to choose the
performant and economic system that supplies the electrical power re­
quirements of the streetlighting system via the standalone system for an
entire year in the event of an emergency blackout.
2. System description
The standalone street lighting systems are divided into two different
systems configurations, as shown in Fig. 1. The first system configura­
tion (PV/H2) is street lighting using green hydrogen power, illustrated in
Fig. 1a. In this system, the PV panels are used to produce electricity from
solar radiation during the daytime, and this electricity drives an elec­
trolyzer for hydrogen production. The produced hydrogen is stored in a
storage tank via a compressor, the widely accepted form of on-site
hydrogen storage. This storage system is used to store hydrogen, espe­
cially for long periods in case of surplus production (summer months),
and uses it in case of production shortage (winter months).
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the studied systems (a) Standalone PV/H2 street lighting system and (b) Standalone PV/Battery street lighting system.
3
Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985
During the nighttime, when there is no solar energy, the fuel cell uses
the stored hydrogen to generate the required electricity for the lighting.
While operating, the fuel cell produces a significant amount of waste
heat. Therefore, to maintain the stack's efficiency and long life, a well-
designed cooling system is used to remove the excess heat from the
stack. This extracted heat is utilized in a single-effect distillation system
(SED) to produce the required freshwater for the electrolyzer and
simultaneously raise the system efficiency. On the other hand, the other
method (PV/Battery) configuration for a standalone street lighting sys­
tem, as shown in Fig. 1b, includes PVs system and system of batteries
plus a charging controller and DC/AC inverter. During the night, the
stored electricity in the batteries is used to power the lighting system
through DC/AC converter.
The current study is conducted under the climatic conditions of New
Borg El-Arab City, Alexandria, Egypt (Longitude/Latitude: E 029◦ 42′ /
N 30◦ 55′ ). To maximize the capture of solar energy, it is assumed that
the PV panels will be tilted at an angle of 30◦ . The average monthly
ambient temperature and total solar radiation per month of the studied
M. Nasser and H. Hassan Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985

site for the measurements are presented in Fig. 2a. As shown from this
figure, the months from June to September have high solar radiation
values, leading to higher power production. This power is stored (bat­
tery or hydrogen) and used in other months with low solar radiation.
Furthermore, the streetlight load is assumed to be 5 kWh and only
operates from sunset to sunrise. The street lighting period varies
throughout the year because of the variation of the sunshine duration.
The solar time in the studied location is assumed to be ranging from 6 to
12 h per day, as shown in Fig. 2b. This solar time helps to define the
streetlighting operation time on the model simulation. Higher solar time
means high power production.
3. System modeling
This section describes the mathematical equations for each element
of the proposed systems and the entire procedures. Hydrogen gas is
modeled using steady-state properties and ideal gas ideas.

Fig. 2. (a) Average ambient temperature and total solar radiation per month, and (b) Sunshine duration over the year.

4
M. Nasser and H. Hassan Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985

3.1. PV panels model Table 1

Input parameters for PEM mathematical model [24,30,31].
The produced power from PV panels (PPV) and their operating tem­ Parameters Value Parameters Value
perature (TPV) are calculated using the following equations [35,36,44]:
PO2 100 kPa λc 10
GI [ ( )] PH2 100 kPa Eact, a 76 kJ/mol
PPV = NPV PPV,max + μp TPV − TPV,ref (1) L 100 μm Eact, c 18 kJ/mol
GI,ref
TPEM 80 ◦ C Jref
a 1.7 × 105 A/m2
[ ] λa 14 Jref
c 4.6 × 105 A/m2
NOCT − 20
TPV = Ta + GI (2)
800
J
where NPV is the used number of panels; GI is the solar radiation in W/ ṄH2 ,out = ṄH2 O,utilized =
m2; GI,ref is the reference solar radiation (1000 W/m2); PPV, max is the
2F
maximum power of a single panel (380 W); TPV,ref is the panel reference J
temperature; Ta is the ambient temperature (◦ C); NOCT is Nominal ṄO2 ,out = (9)
4F
Operating Cell Temperature (45 ◦ C); μp is the thermal power coefficient
(− 0.3 %/◦ C). The area of one single panel is assumed to be 1.73 m2, and
all characteristics data of PV panels are obtained based on [27,35]. 3.4. PEM fuel cell model

A PEM fuel cell model is adopted in the current study, where the
3.2. Electricity controller unit mathematical model is designed by adopting the following boundary
conditions and assumptions [2]:
The primary purpose of the controller unit is to distribute electricity
efficiently. Furthermore, it contains DC/DC and DC/AC converters • Steady-state conditions with chemical reactions at equilibrium state.
which adjust the produced electricity to become suitable for the elec­ • The fuel cell stack's temperature distribution is uniform, and the
trolyzer input and provide the compressor with the required power. The outlet product's temperature equals the cell's operating temperature.
efficiency of the controller is assumed to be 95 % [48]. The power used • There is no concern for the pressure drop within the fuel cell, and the
to drive the electrolyzer (PEZ) is expressed as [34]: pressure of the products at the cell's exit is assumed to be the same as
the cell's working pressure.
PEZ = (PPV × ηcontroller ) − Pcomp (3)
• The fuel cell operates at 80 ◦ C and 3 bar.
• A fully insulated fuel cell stack has zero heat transfer to the ambient.
3.3. PEM electrolyzer model • Assume that the input air contains 79 % N2 and 21 % O2.
• Solid polymer membrane electrolyte.
The PEM electrolyzer is chosen in the current study because of its
ability to deal with load fluctuation, compact design, and fast response The total power provided by the fuel cell is calculated as follows:
operation [33]. Electrolysis is a method of producing electrochemical PFC = Ncell × I × VFC (10)
reactions employing heat and energy. The PEM electrolyzer's mathe­
matical model is specified as follows [24,32]: where Ncell is the fuel cell number in the stack; I is the cell current (A)
The required power of the electrolyzer is expressed as: and obtained by I = i × AFC; I is the fuel cell current density (A/cm2); AFC
PEZ = J × V (4) is the active surface area of a fuel cell (cm2); VFC is the actual voltage of
the cell and expressed as follows [2]:
where J is the current density and V is the electrolyzer cell voltage which VFC = ENernst − Vact − Vohm − Vconc (11)
is obtained by:
V = V0 + Vact,anode + Vact,cathode + Vohm (5) where
Reversible potential
where: ENernst = 1.229 − 0.8 × 10− 3 (TFC − 298.15) + 4.3085
Reversible potential ( ) (12)
×10− 5 TFC ln PH2 P0.5
O2
− 4
V0 = 1.229 − 8.5 × 10 (TPEM − 298) (6)
Ohmic overpotential PH2 and PO2 are the hydrogen and oxygen partial pressure.
∫L Activation loss
Vohm = J 0 σPEMdxλ(x) ] , λ(x) = λa −L λc x + λc
[ ( )] Vact = − [ξ1 + ξ2 TFC + ξ3 TFC ln(CO2 ) + ξ4 TFC ln(I) ] (13)
1 1
σPEM [λ(x) ] = [0.5139λ(x) − 0.326 ]*exp 1268 − (7)
303 T ξi are parametric coefficients and described in detail in [2].
Activation overpotential Ohmic loss

