TEA Wind To Hydrogen

DEGREE PROJECT IN TECHNICAL CHEMISTRY ENGINEERING,
SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2023
Techno-Economic Analysis of
Wind Power-to-Hydrogen
ZEINAB MUHSIN
ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KTH

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES IN CHEMISTRY, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND HEALTH
Abstract
The goal to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the transportation sector in Sweden, has
been ongoing for a while [1]. Therefore, the ambition to phase out the usage of fossil fuels such as
diesel, has been actively taking place through different strategies. One such strategy is to increase
the share of electric cars and applying a major effort in establishing a large-scaled infrastructure
for charging stations throughout the country. Recently, interest in hydrogen as a potential fuel has
significantly increased. This has in turn motivated different actors (industry, academia, transport,
and public sector) in mid Sweden to form a partnership to further develop this goal by initiating a
collaborative project called "Mid Sweden Hydrogen Valley”. The project’s ambition is to construct
and operate a large-scaled hydrogen production facility with the aim of, among other things,
gradually introducing hydrogen fueled vehicles in Gävle harbor. These hydrogen fueled vehicles
will pose as alternative to current operating diesel fueled vehicles in the harbor. The plausible
reasons for hydrogen fuel in the transport sector is that it offers green transport, longer driving
distances, faster refueling time, and a lightweight fuel storage compared to the heavy batteries in
electric cars. To achieve this, hydrogen infrastructure must first be established to create
accessibility. Thus, the collaboration in mid Sweden has the mission of taking a leading role in
this matter.
The aim of this master thesis is to investigate whether a large-scaled hydrogen production facility
powered by renewable energy (wind energy) has the potential of becoming economic viable from
the perspective of an investment calculation. This investigation was executed by firstly
constructing a generalized and optimized configuration of such a facility. This was accomplished
by analyzing what type of relevant equipment were needed, studying, and selecting appropriate
technologies, and examining the commercial availability of the equipment. Thereafter, a techno-
economic analysis on the facility’s operational process was applied. This analysis was conducted
in the form of a case study for the following target years 2019, 2020 and 2021, where a hydrogen
production plant was placed in Gävle harbor and was connected to a hypothetical offshore wind
farm, situated just outside the harbor. This offshore wind farm was simultaneously connected to
the grid via a nearby connection point. The purpose was to determine which spot prices, as a
function of different hydrogen prices, made it possible to produce and sell hydrogen at a profit
rather than selling the electricity directly to the grid. These breakeven spot prices were computed
by subtracting the alternative revenue of selling electricity to the grid from the selling price of
hydrogen. Thereafter, these spot prices were used to obtain the profitable number of hydrogen
production hours. Based on these hydrogen production hours, the total variable income generated
from selling hydrogen could be calculated. Finally, the actual profit was calculated by deducting
the facility's fixed costs from the generated income. This case study was based on an in-depth
literature research and contact with Svenska Kraftnät (SvK), the Swedish Energy Agency, different
wind power producers, and Svea Vind Offshore.
Three variants of the case study were produced, where the only difference were the sizes of the
main components: PEM electrolysis, compressor, storage, and hydrogen refueling station. In this
report, the following three electrolyzer capacities 5 MW, 10 MW, and 20 MW, were selected. The
dimensions of the other components were based on the electrolyzer’s capacity. The reason for
producing three different facility sizes, was to determine whether there was a correlation between
facility size and the probability of achieving economic profitability. The results showed that these
three facilities possessed different advantages and drawbacks. The 5 MW facility had the
advantage of obtaining the highest number of productions hours but had the drawback of
generating the least volume of hydrogen. However, the 20 MW facility had the fewest production
hours but the highest volume of hydrogen production, resulting in high profits. Lastly, the 10 MW
facility fell between the 5 MW and 20 MW in terms of the number of production hours and
generated profit. However, this information was not sufficient to make a final deciding of which
1
facility size possessed the highest chance of achieving profitability. The reason for this is that the
technical and economic impact of small components were disregarded in the calculations.
Additionally, these facilities were also assumed to operate with perfect insulation, meaning no
occurrence of hydrogen leakage took place, which is not realistic in practice.
2
Sammanfattning
I Sverige har målet länge varit att reducera mängden växthusgasutsläpp från transportsektorn [1].
Ambitionen har därför varit att försöka fasa ut användningen av fossila bränslen som till exempel
diesel. Det har bland annat gjorts genom att öka andelen elbilar och skapa förutsättningar för det
genom att etablera en storskalig infrastruktur för laddningsstationer runtom i landet. På senare tid
har intresset för vätgas som ett potentiellt drivmedel för fordon ökat markant. Detta har i sin tur
motiverat olika aktörer (industri, akademi, transportsektor och offentliga sektor) i Mellansverige
att ingå i ett partnerskap för att tillsammans vidareutveckla detta mål genom att initiera
samverkansprojektet ”Mid Sweden Hydrogen Valley”. Projektets ambition är att utforma och driva
storskalig vätgasproduktion i syfte att bland annat stegvis introducera vätgasdrivna transportmedel
i Gävle hamn som ett alternativ till nuvarande dieseldrivna fordon i hamnen. Detta då vätgasdrivna
fordon erbjuder grön transport, längre körsträcka, snabbare påfyllningstid samt en viktmässigt
lättare bränslelager jämfört med tunga batterier i elbilar. För att uppnå detta måste först
vätgasinfrastruktur etableras för att skapa en tillgänglighet och därför har Mellansverige som