RT
(
J
) Vohm = I(Rm + Rc ) (14)
Vact,i = sinh− 1
F 2J0,i
where Rc is a constant part of the cell's resistance and Rm is a function of
( ) temperature and current density [2].
Eact,i
J0,i = Jiref exp − , i = a, c (8) Concentration loss
RT
( )
RTFC iL
The PEM parameters and characteristics used in the current study are Vconc = ln (15)
2F iL − i
illustrated in Table 1.
The output molar flow rate (Ṅ) of hydrogen and oxygen, and the where iL is the maximum current density, R is the universal gas constant.
input water molar flow rate are expressed as follows [24]: A fuel cell utilizes air and hydrogen to generate electricity, heat, and

5
M. Nasser and H. Hassan Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985

water. The molar flow rate consumed hydrogen and oxygen and
generated water is calculated as follows: Ptank =
ṄH2 RT
(21)
⎧ Vtank
⎪ Ncell I
⎪
⎨ ṄH2 ,cons = ṄH2 O,gen =
2F where Vtank is the tank volume in m3.
(16)
⎪
⎪ N cell I
⎩ ṄO2 ,cons =
4F
3.6. Single effect distillation model
Since some reactants depart the cell unreacted, the reactants' inlet molar
flow rate ought to exceed their consumption. The inlet molar flow of the The basic principle of SED is illustrated as follows: using the baro­
reactants can be calculated from the following: metric height principle, as depicted in Fig. 1a, at the top of a column of
⎧ salt water is an evaporating chamber, while at the top of a column of
⎨ fresh water is a condensing section. The first step in creating a vacuum in
ṄH2 ,inlet = λH2 ṄH2 ,cons
(17) either of these chambers is to fill them with the appropriate type of
⎩ ṄO2 ,inlet = λO2 ṄO2 ,cons
water using a pump. Then, when the water is slowly removed via the
lower storage reservoirs, a vacuum is generated in the enclosed space
The fuel cell generated heat is expressed as follows [51]: above the almost 10 m high columns of standing water. The fuel cell
( ) waste heat partially evaporates the saltwater in the evaporating cham­
Q̇gen,FC = ṄH2 ,cons HHV − PFC − Q̇sl ber, and the resulting vapor is then condensed in the section at the top of
the freshwater column. Natural convection in the air cools the
( ) ( ) condenser. A third column, attached to the evaporation chamber in the
Q̇sl = Cp,H2 ṄH2 ,out TFC − ṄH2 ,in Tin + Cp,O2 ṄO2 ,out TFC − ṄO2 ,in Tin same manner as the first column, can be used to siphon off concentrated
( )
brine from the chamber in a measured fashion [43].
+Cp,N2 ṄN2 ,out TFC − ṄN2 ,in Ta + Cp,H2 O ṄH2 O,gen (TFC After being heated in the condenser as cooling water, a portion of this
− Ta ) + ṄH2 O,gen Hv saline feedwater is sent to the steady level lower tank attached to the
(18) evaporator, while the remainder is discharged back. The submerged
heating coil in the evaporator is heated by hot water from the fuel cell
where Cp,i is the specific heat and Hv is the water latent heat of vapor­ heat recovery system, evaporating the feed brine. Then it is condensed
ization. Constant parameters and characteristics for PEM fuel cell on the cooling water coil of the condenser and drains into the freshwater
modeling are listed in Table 2. In the fuel cell, some of the generated tank. The used mathematical model of the SED is developed as follows
heat (Q̇gen,FC ) is used to evaporate water; a small percentage is absorbed [43]:
by the additional air and hydrogen streams and by the fuel cell body via Mass balance
convection. The remainder of the generated heat (Q̇cool,FC ) is then mB = mF − mD (22)
intended for recovery via a heat exchanger [6].
Salt balance
Q̇cool,FC = 0.65 × Q̇gen,FC (19)
mF XF = mB XB &XB = 3XF (23)