huvudmål att ta en ledande roll.
Detta masterprojekt hade som mål att utforma och undersöka om en storskalig
vätgasproduktionsanläggning som drevs på förnybar energi (vindkraft), hade potentialen att bli
ekonomiskt lönsamt utifrån ett investeringskalkylsperspektiv. Detta gjordes genom att först
konstruera en generell och optimerad konfiguration av en sådan anläggning. Detta
tillvägagångssätt involverade bland annat att ta reda på vilka relevanta komponenter som
behövdes, analysera lämpliga teknologier och undersöka komponenternas kommersiella
tillgänglighet. En tekno-ekonomiskt analys tillämpades därefter på den färdigställda anläggningen.
Den tekno-ekonomiska analysen genomfördes i form av en fallstudie för åren 2019, 2020 och
2021, där en fiktiv vätgasanläggning i Gävle hamn anslöts till en fiktiv havsbaserad vindkraftspark
strax utanför hamnen. Denna havsbaserade vindkraft var i samma stund ansluten till nätet via en
närliggande anslutningspunkt. Syftet var att ta reda på vid vilka spotpriser som funktion av
vätgaspris, där det var lönsamt att producera vätgas i stället för att sälja elektriciteten direkt till
elmarknaden. Dessa spotpriser räknades fram genom att subtrahera alternativintäkten av att sälja
elen till nätet från vätgasens försäljningspris. Dessa spotpriser användes till att erhålla antalet
lönsamma produktionstimmar av vätgas. Baserat på dessa lönsamma produktionstimmar kunde
den totala generade inkomsten av vätgasförsäljning kalkyleras. Den slutliga vinsten beräknades
genom avdrag av anläggningens fasta kostnader från den genererade rörliga inkomsten. Denna
fallstudie är baserad på en djupgående litteraturstudie samt kontakt med Svenska Kraftnät (SvK),
Energimyndigheten, diverse vindkraftsproducenter och Svea Vind Offshore.
Tre varianter av fallstudien skapades där den enda skillnaden var storlekarna på
huvudkomponenterna PEM elektrolys, kompressor, lager och vätgastankstation. I denna rapport
valdes följande tre elektrolyskapaciteter: 5 MW, 10 MW och 20 MW. Resterande komponenter
dimensionerades utifrån elektrolysens kapacitet. Anledningen till att tre olika anläggningsvarianter
studerades var för att ta reda på om det fanns ett tydligt samband mellan anläggningens storlek och
sannolikheten att uppnå ekonomisk lönsamhet. Resultaten visade att dessa tre anläggningsstorlekar
bar på olika för- och nackdelar. Fördelen som en 5 MW anläggning hade var till exempel flest
antal produktionstimmar men nackdelen att den producerade minst mängd av vätgas. En 20 MW
anläggning hade minst antal produktionstimmar men störst vätgasproduktion vilket resulterade i
höga vinster. Enligt vad som kan förväntas låg 10 MW-anläggningen mellan 5 MW och 20 MW
när det kom till antalet produktionstimmar och genererad vinst. Denna information var dock inte
tillräcklig för att utfärda en slutlig bedömning gällande vilken anläggning som hade störst potential
att uppnå lönsamhet. Detta grundade sig i att alla dessa anläggningsvarianter var enkelt
konstruerade, vilket innebar att många mindre komponenter som också har en teknisk och
ekonomisk inverkan, inte togs med i beräkningarna. Utöver detta så antogs även att anläggningen
3
arbetade helt isolerat, vilket innebar att inget vätgasläckage ägde rum, något som inte
överensstämmer i praktiken.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my gratitude towards my examiner and supervisor, Stefan Grönkvist at
KTH, for providing me with valuable knowledge when conducting this master thesis. I would also
like to deeply thank my family for supporting me throughout this project.
Zeinab Muhsin
Stockholm, 2023
5
NOMENCLATURE
Notations
Symbol Description
K Kelvin
ρ Density
A Ampere
Wiso Isothermal work
Wadi Adiabatic work
W Watt
Abbreviations
AC Alternating current
DC Direct current
PEM Proton Exchange Membrane
AWE Alkaline Water Electrolyzer
SOEC Solid oxide electrolyzer
SvK Svenska Kraftnät
PtH Power-to-Hydrogen
PtP Power-to-Power
PtX Power-to-X
HRS Hydrogen Refuel Station
LCOE Levelized cost of electricity
CAPEX Capital expenditure
BoP Balance of plant
OPEX Operational expenditure
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 1
SAMMANFATTNING 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
NOMENCLATURE 6
1 INTRODUCTION 13
1.1 Background 13
1.2 Aim 14
1.3 Delimitations 14
1.4 Method 15
2 LITTERATURE RESREACH 16
2.1 Hydrogen 16
2.2 Hydrogen Application 17
2.2.1 Industry 17
2.2.2 Transportation Sector 18
2.3 Power-to-X 19
2.3.1 Power-to-Power 20
2.3.2 Power-to-Hydrogen 21
2.4 Mid Sweden Hydrogen Valley 21
2.5 Bidding Area Two 22
2.6 Wind Power Parks in Europe 23
2.6.1 Development of Wind Turbines Technology 23
2.7 The Swedish Electricity Market 24
2.7.1 Grid Connection 25
2.8 Hydrogen Production 26
7
2.8.1 Hydrogen Production by Water Electrolyzer 27
2.8.1.1 Alkaline Water Electrolyzer 28
2.8.1.2 Proton Exchange Membrane 29
2.9 Compressor 30
2.10 Storage 31
2.10.1 Adsorption 31
2.10.2 Chemical Storage 31
2.10.3 Physical Storage 32
2.10.3.1 Liquid Hydrogen Storage 32
2.10.3.2 Compressed Gaseous Hydrogen Storage 32
2.11 Hydrogen Refuel Station 33
2.12 Hydrogen Distribution 35
3 CASE STUDY 37
3.1 System Overview 37
3.2 Offshore Wind Park 38
3.3 Development of Power-to-X Park 40
3.3.1 Hydrogen Production Facility 40
3.3.2 Modelling a Power-to-Hydrogen Plant 41
3.3.2.1 Technical and Economic Description of Electrolyzer 43
3.3.2.2 Technical and Economic Description of Compressor 43
3.3.2.3 Technical and Economic Description of On-Site Storage 44
3.3.2.4 Technical and Economic Description of On-Site HRS 45
3.3.2.5 Capital Investment Cost of Hydrogen Production Facility 45
3.4 Offshore Wind Park Connected to Grid 47
4 GÄVLE HABOR 49
4.1 Vehicles Operating in Gävle Harbor 49
8
4.1.1 Trucks 50
4.1.2 Machines 50
4.1.3 Transition Process 51
5 METHODOLOGY 52
5.1 Pre-Processing and Transformation of Data 52
5.1.1 Electricity Production from Wind Farm 52
5.1.1.1 Wind Farm Connected to Grid 52
5.1.2 Hydrogen Production Facility 53
5.1.2.1 Operational Process of Electrolyzer 53
5.1.2.2 Operational Process of Compressor 54
5.1.2.3 Total Variable Operational Process of Hydrogen Facility 54
5.1.2.4 Break-even Spot Price 55
5.2 Economic Modeling Tools 56
5.2.1 Contribution Margin 56
5.2.2 Opportunity Cost 56
5.2.3 Annuity Method 56
6 RESULTS 57
6.1 Simulations of Hydrogen Production 57
6.1.1 Annual Hydrogen Production 57
6.1.2 The Profitability of Power-to-Hydrogen Park 59
6.2 Hydrogen Demand of Gävle Harbor 60
7 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 61

7.1 Discussion 61
7.2 Conclusions 63
8 FUTURE WORK 64
Bibliography 65
APPENDIX 70
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Hydrogen molecule 16
Figure 2 Phase diagram of hydrogen molecule 16
Figure 3 General illustration of various fuel cells operating principles 20
Figure 4 General illustration of various fuel cells operating principles 21
Figure 5 Generalized configuration of a Power-to-Hydrogen process 21
Figure 6 Map of Sweden, including bidding areas 22
Figure 7 Shows installation of wind power plants in different countries 23
Figure 8 Shows the physical development pf wind turbines 24
Figure 9 Shows the interaction between the different units 25
Figure 10 Illustration of AWE and its operating principles 28
Figure 11 Illustration of PEM and its operating principles 29
Figure 12 Types of hydrogen storage technologies 31
Figure 13 Sketch of different tank types for physical storage of hydrogen gas 33
Figure 14 General sketch of HRS 34
Figure 15 A visual presentation of H2 transportation costs with regards to distribution distance
[km] (x-axis) and volume [€/kg] (y-axis). Note that costs include movement, compressor and the
storage used 35
Figure 16 Wind farm connected both to the grid and hydrogen facility by electric cables 38
Figure 17 Power curve of a singular turbine for the years 2019, 2021 and 2020 39
Figure 18 Hourly power production for the year 2019 (A), 2020 (B) and 2021 (C) 39
Figure 19 Durability diagram year 2019 40
Figure 23 Shows a simplified flowchart of the H2 production facility’s operational process 53
Figure 24 Simulation of Spot Price Year 2019 58
Figure 27 Simulation of Wind Speed Year 2019 58
Figure 30 Hydrogen production at spot price <49.3 [€/MWh] 77
Figure 34 Hydrogen production at spot price <129 [€/MWh] 79
10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Hydrogen fuel consumption and road range categorized by vehicle type 19
Table 2 Technical and economic information about light-weighted hydrogen
fueled vehicles 19
Table 3 Total annual wind power production per bidding area 22
Table 4 Total annual hydro power production per bidding area 22
Table 5 Average spot price per bidding area 23
Table 6 Conventional hydrogen production methods and the respective advantages,
disadvantages, efficiency and hydrogen production cost 27
Table 7 Investment costs (CAPEX) for electrolyzers at different scenarios year 2020 27
Table 8 Investment costs (CAPEX) for compressor with short term (on-site) storage at different
capacities in year 2020 30
Table 9 Investment cost for different types of compressed gaseous hydrogen storage 33
Table 10 Estimated Investment Cost for Hydrogen 35
Table 11 2.3 MW turbine’s power output with respect to wind speed 39
Table 12 Fixed and variable cost of the offshore wind 40
Table 13 Technical Parameters for all PEM Electrolyzer 43
Table 14 Investment and BoP costs for all PEM Electrolyzers 43
Table 15 Technical Parameters for all Compressor Units 44
Table 16 Investment cost for all Compressor Units for the year 2020 44
Table 17 Technical and Economic Parameters for Tank Type I 45
Table 18 Investment cost for HRS 700-bar on-board storage 45
Table 19 Total investment cost for PtH plant including 5 MW electrolyzer 46
Table 20 Total Investment Cost for PtH plant Including 10 MW Electrolyzer 46
Table 21 Total Investment Cost for PtH plant Including 20 MW electrolyzer. 47
Table 22 Power fee for the 100 MW wind Park for Different Years 47
Table 23 Energy fee based on target year, average spot price, loss coefficient
and risk Factor 48
Table 24 Electricity certificate for different years 48
Table 25 Data of diesel engine and Fuel cell, and the corresponding fuels 50
Table 26 Specific Data and Information Regarding the machines Operating
in Gävle Habor 50
Table 27 Daily hydrogen demand based on transition stage 51
Table 28 Average Wind Speed at Eggegrund A 52
Table 29 Breakeven Spot price as function of hydrogen selling price for year 2019 55
Table 32 Parameters of Annuity Method 56
Table 33 Annual income generated for 5 MW, 10 MW and 20 MW facilities in year 2019, where
hydrogen price ranges from 3–7 €/kg 57
Table 34 Annual income generated for 5 MW, 10 MW and 20 MW facilities in year 2020, where
Table 35 Annual income generated for 5 MW, 10 MW and 20 MW in year 2021, where
Table 36 Profit generated from hydrogen sales 5 MW, 10 MW and 20 MW in 2019, hydrogen
price ranges from 3–7 €/kg 59
11
Table 39 Average TS contribution of the three different PtH plant s 60
Table 40 Profitable hydrogen production, 5 MW, in year 2019, where hydrogen price ranges
from 3–7 €/kg 71
from 3–7 €/kg 71
from 3–7 €/kg 71
Table 43 Profitable hydrogen production, 10 MW, in year 2019, where hydrogen price
ranges from 3–7 €/kg 72
Table 49 Profit generated from hydrogen production, 5 MW, in 2019, hydrogen price ranges
from 3–7 €/kg 74
from 3–7 €/kg 74
from 3–7 €/kg 74
Table 52 Profit generated from hydrogen production, 10MW,in 2019, hydrogen price ranges
from 3–7 €/kg 75
from 3–7 €/kg 75
from 3–7 €/kg 75
from 3–7 €/kg 76
from 3–7 €/kg 76
from 3–7 €/kg 76
Table 58 Data of Truck’s diesel consumption and the corresponding
hydrogen consumption 85
Table 59 Technical Data of Forklifts, ranging from light- to heavyweight 85
Table 60 Technical Data of reachstackers, ranging from light- to heavyweight 85
Table 61 Technical Data of Wheel Loaders 85
Table 62 Technical Data of Terminal Tractor 86
Table 63 Composition of vehicles at different hydrogen transition stages, where TS = Transition
Stage and OW = operating weight 86
12
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Over the course of time, the concept sustainability has gained considerable traction across diverse
sectors. Nowadays, it is often taken into account and implemented when addressing different types
of challenges, with the aim of generating effective and long-term solutions. One example is the
challenge of humans’ daily activities that are negatively impacting the environment. Thus, the
awareness for environmental matters has increased, which has sparked an ambition to explore
environmentally friendly alternatives to replace non-environmental and unsustainable methods.
An area of interest is the industrial productions, where the current mission is to transition from
non-sustainable controversial production methods to sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives.
This mission is also one of the United Nations' global sustainable development goals [2]. Another
goal involves the energy sector, where the aim is to install more renewable energy sources (RES)
and use the generated green electricity to supply the grid, and production facilities and the transport
sector as end-users. In the transportation sector, green fuel, e.g., hydrogen produced from a water-
electrolyzer, powered by RES, can become a substitute fuel to fossil fuels such as diesel.
European Climate Law has the climate target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by 55%
by 2030 and achieving climate neutrality by 2050. This will be achieved by investing in green
technologies, preserving the natural environment, and reducing emissions [3].
According to the international Energy Agency (IEA), the CO2-emissions from the transport sector
has grown by an annual average rate of approximately 1.7% from 1990 to 2021, which is faster
than any other end-user sector [4]. Furthermore, compared to other sectors, the transportation
sector is most reliant on fossil fuels and in 2021 was responsible for 37% of CO2-emissions from
end-users [5]. Thus, making the carbon-emission free green hydrogen an attractive fuel option.
Moreover, in comparison to other fuels, hydrogen is a promising future fuel as it exhibits the
highest heating value per mass (142 MJ/kg) and creates no environmentally harmful substances
when combusted [6]. Additionally, hydrogen also has the capacity to function as a large-scaled
storage medium of renewable energy. However, hydrogen gas is difficult to store due to its low
volumetric density.
The degree of complexity associated with implementing sustainable solutions can vary greatly.
For instance, the transport sector faces challenges such as high investment costs and limited
infrastructure. Thus, complicating the transitioning process from fossil fuels to hydrogen. The
challenge lies in encouraging stakeholders to invest in hydrogen refueling stations (HRS)
installations and convincing drivers to switching over to hydrogen-fueled cars.
In theory, increasing installation of RES, such as, wind turbines, hydro power, and photovoltaic
facilities, would correspondingly expand the accessibility of green hydrogen. However, the
achievement of enhancing the accessibility to green hydrogen is constrained by several factors,
including the fluctuation of some renewable power sources, limited commercially available of
efficient hydrogen production technologies, and the high capital investment of equipment and
infrastructure, among others. Proposed solutions to tackle these types of challenges are for
example the installation of large-scale hydrogen storage to compensate for seasonal imbalances of
intermittent energy sources and the optimization of equipment dimensions to reduce investment
costs. Nevertheless, these initiatives are hindered by limited access to data and information
regarding operation of large-scale green hydrogen production facility, thereby creating obstacles
in terms of identifying potential risks and unpredicted costs. Despite these challenges, the
13
favorable properties of hydrogen as an energy carrier have motivated the pursuit of projects such
as HYBRIT and Mid Sweden Hydrogen Valley. HYBRIT is a project collaboration between
different large companies such as SSAB, Vattenfall and LKAB. The project’s aim is to produce
fossil-free steel using green hydrogen. The Mid Sweden Hydrogen Valley project is described in
section 2.4. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to execute an investment calculation of a green
project involving operation of a hydrogen production facility powered by a renewable energy
source.
1.2 Aim
The aim of this research is to conduct a comprehensive techno-economic analysis of a large-scale
hydrogen production facility, where a water electrolysis is powered by an offshore wind farm. The
aim is to investigate whether it is more economic profitable to utilize the electricity generated from
the wind farm to operate a hydrogen production plant, i.e., to produce and sell hydrogen over
selling the electricity directly to the grid. Therefore, the execution of this investigation will be
carried out by dividing the utilization of electricity into two different alternatives as seen below:
Alternative 1: Produce green hydrogen and sell it to designated customer when the
contribution margin is positive.
Alternative 2: Directly sell the electricity to the grid.
The objective is to produce and sell green hydrogen as long as the contribution margin is positive.
However, when the hydrogen production is no longer profitable, then the electricity will instead
be sold to the grid.
To accomplish this techno-economic analysis, a case study of a Power-to-Hydrogen (PtH) plant