The rising vapor has no carry-over salt, and the current seawater salinity
3.5. Hydrogen storage model
is 35,000 ppm.
Evaporator thermal energy
In order to preserve the hydrogen generated by the electrolyzer for
later use, it is compressed using a compressor and stored in a tank. It is QSED = mF Cp (TB − TF ) + mD hfg = Q̇cool,FC (24)
anticipated that the following amount of energy is needed to run the
compressor (Pcomp) [35,55]: More details on SED mathematical model and the used assumption can
[( ) ] be found in [43].
γ Tinlet Poutlet γ−γ 1
Pcomp = R − 1 ṄH2 (20)
γ − 1 ηC Pinlet
3.7. Battery model
where ηC is compressor efficiency, and it is assumed to be 85 %.
In addition, the storage system can be simulated using an ideal gas The batteries of the standalone PV system store energy for use at
model because the stored pressure is under 200 bar [55]. Therefore, the night. The battery capacity at any time during charging and discharging
internal tank pressure (Ptank) is stated as follows [35,55]:: is expressed as follows [11]:
( )
EL (t)
Table 2 Ebat (t) = EBat (t − 1) + EPV (t) − × ηbat (25)
ηDC/AC
PEM fuel cell parameters [2].
Parameter Value Parameter Value where t is the time and ηbat is the battery efficiency (ηbat=93 %) [18].
FC operating 353.15 K Maximum current density, 1.5 A/cm2 The battery used is assumed to be 24 VDC, and the current used in
temperature, TFC. iL. charging is varied according to the power produced by PV panels.
FC operating pressure, 3 bar Membrane thickness, L. 0.0178 cm
PFC.
Ncell 65 Hydrogen stoichiometric 1.2 3.8. System performance model
rate, λH2.
2
Cell area, Acell 232 cm Oxygen stoichiometric 2
rate, λO2. In the current investigation, solar energy is regarded as the system
Current density, i 0.6 A/ HHV 285.55 kJ/ input, while the output electric power to the lighting system is the
cm2 mol output from the system. This section illustrates the energy efficiency of
Rated capacity 5 kW Cathode and anode Platinum each system component as follows:
material (Pt).
PV panels [45]

6
M. Nasser and H. Hassan Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985

PPV × ηDC/DC Table 3

ηPV = (26) Current study initial cost and lifetime of system components.
GI × APV
Component Initial cost Lifetime (years) Ref.
PEM electrolyzer [35].
PV 312.5 $/kW 25 [22]
ṁH2 × HHVH2 PEMEZ 1000 $/kW 10 [4]
ηEZ = (27)
PEZ PEMFC 1000 $/kW 10 [46]
Converter 146 $/kW 10 [22]
PEM fuel cell [2] H2 Tank 570 $/kg 20 [35]
Compressor 1800 $/kW 20 [35]
PFC
ηFC = (28) SED 3000 $ 20 [39,43,47]
ṁH2 ,cons × HHVH2 Heater 28 $/kWh 20 [29]
Battery 110 $/kWh 13 [18,22]
SED [43]
The operation and maintenance cost (OM) is 5 % of the initial cost of each
mD × 2330 component.
ηSED = (29)
QSED
Overall system LCE of the hydrogen system, so it is considered in the economic model to
( ) perform an actual comparison between systems.
PFC × ηDC/AC + QSED
ηsys,I =
GI × APV 3.9.2. Payback period
One metric used to assess a system's present and future value is the
Output electricity
ηsys,II = (30) payback period (PBP). Regarding the economy, payback periods for
GI × APV
energy systems with shorter durations are favored over those with much
longer durations. This period is the time needed to repay all invested
cash and is commonly measured in years, which is calculated as follows
3.9. Economic and environmental model
[35]:
3.9.1. Levelized cost of electricity B
PBP = A + (36)
The economic feasibility of the introduced systems is estimated using C
the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCE), which is identified as the system's
yearly cost divided by the user's annual electricity use (UEannual). This where A is the year of last positive cumulative cash flow (B), and C is the
value can be calculated as follows [38]: cash inflow of A + 1 [35]. Here The PBP will be calculated according to
the lowest value of LCE.
(PCnet × CRF) + (RC × CRF)
LCE = (31)
UEannual 3.9.3. Enviroeconomic analysis
The rapid increase in global temperature, which has become one of
where PCnet, RC, and CRF are the net present cost, the replacement cost, the most critical environmental challenges in recent years, is primarily
and the capital recovery factor, which is estimated as follows [19,20]: due to the greenhouse effect of releasing higher amounts of CO2 into the
( )ny atmosphere. This part investigates an enviroeconomic model to show
İ × İ + 1
CRF = ( )ny (32) the ecological impact of replacing fossil fuel power plants with solar PV
İ + 1 − 1 systems for electricity generation and the credit gain from this reduc­
tion. Currently, there is no mechanism to monetize the amount of
where İ is the interest rate and is assumed to be 6 %, which is the usually reduced CO2 [32,33].
applied rate in comparable studies [38], and ny is the system lifetime For electricity produced by fuel oil power plants, the standard CO2
(20 years). For fixed equipment, ny equals project lifetime, while for equivalent quantity is 0.318 kgCO2/kWh, while for electricity generated
replaceable equipment, ny equals usable lifetime. by natural gas power plants, it is 0.28 kgCO2/kWh [35]. The annual
The net present cost is the difference between the existing system amount of CO2 that is mitigated (CO2,mit) as a result of using renewable
cost and the salvage cost. It represents the amount of money that is energy systems is calculated as follows:
{
needed to be invested in the system throughout its entire useful lifetime. UEannual × 0.318 for fuel oil
∑ CO2,mit (kgCO2 ) = (37)
UEannual × 0.28 for natural gas
PCnet = (IC + OM − SV) (34)
The amount of carbon credit earned (CCG) is calculated as follows [1]:
where IC is the component's initial cost, OM is the operation and
maintenance cost (5 %), and SV is the salvage value. The salvage value CCG($) = CO2,mit ( ton ) × 40( $/ton) (38)
of a system is the amount of money that can be recouped by selling off its
remaining usable components once the system's expected lifespan has where 40 $ is the amount of credit earned per ton of CO2.
ended. Some pieces of machinery may retain significant value even after
their expected lifetime has been completed. This value is estimated as 4. Model solution and validation
follows:
The introduced mathematical model is simulated using MATLAB/
∑( )
SV = IC ×
RT
(35) Simulink based on hourly analysis over a year. Firstly, the size of the
ny system's components is determined by the power demand based on the
lighting load. The introduced system solution steps are presented in
where RT is the remaining component lifetime. Table 3 presents the Fig. 3. Initially, the system is fed with streetlight load, duration, and
initial cost of system components. As a result of safety considerations in weather data, which is used to estimate the system components' ca­
storing hydrogen in high-pressure tanks, it may be exposed to leakage pacity. Then the efficiency of the controllers is set to calculate the power
and hydrogen ignition. In addition to the safety considerations related to correctly. Finally, the simulation is conducted hourly (8760 h) over a
storing electricity in batteries, the safety cost is included in operation year to show the system's performance. Furthermore, the second system
and maintenance costs. In addition, the storage system will increase the

7
M. Nasser and H. Hassan Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985

Fig. 3. Proposed system working strategy.

(PV/Battery streetlighting) solution steps are: calculating the battery
and PV capacity based on the lighting load. The economic model is
developed to conduct a complete comparison between the two systems.
PEM electrolyzer and fuel cell models are validated with experi­
mental data [2,24]. Fig. 4a and b demonstrate the voltage of a cell
variation as a function of current density for the fuel cell and electro­
lyzer, respectively. As shown from this figure, there is a good agreement
between the current model results and experimental ones.

Fig. 4. Polarization curve of (a) PEM electrolyzer and (b) PEM fuel cell.

8
M. Nasser and H. Hassan Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985

5. Results and discussion Table 4

Design parameters of the studied system to satisfy the yearly lighting load ob­
The results obtained from both systems' simulation and optimization tained from simulation.
at the same climatic conditions are demonstrated in this section. Elec­ Parameters PV/H2 PV/Battery
tricity production. Annual load (kWh). 19,745 19,745
As mentioned in Fig. 2, the selected site has a solar period from 6 to PV panels.
12 h per day, and the monthly solar radiation varies from 130 to 230 • No. of panels. 92 23
kWh/m2. Therefore, there is a significant variation in the produced • PV panels power (kW). 35.42 8.6
• Annual produced power (kWh). 80,452 20,113
power of PV panels throughout the year, as shown in Fig. 5. As illus­
Battery capacity (kWh) – 2517
trated in this figure, the minimum produced power is obtained in DC/DC converter size (kW) 35 9
January and February (Winter months), while the maximum value is DC/AC converter size (kW) 5 5
obtained during July and August (Summer months). Due to this varia­ Electrolyzer
tion in produced power, it is required to store the necessary energy for • Rated power (kW). 35 –
• Annual water consumption (m3) 12
the lighting in case of excess energy to use in shortage time. Two systems Fuel cell
configurations, (I) PV/H2 streetlighting and (II) PV/Battery streetlight­ • Rated power (kW). 5 –
ing, as illustrated in Fig. 1, are adapted to provide a standalone system. • Annual heat recovered to SED (kWh). 25,654
The system simulation is conducted at the same input climatic condi­ Tank capacity (kg) 130 –
Compressor rated power (kW). 0.3
tions and lighting load to check the system's performance and economic –

feasibility. It is worth noting that the same PV panels with proposed

efficiency of 21 % are used in both systems.
The main parameters of the studied system after simulation and
optimization based on the developed Matlab code are demonstrated in
Table 4.
According to the modeling results illustrated in Table 4, the PV
system generates 80,452 and 20,113 kWh of electricity per year for PV/
H2 and PV/Battery, respectively. In the first system, the total power
produced is supplied directly through DC/DC and DC/AC converters to
the electrolyzer and compressor for hydrogen production and storage.
The annual compressor power consumption is about 1 % of the gener­
ated power. Hydrogen is then used to power the fuel cell for the lighting
during the night tomes. On the other hand, in the second system, the
generated power is stored in the battery for later use at night.
Fig. 6 illustrates the amount of produced hydrogen, oxygen, and
water consumed on a typical summer day. The figure revealed that the
amount of produced hydrogen boosted as the solar radiation increased
and reached the maximum value at 1 p.m. Moreover, the amount of
water consumed by the electrolyzer is directly proportional to the
amount of hydrogen, whereas the amount of oxygen is half the quantity.
The lighting load is assumed to be constant (5 kW) and is available only
from sunset to sunrise, as shown in Fig. 7. In other words, the lighting
load represents the amount of electricity produced by the fuel cell or the
battery.
Fig. 7a depicts the yearly excess hydrogen mass stored in the
hydrogen tank, which varies from 0.5 to 130 kg. With an initial 60 kg of
hydrogen in the storage tank, and finally, at the end of the year, the same
amount of hydrogen remains in the tank to start the second year of
consumption. Fig. 7a shows clearly that the minimum storage of
hydrogen is during the winter while the largest storage is during the
summer because the solar energy is highest in summer and lower in
winter, hence the PV output power. Additionally, Fig. 7b illustrates the
amount of stored electricity in the battery, ranging from 22 to 2517
kWh. The initial battery capacity is estimated to be 1000 kWh, with the
same level achieved at the end of the year to prepare the system for next
year.
As mentioned, the required water for hydrogen production in the
PV/H2 system is supplied using SED. To extend the lifetime of the fuel
cell stack and ensure that its efficiency is maintained throughout its
whole, the cooling system is utilized to remove the heat that is effec­
tively produced by the stack. Fig. 7c shows the excess of freshwater

Fig. 5. PV monthly power production.