will be conducted, where three different sizes of PtH plant will be produced, analyzed, and
compared to each other. The purpose is to determine which facility size offers the most favorable
economic outcome.
1.3 Delimitations
This master thesis is limited by several factors, where the primary ones are the time available for
conduct it and the complexity of operating a PtH plant. These two factors go in hand in terms of
the significant time required to identify and investigate all components and the corresponding
operational parameters, involved in such facility. Furthermore, to accurately understand and
quantify these operational parameters, advanced simulations are necessary. Moreover, in many
cases there is, for example, a lack of information about the capital cost of the different components.
Overall, knowledge about operating a PtH plant is highly limited due to the PtX concept still being
in the development phase. However, the purpose of this report is to provide a holistic description
of the operational process by constructing a simplified hydrogen production facility connected to
a wind farm, where the primary focus is on the main components. This is due to two reasons, where
the first reason is that these components significantly impact the resulting outcome, and secondly
there are sufficient information available about the main components in literature. In addition to
this, consideration for hydrogen losses in different systems, which is an important factor, has not
been considered in this report.
14
1.4 Method
The framework of this report is structured in such way that the initial step involves gathering
technical and economic information about wind power and hydrogen production facility through
literature research. The purpose is to gain knowledge about the technologies, electricity market,
and capital costs, and to identify relevant equipment that are used for hydrogen production and
storage, which all are presented in chapter 2. This knowledge will then be used to construct a
Power-to-Hydrogen facility, where its performance in terms of the technical and economic aspects
will be analyzed by studying various cases in chapter 3. In chapter 4, the potential costumer is
discussed. Thereafter, the operational process, varying cost, and income of the constructed PtH
plant’s components are mathematically described by equations in chapter 5. The framework ends
with a presentation of results generated by MATLAB and Python, in chapter 6. These results will
be analyzed and discussed before drawing a conclusion in chapter 7, along with suggestions for
future work in chapter 8.
15
CHAPTER 2. LITTERATURE RESREACH
2.1 Hydrogen
The atomic structure of hydrogen, denoted by its chemical symbol H, consists of a lone electron
and a single proton in the atomic nucleus, with no neutrons present. Its atomic mass is 1.008 g/mol,
which makes hydrogen the lightest element in the periodic table. Additionally, hydrogen is the
most abundant element as it constitutes approximately 75% of the universe's elemental mass [7].
In molecular form, hydrogen is a diatomic molecule as visualized in Figure 1, which is the lightest
known molecule, where its molecular mass is 2.016 (g/mol). However, due to its reactive nature,
the H2 molecule does not occur naturally on earth, and thus must be artificially produced [6][8].
Figure 1. Hydrogen Molecule [9].
At different temperatures and pressures, the hydrogen molecule will change its state of matter
according to the phase diagram in Figure 2. As shown in figure 2, hydrogen becomes solid at low
temperatures (11 K) and obtains a density of 70.6 kg/m3, while at a higher temperature and pressure
(273 K and 1 bar), it becomes a gas with a density of 0.0899 kg/m3 [6]. The density of gaseous
hydrogen (𝜌𝐻2 = 0. 0899 kg/m3) is approximately 14 times lower than that of air (𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 1.225
kg/m3), at the same conditions [10]. Moreover, at ambient temperature (298.15 K) and atmospheric
pressure (1 atm), one kilogram of hydrogen can occupy a volume of over 11 m3 [11]. Furthermore,
between the solid and gas phase, there is a small-marked zone where hydrogen becomes a liquid.
This zone starts at the triple point and ends at the critical point. Liquid hydrogen has the density
of 70.8 kg/m3 at 20 K [6].
Figure 2. Phase diagram of hydrogen molecule [6].
16
2.2 Hydrogen Applications
Hydrogen is mainly used as a feedstock and a reducing agent for, e.g., reduction reactions in
refineries [12]. However, due to its desirable properties, hydrogen has become a valuable resource
within different sectors (industry, transport, and energy sector). These properties include, for
example, high gravimetric energy density, no greenhouse gas emissions upon combustion,
regenerative nature, and versatility, among others. In the energy sector, hydrogen can function as
an energy carrier by operating as a storage medium for intermittent energy sources (RES) and
reproduce electricity on demand through fuel cell technology [6][13]. In the transportation and
industry sectors, hydrogen can be used as fuel and feedstock, respectively.
This thesis will solely review hydrogen application within the transportation sector. However, a
brief overview of hydrogen application within industry and energy sector will be presented in
section 2.2.1 and 2.3.2, respectively.
2.2.1 Industry
In Sweden, more than 90% of hydrogen produced is used as feedstock for a diverse range of
industrial processes, thus making it its predominant application. Refineries and the chemical
industries represent the main consumers, accounting for 72% and 27% of its consumption,
respectively, while the hydrogen refueling stations only consumes 0.2% [14].
In the chemical industry, hydrogen is used as a raw material for various chemical products, where
ammonia (Haber-Bosch process) is one example. The utilized hydrogen is typically produced from
non-environmentally friendly and unsustainable sources such as fossil fuels, hence the denotation
“grey hydrogen”. Furthermore, grey hydrogen possesses a low degree of purity due to the high
formation of by-products [15]. However, the usage of fossil fuels as sources provides certain
advantages, including production of inexpensive hydrogen and independence from seasonal
production fluctuations other than the changes in natural gas prices. For instance, hydrogen
produced via Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) for ammonia production, can cost as low as 1.5
€/kg when disregarding CO2-taxes. Overall, the hydrogen price varies depending on its intended
application and the employed production method [14].
The Swedish industry and EU have demonstrated an interest in using green feedstock such as green
hydrogen to produce different products, where the aim is achieving a decarbonized production,
particularly within the steel and transport industry. The use in the steel industry is foremost due to
hydrogen having the potential to serve as a substitute for coal, in terms of reduction of iron oxide
(carbon-free steel) and steel heating. Companies that are interested in implementing such method
are for example HYBRIT and H2GreenSteel. In addition, the company Ovako aims to start using
green hydrogen for the steel rolling process. This will be accomplished by installing 17 MW
electrolysis into a steel-production facility located in Hofors, partly financed by the Swedish
Energy Agency. However, according to the Hydrogen Council, the green hydrogen and CO2-tax
must cost no more than 1.4 €/kg and no less than 92 €/ton CO2, respectively, for this project to
become competitive to, e.g., natural gas [14][16].
Moreover, 51 kg hydrogen is required to produce one ton of steel, which underscores the
substantial amount of hydrogen needed to facilitate a large-scale green steel production. This can
be exemplified by the production of raw steel in Sweden during 2020, which totaled to 4.4 million
tons. To produce such high volume of steel would require 224 million tons of hydrogen.
Additionally, in terms of the electricity demand, LKAB has estimated that a direct incorporation
of an electrolysis system into the steel production process, would require 55 TWh/year. To put this
17
electricity demand into perspective, 55 TWh/year is equivalent to 1/3 of Sweden's total electricity
production. In order for this strategy to become competitive, the spot prices of electricity can at a
maximum be 40 €/MWh and the CO2-tax must range between 34 and 68 €/ton CO2. The estimation
of a competitive hydrogen cost in such applications varies depending on the research source being
viewed. For example, some sources suggest that the cost of hydrogen may range between 2 and
2.5 €/kg, while others estimate it to be between 1.7 and 2.1 €/kg [14]. As previously mentioned,
for green hydrogen to compete with conventional production methods, it would need to be priced
competitively, as the current cost of grey hydrogen is approximately 1.4 €/kg [14].
2.2.2 Transportation Sector

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that approximately 47.8 million tons
of carbon equivalents (CO2e) were released in Sweden during 2021, where the transport sector
accounts for 31% of the total greenhouse gas emissions [17]. The high carbon-emissions from the
transport sector and oil crisis have sparked an interest in researchers to investigate alternative fuel
options to replace fossil fuels. In 1960, experiments with hydrogen as a potential fuel for vehicles
were initiated. Today, hydrogen has become an attractive fuel due to offering a rapid refueling
time, a lightweight energy storage system and had a prolonged driving range. However, using
hydrogen as a fuel is limited by a wide range of factors. These factors are among others, hydrogen
infrastructure and the type of vehicle being considered.
In scenarios involving short driving distances and lightweight vehicles (e.g., private cars), diesel-
operating and electric-powered vehicles are tough competitors to hydrogen-fueled vehicles. This
is partly due to the refueling cost of hydrogen for lightweight vehicles was estimated to range
between 4 and 6 €/kg. This pricing is based on maintaining the same total cost for the vehicle over
its lifetime as if it was operated on diesel fuel. Diesel for vehicles can cost as low as 2 €/l including
tax [18]. Additionally, in terms of “green transportation”, electric cars are more financially viable
compared to hydrogen cars. However, hydrogen-fueled vehicles have presented a potential to
compete favorably to batteries in the context of heavy vehicles. A couple of factors that contribute
to this matter include offering a fast-refueling time, longer driving distances, and a lightweight
energy storage, as opposed to the heavy batteries. To this category, trains, trucks, and industrial
working machines (e.g., heavy forklifts, >5 tons) are included. Heavy vehicles consume a lot of
fuel, and thus making the fuel cost an important factor to consider [14].
One reason industrial working machines are challenging to electrify with batteries is that it is
difficult to bring sufficient electricity to construction sites, and these are therefore mostly fueled
by diesel. To estimate the hydrogen fuel consumption in industrial working machines, factors such
as vehicle size, diesel consumption expressed in liters per hour and its utilization, needs to be
considered. An equation to compute the hydrogen fuel consumption of vehicles is expressed in
equation (10) [14][19].
kg H2 ηdiesel Ediesel l Diesel