9
M. Nasser and H. Hassan
Fig. 6. Variation of hydrogen and oxygen production, water consumption, and lighting load of one day (21 of July).
storage during the year from the SED system. This figure shows clearly
that the consumed freshwater of the PV/H2 system is lower than the
water production by the SED; hence, there is an increase in the excess
water with time. Currently, the annual water production by SED is
19.245 m3, while the yearly water consumption by the electrolyzer is
11.94 m3, so there is an excess amount of distilled water. This amount is
about 7.300 m3 which can be supplied as drinking water or used for
irrigation. Furthermore, the average daily water production is about 53
kg, produced by utilizing a daily average waste heat recovery from the
fuel cell of about 70 kWh.
5.1. Performance assessment
The average energy efficiency of each component of the two studied
systems (proposed and estimated from the simulation) is summarized in
Table 5, which is calculated from the simulated developed Matlab code.
It is noted that the common components between systems have the same
proposed efficiency to realize the comparison between the two systems.
The battery and converter efficiency are adopted from [18,35]. The
conclusion that can be drawn from this table is that the PV/Battery
system structure is more effective than the PV/H2 system structure in
terms of overall energy efficiency.
Considering the whole system, it becomes clear that the evaluated
systems have modest energy efficiency: The PV/H2 efficiency is 8.5 %,
and the PV/Battery efficiency is 17.8 %. The fair system's efficiency is
primarily due to the PV panels' low efficiency, which converts only
21.23 % of solar power into electricity for both systems. Furthermore,
using several components in the hydrogen system leads to lower effi­
ciency compared to the other one. The performance analysis shows that
the PV/Battery system outweighs the PV/H2 system in terms of energy
efficiency. Therefore, the economic study will be conducted to complete
the judgment of the introduced systems and decide which approach is
suitable for streetlighting during a year.
5.2. Economic assessment
Fig. 8 presents the capital investment of each system configuration.
This investment value is 134,548 $ and 241,058 $ for the hydrogen and
battery system, respectively. The capital investment of the battery
10
Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985
system is higher than the hydrogen system because the large battery
number is used in the study because the power storage is around the
year. It is shown in the figure that the cost of storage is high compared to
the initial cost of other components. The initial price of hydrogen stor­
age in the first system represents about 55 % of the total capital cost,
while this cost is raised to 98 % when using batteries in the second
system. The electrolyzer and PV panels cost come in second place in the
two systems, respectively.
LCE is introduced to estimate the cost of electricity provided for
street lighting. LCE is calculated based on the equations illustrated in the
above section. It has been determined that the PV/Battery configuration
is further costly than the hydrogen storage system. Results revealed that
the LCE is equal to 1.06 $/kWh and 2.8 $/kWh for PV/H2 and PV/
Battery systems, respectively. The high LCE of the battery system is
owing to the large number of batteries required with their short lifespan
and the high cost of battery replacement. The key benefits of the
hydrogen system over the other one are greater energy density and
longer life duration. Hence, the obtained results do not recommend the
battery system because a high number of batteries are required, result­
ing in a higher cost than the PV/H2 system despite the battery system
having a higher efficiency.
The payback period, which can be calculated with Eq. (36), is a vital
indicator of a project's feasibility. Fig. 9 presents the cumulative cash
flow of the studied systems. Intuitively, the net cash flow will be nega­
tive in the first few years before turning positive after a certain point.
This means that the initial years of operation are critical for recouping
the initial investment. Once the value exceeds zero, the revenue has
been deemed a gain for the system. As indicated in this figure, the PV/H2
system has a PBP of 6.44 years, while the PBP of the PV/Battery system
is 11.7 years. Since the PV/H2 system has a shorter PBP than the other
one and hence, the hydrogen system has a good investment opportunity
and attracts more investors because the capital cost will be recovered in
a short time.
5.3. Enviroeconomic assessment
The traditional street lighting system depends only on the electricity
generated from power plants operated using fossil fuel. Using this fuel
increases the CO2 emissions that lead to rising in the greenhouse effect.
M. Nasser and H. Hassan Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985

Fig. 7. Hourly variation of (a) hydrogen in the storage tank, (b) stored capacity in the battery, and (c) Storage water production.

Therefore, using PV for electricity production is a suitable choice to

Table 5
eliminate this harmful effect. Table 6 illustrates the amount of miti­
The yearly average efficiency of the system's components.
gating CO2 emissions in both scenarios. The hydrogen system will help
Component PV/H2 PV/Battery in the reduction of emissions more than the other system. Both systems
Proposed are based on renewable energy, so this analysis attempts to inform that
PV panels (proposed) 21.23 % 21.23 % there will be a reduction in LCE. This reduction comes from the CCG,
Converter [18,35] (proposed) 95 % 95 % which will be subtracted from the annual cost if the government gives
Battery [18] (proposed) – 93 %
this credit to renewable energy projects. The percentage in reduction of
LCE in the PV/H2 system will be more than the PV/Battery system due to
Calculated
the higher CCG of the first system, as presented in Table 6. Table 7
Electrolyzer 63.64 % –
Fuel cell 49.2 % – demonstrates a comparison between the current work and other stand­
SED 74.7 % – alone PV/H2 systems. The results indicated that the current system has
Overall efficiency 8.5 % 17.8 % the highest efficiency, and LCE is 1.06 $/kWh, which is considered

11
M. Nasser and H. Hassan Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985

Fig. 8. Both systems' initial investment.

Fig. 9. The net cumulative cash flow for (a) PV/H2 and PV/Battery.

on the system performance and enviroeconomic analysis. The two ap­

Table 6
proaches are proposed (I) storing electricity through hydrogen (PV/H2)
Annual CO2 mitigation and CCG of each system.
production via PV/PEM/Fuel cell/Desalination system and (II) storing
PV/H2 PV/ electricity through the battery via PV/Battery system. The systems
Battery
analysis is based on MATLAB/Simulink code which is developed ac­
Annual electricity generation (kWh) 80,450 20,113 cording to actual weather data of New Borg El-Arab City, Alexandria,
Amount of CO2 mitigated when using PV instead of fuel-oil Egypt. The model is validated and simulated for a year with one hour
25.6 6.4
power plant (Ton).
Amount of CO2 mitigated when using PV instead of natural
step. Moreover, the system's performance is evaluated with economic
22.5 5.6 and environmental analysis. The main conclusions of the study are as
gas power plant (Ton).
CCG (fuel-oil power plant) ($) 1024 256 follows:
CCG (natural gas power plant) ($) 900 224
• The monthly produced electricity ranges from 28 to 48.2 kWh per
square meter of PV panels.
reasonable compared to other presented works.
• The number of PV panels used in the PV/H2 system (92 panels) is
four times higher than the PV/Battery system (23 panels).
6. Conclusion
• The PV/Battery system has superior efficiency over the PV/H2 sys­
tem. The overall system efficiency of the PV/H2 and PV/Battery
Sustainable and standalone street lighting systems are developed and
systems are 8.8 % and 17.8 %, respectively.
evaluated. Two systems are introduced to perform this evaluation based

12
M. Nasser and H. Hassan Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985

Table 7 References
Comparison between the current study and previous work.
[1] A.R. Abd Elbar, M.S. Yousef, H. Hassan, Energy, exergy, exergoeconomic and
Ref Application System LCE Country Notes
enviroeconomic (4E) evaluation of a new integration of solar still with photovoltaic
Efficiency ($/kWh) panel, J. Clean. Prod. 233 (2019) 665–680, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cover all jclepro.2019.06.111.
required [2] M.H. Ahmadi, A. Mohammadi, F. Pourfayaz, M. Mehrpooya, M. Bidi, A. Valero,
S. Uson, Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of a waste heat recovery
annual load.
system for proton exchange membrane fuel cell using transcritical carbon dioxide
Current Fuel cell and
Streetlighting 8.5 % 1.06 Egypt cycle and cold energy of liquefied natural gas, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 34 (2016)
work electrolyzer 428–438, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.07.014.
efficiency: [3] A.O. Ali, A.M. Hamed, M.M. Abdelsalam, M.N. Sabry, M.R. Elmarghany, Energy
49.2 % and management of photovoltaic-battery system connected with the grid, J. Energy
63.64 %. Storage 55 (2022), 105865, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EST.2022.105865.
Load: 5 kW [4] S.M. Alirahmi, E. Assareh, A. Arabkoohsar, H. Yu, S.M. Hosseini, X. Wang,
from 6 a.m. to Development and multi-criteria optimization of a solar thermal power plant
12 p.m. and 2 integrated with PEM electrolyzer and thermoelectric generator, Int. J. Hydrog.
kW the rest of Energy 47 (2022) 23919–23934, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.05.196.
the day, Cover [5] R.G. Allwyn, A. Al-Hinai, R. Al-Abri, A. Malik, Optimization and techno-economic
Emergency all required analysis of PV/Battery system for street lighting using genetic algorithm – a case
[38] 4.06 % 0.626 Turkey study in Oman, Clean. Eng. Technol. 8 (2022), 100475, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
room annual load.
CLET.2022.100475.
Fuel cell and
[6] J. Assaf, B. Shabani, Transient simulation modelling and energy performance of a
electrolyzer
standalone solar-hydrogen combined heat and power system integrated with solar-
efficiency:
thermal collectors, Appl. Energy 178 (2016) 66–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
61.15 % and apenergy.2016.06.027.
52.95 %. [7] O.M. Babatunde, J.L. Munda, Y. Hamam, Hybridized off-grid fuel cell/wind/solar
Cover 70 % of PV /battery for energy generation in a small household: a multi-criteria
the required perspective, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 47 (2022) 6437–6452, https://doi.org/
annual load. 10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2021.12.018.
Fuel cell [8] N. Belmonte, V. Girgenti, P. Florian, C. Peano, C. Luetto, P. Rizzi, M. Baricco,
efficiency is A comparison of energy storage from renewable sources through batteries and fuel
[56] House 7% 0.86 China cells: a case study in Turin, Italy, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 41 (2016) 21427–21438,
equal to 60.4
%. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2016.07.260.
Hydrogen [9] S. Bensmail, D. Rekioua, H. Azzi, Study of hybrid photovoltaic/fuel cell system for
stand-alone applications, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 40 (2015) 13820–13826, https://
production up
doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2015.04.013.