CH2 consumption [ h
]= ηH2
∙ EH2
∙ (Cdisesel consumption ) [ h
] (10)
Where ηdiesel is the efficiency [%] of diesel engine, while ηH2 corresponds to the fuel cell’s
efficiency [%]. The variable Cdisesel consumption is the amount of diesel consumed, and
CH2 consumption is the corresponding hydrogen fuel consumption. The diesel’s energy density is
denoted as Ediesel [kWh/l], while hydrogens density is given by EH2 [kWh/kg].
Moreover, besides the requirement of a low hydrogen price, other factors influencing hydrogen’s
competitiveness to batteries is the current state of accessibility and infrastructure. Specifically,
18
electric vehicles have already achieved a degree of accessibility from its mostly well-established
infrastructure. Therefore, resulting in a high number of electrified cars on the road, whereas heavy
hydrogen-fueled vehicles primarily exist as prototypes and the number of HRS in Sweden is low.
Sweden currently possesses a total of five refueling hydrogen stations, however, more will be
installed in near future [20]. Table 1 shows what the estimated hydrogen consumption would be
based on the vehicle category.
Table 1. Hydrogen fuel consumption and road range categorized by vehicle type [14].
Vehicle Category Fuel Economy Driving Range Hydrogen Consumption
Private Car 1 [kg/H2/100 km] 20–40 [km/day] 0.2–0.4 [kg H2/day]

Taxi 1 [kg/H2/100 km] 100–200 [km/day] 1–2 [kg H2/day]
Bus 8 [kg/H2/100 km] 100–200 [km/day] 8–16 [kg H2/day]
Today, there are some lightweight hydrogen-vehicles available to purchase. These cars can be
viewed as an intermediary accelerator that contributes to the transitioning process from diesel-
fueled to hydrogen-fueled vehicles on the road. Toyotas Mirai and Hyundai Nexo are some
examples of such cars. These two have been commercially available since 2015 and the vehicle’s
respective cost and driving range are listed in Table 2 [14].
Table 2. Technical and economic information about light-weighted hydrogen fueled vehicles [14].
Vehicle Model Vehicle Costs Fuel Consumption
2021 Toyota Mirai XLE 45500 [€] 0.82 [kg/H2/100 km]