to 65 g/h.
[10] T. Chowdhury, H. Chowdhury, K.S. Islam, A. Sharifi, R. Corkish, S.M. Sait,
Resilience analysis of a PV/battery system of health care centres in rohingya
refugee camp, Energy 263 (2023), 125634, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
• The PV/H2 energy system has a superior advantage over the PV/ ENERGY.2022.125634.
Battery system based on the economic analysis. [11] B.K. Das, Y.M. Al-Abdeli, G. Kothapalli, Integrating renewables into stand-alone
hybrid systems meeting electric, heating, and cooling loads: a case study, Renew.
• The initial investment of the PV/H2 is 134,548 $ while it equals
Energy 180 (2021) 1222–1236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.09.016.
241,058 $ for the PV/Battery. [12] F. Dawood, M. Anda, G.M. Shafiullah, Hydrogen production for energy: an
• The LCE is about 1.06 $/kWh and 2.8 $/kWh for PV/H2 and PV/ overview, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45 (2020) 3847–3869, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.IJHYDENE.2019.12.059.
Battery systems, respectively.
[13] A.C. Duman, Ö. Güler, Techno-economic analysis of off-grid photovoltaic LED road
• The PV/H2 system has a 6.44-year PBP, while PV/Battery has 11.7 lighting systems: a case study for northern, central and southern regions of Turkey,
years. Build. Environ. 156 (2019) 89–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
• PV/H2 system's shorter PBP makes it a viable investment and attracts buildenv.2019.04.005.
[14] B. Elboshy, M. Alwetaishi, R.M.H. Aly, A.S. Zalhaf, A suitability mapping for the PV
more investors. Both systems' approaches reduce CO2 emissions by solar farms in Egypt based on GIS-AHP to optimize multi-criteria feasibility, Ain
up to 25.6 tons annually. Shams Eng. J. 13 (2022), 101618, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASEJ.2021.10.013.
• The credit gain from CO2 emissions reduction is up to 1024 $ yearly. [15] R. Gad, H. Mahmoud, S. Ookawara, H. Hassan, Evaluation of thermal management
of photovoltaic solar cell via hybrid cooling system of phase change material
• Comparing the performance of hydrogen production and storage inclusion hybrid nanoparticles coupled with flat heat pipe salvage value, J. Energy
from solar energy using photocatalytic/fuel cells and PV/electro­ Storage 57 (2023), 106185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.106185.
lyzer/fuel cells could be studied. [16] Y. Gao, Y. Cai, C. Liu, Annual operating characteristics analysis of photovoltaic-
energy storage microgrid based on retired lithium iron phosphate batteries,
J. Energy Storage. 45 (2022), 103769, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CRediT authorship contribution statement EST.2021.103769.
[17] H.Z.Al Garni, A.Abubakar Mas’ud, M.A. Baseer, M.A.M. Ramli, Techno-economic
optimization and sensitivity analysis of a PV/Wind/diesel/battery system in Saudi
Mohamed Nasser: Methodology, Investigation, Validation, Original
Arabia using a combined dispatch strategy, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments.
Draft, Writing - Review & Editing Hamdy Hassan: Conceptualization, 53 (2022) 102730, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SETA.2022.102730.
Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision. [18] X. Han, J. Garrison, G. Hug, Techno-economic analysis of PV-battery systems in
Switzerland, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 158 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2021.112028.
Declaration of competing interest [19] H. Hassan, An experimental work on the effect of injection molding parameters on
the cavity pressure and product weight, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 67 (2013)
We disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any 675–686, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4514-4.
[20] H. Hassan, M.S. Yousef, M.S. Ahmed, M. Fathy, Energy, exergy, environmental, and
financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organi­ economic analysis of natural and forced cooling of solar still with porous media,
zations within three years of beginning the submitted work that could Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (2020) 38221–38240, https://doi.org/10.1007/
inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, this work. s11356-020-09995-4.
[21] M.I. Hlal, V.K. Ramachandaramurthy, A. Sarhan, A. Pouryekta, U. Subramaniam,
Optimum battery depth of discharge for off-grid solar PV/battery system, J. Energy
Data availability Storage. 26 (2019), 100999, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EST.2019.100999.
[22] K.H. Ibrahim, A.Y. Hassan, A.S. AbdElrazek, S.M. Saleh, Economic analysis of
stand-alone PV-battery system based on new power assessment configuration in
No data was used for the research described in the article. siwa oasis – Egypt, Alex. Eng. J. 62 (2023) 181–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aej.2022.07.034.
[23] M. Ismail, W.K. Zahra, S. Ookawara, H. Hassan, Enhancing the air conditioning
unit performance via energy storage of different inorganic phase change materials