2021 Toyota Mirai Limited 60700 [€] 0.97 [kg/H2/100 km]
Hyundai Nexo 85000 [€] 1.09 [kg/H2/100 km]
Furthermore, a hydrogen-fueled bus is estimated consume around 8–9 kg/H2/100 km. This makes
buses that travels long distances, in terms of green transportation, suitable to operate on hydrogen
compared to buses driving short distances, which instead can be electrified. Nevertheless, in 2022,
two hydrogen-fueled busses have started operating in Sandviken, Sweden, where the aim is to
promote usage of hydrogen-fueled vehicles [14].
In Sweden, there are some trains operating on diesel fuel due to some routes lacking overhead
electrical lines. The construction cost of electrical overhead lines on these routes is too expensive,
making diesel a financially viable option. Thus, continuing operating these trains on diesel. In such
scenarios, electrification of these trains by hydrogen could be an option. A research study has
indicated that a train with 3–4 wagons, consumes approximately 22–36 kg/H2/100 km [14].
2.3 Power-to-X
The concept of "Power-to-X" was initiated in Germany in 2010, which involves producing energy
carriers (denoted as “X”) from RES. These energy carriers are for example hydrogen, methane,
and ammonia, where the respective production process is referred to as "Power-to-Hydrogen"
(PtH), "Power-to-Methane" (PtM), and "Power-to-Ammonia" (PtA). Furthermore, these energy
carriers may be used in a wide range of applications within transportation, industrial and energy
sectors. Therefore, "Power-to-X" is widely recognized as a promising strategy that contributes to
low-carbon economy by decoupling the energy supply from fossil fuels [21].
19
The term “X” can also represent regenerated electricity, which is produced by applying fuel cell
technology. Specifically, the fuel cell will act as an electrochemical converter that transforms the
energy carrier back into electrical energy. This method is recognized as “Power-to-Power” (PtP).
The PtP method has the potential to compensate for the intermittent nature of renewable energy
by storing surplus electricity produced when the demands are low compared to production and re-
generating it at high demands compared to production [21].
The primary focus of this thesis will be the PtH process presented in section 2.3.2, with a brief
review of PtP in section 2.3.1.
2.3.1 Power-to-Power
The Power-to-Power (PtP) concept includes the conversion of an energy carrier back electricity,
typically through a fuel cell. Fuel cell technology resembles the operation of a battery. It the
converts chemical energy into electrical energy with an electrical efficiency ≥40% and is
commercially available in several variations: PEM fuel cell, DMFCs, and AFCs, among others.
Furthermore, fuel cells are versatile and possess several benefits, including flexibility, off-grid
applicability, and base load capacity. These properties are required for a fuel cell in order to operate
at a large-scale application, where coupling to an intermittent energy source is involved.
Additional advantages are no generation of pollutants, such as nitrous oxides (NO x), sulfur oxides
(SOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOC), resulting in a reduced environmental footprint [22].
The operating principles of a fuel cell, regardless of its technology, follow the Nernst equation.
However, the difference between these cells lies in the types of reactions taking place at electrodes,
which in turn depends on whether it is anionic or protonic conduction that occurs through the
electrolyte [22].
In the case of hydrogen being the energy carrier, PtP can be regarded as a reversed process of PtH
where the oxygen acting as the oxidizing agent, and water is the only byproduct. The redox-
reaction consists of splitting H2(g) molecules into protons and electrons at the anode side of the
cell, while air is fed to the cathode. Thereafter, for e.g., a PEM fuel cell, the electrons (e-) flow
through an external circuit, generating electricity, while the protons (H+) pass through an
electrolyte membrane to produce water at the cathode by combining with the air’s oxygen (O 2)
[22]. A general illustration of operating principles for different types of fuel cells are shown in
Figure 3.
Figure 3. General illustration of various fuel cells operating principles [23].
20
As previously mentioned, a PtP concept is a strategy to store excess electricity produced by
intermittent power sources when the demand is low in hydrogen for future utilization. The
preserved hydrogen can later be used to re-generate electricity during periods of high demands and
supply it to the grid as seen in Figure 4. This approach has the potential to reduce wastage of excess
electricity that would otherwise go unused [22].
Figure 4. Generalized configuration of the Power-to-Power process.
Overall, fuel cells have presented numerous advantages over traditional power generation
technologies, such as achieving clean and efficient generation of electrical power. However, the
widespread implementation of fuel cells is limited due to some challenging factors, for example
high investment cost and limited infrastructure. Nonetheless, there are ongoing research and
development efforts aimed to address these challenges [22].
2.3.2 Power-to-Hydrogen
The Power-to-Hydrogen (PtH) process is the backbone to the concept of PtX [21]. Essentially, it
involves storing electricity (generated from RES) in hydrogen (energy carrier) by powering an
electrolyzer, as illustrated in Figure 5. Thereafter, the hydrogen is stored, and this can occur in
different ways. One example is hydrogen undergoing compression to until a specific pressure is
obtained before being stored as is seen in Figure 5.
Renewable
Electrolyzer Compressor Storage
energy source
Figure 5. Generalized configuration of a Power-to-Hydrogen process.
Moreover, given that the hydrogen production facility is coupled to an intermittent energy source
that has a fluctuating operation, it is necessary for the electrolyzer to exhibit flexible characteristics
to adapt and effectively manage the dynamic operation. Furthermore, the deployment of PtH is
geographically flexible, but it faces certain challenges, such as the high capital cost of equipment
in the form of electrolyzer and storage. However, PtH is still considered to be a highly promising
technology that promotes production of sustainable fuels and eco-friendly feedstocks. This is
evidenced by its globally growing interest, especially within the field of energy research [21]
2.4 Mid Sweden Hydrogen Valley

The Mid Sweden Hydrogen Valley is a collaboration effort between industries, transport sector,
public sector, and academic institutions. This project is taking place in bidding area two and has
the aim to establish hydrogen infrastructure in central Sweden. Bidding area two is an ideal region
for such project due to its well-established steel and paper industries located in the area, besides
the low spot prices. Additionally, hydrogen has been tested within the transportation and industry
21
sector in this region. Moreover, Svea Vind Offshore has scheduled to start producing hydrogen
from an electrolyzer that is powered by the grid, in Gävle harbor in 2023. Already in 2021, Svea
Vind Offshore has signed an agreement to supply hydrogen to the transport company Maserfrakt,
where it will be used as a fuel. Maserfrakt is Sweden’s largest construction machine supplier and
transport company and is currently operating in bidding areas 1–2. Maserfrakt is also planning to
invest in an HRS, which will be situated in Borlänge.
2.5 Bidding Area Two