13
M. Nasser and H. Hassan
with hybrid nanoparticles, JOM (2023) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11837-
022-05629-X/FIGURES/11.
[24] S. Khanmohammadi, M. Saadat-Targhi, Performance enhancement of an integrated
system with solar flat plate collector for hydrogen production using waste heat
recovery, Energy 171 (2019) 1066–1076, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENERGY.2019.01.096.
[25] S.P. Koko, Optimal battery sizing for a grid-tied solar photovoltaic system
supplying a residential load: a case study under South African solar irradiance,
Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 410–418, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.02.183.
[26] J. Lagorse, D. Paire, A. Miraoui, Sizing optimization of a stand-alone street lighting
system powered by a hybrid system using fuel cell, PV and battery, Renew. Energy
34 (2009) 683–691, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.030.
[27] LG Data Sheet, 380W I 375W I 370W I 365W, 2019.
[28] A. Mevawalla, Y. Shabeer, M.K. Tran, S. Panchal, M. Fowler, R. Fraser, Thermal
modelling utilizing multiple experimentally measurable parameters, Batter 8
(2022) 147, https://doi.org/10.3390/BATTERIES8100147.
[29] A. Mohammadi, M. Mehrpooya, Thermodynamic and economic analyses of
hydrogen production system using high temperature solid oxide electrolyzer
integrated with parabolic trough collector, J. Clean. Prod. 212 (2019) 713–726,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.261.
[30] H. Nami, E. Akrami, F. Ranjbar, Hydrogen production using the waste heat of
benchmark pressurized molten carbonate fuel cell system via combination of
organic rankine cycle and proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 114 (2017) 631–638, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
APPLTHERMALENG.2016.12.018.
[31] M. Nasser, H. Hassan, Assessment of hydrogen production from waste heat using
hybrid systems of rankine cycle with proton exchange membrane/solid oxide
electrolyzer, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2022.11.187.
[32] M. Nasser, H. Hassan, Techno-enviro-economic analysis of hydrogen production
via low and high temperature electrolyzers powered by PV/wind turbines/Waste
heat, Energy Convers. Manag. 278 (2023), 116693, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2023.116693.
[33] M. Nasser, T.F. Megahed, S. Ookawara, H. Hassan, A review of water
electrolysis–based systems for hydrogen production using hybrid/solar/wind
energy systems, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1 (2022) 1–25, https://doi.org/10.1007/
S11356-022-23323-Y.
[34] M. Nasser, T.F. Megahed, S. Ookawara, H. Hassan, Techno-economic assessment of
clean hydrogen production and storage using hybrid renewable energy system of
PV/wind under different climatic conditions, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 52
(2022), 102195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102195.
[35] M. Nasser, T.F. Megahed, S. Ookawara, H. Hassan, Performance evaluation of PV
panels / wind turbines hybrid system for green hydrogen generation and storage :
energy, exergy, economic, and enviroeconomic, Energy Convers. Manag. 267
(2022), 115870, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115870.
[36] M. Nasser, T.F. Megahed, S. Ookawara, H. Hassan, Techno-economic assessment of
green hydrogen production using different configurations of wind turbines and PV
panels, J. Energy Syst. 6 (2022) 560–572, https://doi.org/10.30521/jes.1132111.
[37] H.Q. Nguyen, B. Shabani, Proton exchange membrane fuel cells heat recovery
opportunities for combined heating/cooling and power applications, Energy
Convers. Manag. 204 (2020), 112328, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2019.112328.
[38] E. Ozden, I. Tari, Energy–exergy and economic analyses of a hybrid solar–hydrogen
renewable energy system in Ankara, Turkey, Appl. Therm. Eng. 99 (2016)
169–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2016.01.042.
[39] A. Panagopoulos, Process simulation and techno-economic assessment of a zero
liquid discharge/multi-effect desalination/thermal vapor compression (ZLD/MED/
TVC) system, Int. J. Energy Res. 44 (2020) 473–495, https://doi.org/10.1002/
er.4948.
[40] T. Salameh, M.A. Abdelkareem, A.G. Olabi, E.T. Sayed, M. Al-Chaderchi, H. Rezk,
Integrated standalone hybrid solar PV, fuel cell and diesel generator power system
for battery or supercapacitor storage systems in khorfakkan, United Arab Emirates,
14
Journal of Energy Storage 63 (2023) 106985
Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 46 (2021) 6014–6027, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2020.08.153.
[41] R. Sekhar, P. Shah, S. Panchal, M. Fowler, R. Fraser, Distance to empty soft sensor
for ford escape electric vehicle, Results Control Optim. 9 (2022), 100168, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.RICO.2022.100168.
[42] O. Sen, O. Faruk Guler, C. Yilmaz, M. Kanoglu, Thermodynamic modeling and
analysis of a solar and geothermal assisted multi-generation energy system, Energy
Convers. Manag. 239 (2021), 114186, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2021.114186.
[43] M. Siddique, N. Turkmen, O.M. Al-Rabghi, E. Shabana, M.H. Albeirutty, Small-
scale low pressure ‘single effect distillation’ and ‘single stage flash’ solar driven
barometric desalination units: a comparative analysis, Desalination 444 (2018)
53–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.06.011.
[44] A.M.A. Soliman, H. Hassan, An experimental work on the performance of solar cell
cooled by flat heat pipe, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10973-020-10102-5.
[45] A.M.A. Soliman, H. Hassan, S. Ookawara, An experimental study of the
performance of the solar cell with heat sink cooling system, Energy Procedia 162
(2019) 127–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.04.014.
[46] W. Sun, T. Li, H. Chu, J. Liu, L. Feng, Techno-economic optimization of a fuel cell
with nanomaterial structure membrane for electricity and heating production, Fuel
329 (2022), 125410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125410.
[47] M. Tayefeh, Exergy and economic analysis of a novel integration of compressed air
energy storage with multi-effect distillation and multi-stage flash systems,
J. Energy Storage 55 (2022), 105534, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.105534.
[48] H. Tebibel, Methodology for multi-objective optimization of wind turbine/battery/
electrolyzer system for decentralized clean hydrogen production using an adapted
power management strategy for low wind speed conditions, Energy Convers.
Manag. 238 (2021), 114125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114125.
[49] P. Tiam Kapen, B.A. Medjo Nouadje, V. Chegnimonhan, G. Tchuen, R. Tchinda,
Techno-economic feasibility of a PV/battery/fuel cell/electrolyzer/biogas hybrid
system for energy and hydrogen production in the far north region of Cameroon by
using HOMER pro, EnergyStrateg. Rev. 44 (2022), 100988, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ESR.2022.100988.
[50] X. Wang, Q. Hua, P. Liu, L. Sun, Stochastic dynamic programming based optimal
energy scheduling for a hybrid fuel cell/PV/battery system under uncertainty,
Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 165 (2022) 380–386, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
PSEP.2022.07.025.
[51] D. Wang, H.A. Dhahad, M.A. Ali, S.F. Almojil, A.I. Almohana, A.F. Alali, F.
Q. Ahmed, Performance assessment and multi-aspect optimization of a poly-
generation system based on waste heat recovery of PEM fuel cells, Appl. Therm.
Eng. (2022), 119946, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.119946.
[52] T. Wilberforce, A.G. Olabi, I. Muhammad, A. Alaswad, E. Taha, A.G. Abo-khalil, H.
M. Maghrabie, K. Elsaid, M. Ali, Recovery of waste heat from proton exchange
membrane fuel cells e a review, in: Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.08.069.
[53] Y. Xie, Y. Liu, M. Fowler, M.K. Tran, S. Panchal, W. Li, Y. Zhang, Enhanced
optimization algorithm for the structural design of an air-cooled battery pack
considering battery lifespan and consistency, Int. J. Energy Res. 46 (2022)
24021–24044, https://doi.org/10.1002/ER.8700.
[54] S. Yalçın, S. Panchal, M.S. Herdem, A CNN-ABC model for estimation and
optimization of heat generation rate and voltage distributions of lithium-ion
batteries for electric vehicles, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 199 (2022), 123486,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHEATMASSTRANSFER.2022.123486.
[55] H. Yavuz, Modelling and simulation of a heaving wave energy converter based
PEM hydrogen generation and storage system, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45 (2020)
26413–26425, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.06.099.
[56] F. Zhang, B. Wang, Z. Gong, X. Zhang, Z. Qin, K. Jiao, Development of
photovoltaic-electrolyzer-fuel cell system for hydrogen production and power
generation, Energy 263 (2023), 125566, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENERGY.2022.125566.