The Swedish electricity market is divided in four bidding areas, with the areas
1 and 2 (SE1 and SE2, respectively) located in the northern part of the country,
while areas 3 and 4 (SE3 and SE4, respectively) are situated in the south, as
illustrated in Figure 6. Renewable energy such as hydro and wind power
facilities are primarily located in the north due to the areas’ favorable water and
wind conditions as seen in Table 3–4. These tables shows that the bidding areas
1–2 are dominant producers of wind and hydro energy. In contrast, southern
Sweden possess some renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy,
however, it relies heavily on nuclear power plants (Oskarshamn, Forsmark and
Ringhals) to meet its electricity demand.
In comparison to the north, the bidding areas 3–4 are more densely populated,
and therefore has a high electricity consumption. As a result, areas 1–2 have a
surplus of electricity, while the areas 3–4 experience an electricity deficit.
Therefore, areas 3–4 also relies also on the areas 1–2 to deliver electricity to
meet their high electricity demand.
The electricity price depends on the balance between supply and demand, as
well as the grids’ capacity to distribute electricity from the north to the south.
Figure 6. Map of Sweden,
As indicated in Table 5, the electricity surplus in bidding areas 1–2 leads to a including bidding areas [24].
significantly lower average spot price in these areas compared to the average
spot price of the areas 3–4. Moreover, the relatively low spot price and surplus renewable energy
in the north makes it an attractive geographical location for industries to expand. Thus, the
initiative of launching the "Mid Sweden Hydrogen Valley" in central Sweden, which aims to
produce green hydrogen from RES and utilize it as green fuel in the transportation sector.
Table 3. Total annual wind power production per bidding area [25].
Bidding Area Year 2019 Year 2020 Year 2021
1 2.47 [TWh] 4.01 [TWh] 4.61 [TWh]

2 6.32 [TWh] 10.57 [TWh] 10.80 [TWh]
3 6.91 [TWh] 8.53 [TWh] 8.04 [TWh]
4 4.20 [TWh] 4.48 [TWh] 4.01 [TWh]
Table 4. Total annual hydro power production per bidding area [25].
1 18.5 [TWh] 19.0 [TWh] 22.1 [TWh]

2 35.0 [TWh] 40.7 [TWh] 38.8 [TWh]
3 10.3 [TWh] 11.0 [TWh] 11.4 [TWh]
4 1.30 [TWh] 1.30 [TWh] 1.31 [TWh]
22
Table 5. Average spot price per bidding area [26].
1 40.10 [€/MWh] 15 [€/MWh] 43.2 [€/MWh]

2 40.10 [€/MWh] 15 [€/MWh] 43.3 [€/MWh]
3 40.55 [€/MWh] 22.1 [€/MWh] 67.0 [€/MWh]
4 42.09 [€/MWh] 26.9 [€/MWh] 81.7 [€/MWh]
2.6 Wind Power Parks in Europe

Europe has until now successfully installed 255 GW of wind power capacity, of which 87%
comprises onshore wind plants. As indicated by the European wind report, Germany, Sweden,
Finland, and France were the countries with the highest number of installations in 2022, as
demonstrated in Figure 7 [27].
Figure 7. Shows installation of wind power plants in different countries [27].
Sweden was placed as the second highest ranking in wind capacity installations in 2022. The
previous year, Sweden has also set a national record in Europe by installing the most wind capacity
(onshore) in a single year, where the capacity increased from 2.1 GW to 2.4 GW. Despite this, it
is noteworthy that the total power generated from wind energy by the EU+UK, only accounted for
17% of the total electricity demand in 2022 [27].
Europe plans to install an additional 129 GW of wind capacity between 2023 and 2027, of which
3/4 will comprise onshore wind plants. Furthermore, in order to meet the 2030 Climate and Energy
goals, a minimum of 30 GW of wind capacity would be required to be installed in Europe per year
[27]. These goals aim to achieve that 32% of the consumed electricity will be from renewable
energy sources (RES) by 2030 and assist countries in achieving the emission reduction
commitments, according to the Paris Agreement [28]. Therefore, the installation of RES,
especially wind energy, will continue to accelerate.
2.6.1 Development of Wind Turbines Technology

The advancement of wind turbine technology has undergone rapid development with the aim of
improving its competitiveness, particularly in terms of its nominal power and capacity factor. The
nominal power is related to the turbine’s features such as rotor diameter and hub height, which
23
have over time significantly increased, as seen in Figure 8. The capacity factor is a unitless ratio,
which is obtained by dividing the average power output generated over a period of time by the
wind turbine by its maximum peak capacity. This measure provides insight into the difference
between the actual power produced and the hypothetical maximum power that could be produced
by the turbine [29].
Figure 8. Shows the physical development of wind turbines [29].
The concept behind this technology development involves maximizing the power output by
increasing dimensions of the turbines’ physical size. This includes for example increasing the
length of the blades to capture more wind. In the case of an offshore wind farm, a larger turbine
size has been found to enhance the capacity factor. An example is a that a 3 MW windmill in year
2010, had a capacity factor of 38%, which increased to 43% when the capacity increased to
5.5 MW. It is important to note that this outcome is not always guaranteed as the capacity factor
is also dependent on the specific wind conditions at the given site [29].
While larger wind turbines have demonstrated the capability of improving the capacity factor of
windmills, the large dimensions pose some challenges. The challenges include higher investment
costs and more complex construction, often requiring larger foundations sites. However, larger
turbines generally have lower specific operational and maintenance costs, leading to a reduction
in the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) [29]. The LCOE is the total costs of a power producing
unit over its entire lifetime divided by the total amount of electricity produced. For windmills, it
can be approximated by dividing the capital cost of the wind plant by the total electricity produced.
This calculation provides a means of determining the minimum electricity price required for a
particular wind park to become financially viable over its lifetime [30]. This is an indirect way to
see the impact that the wind conditions have on the electricity prices, where good wind conditions
lead to a more cost-effective plant due to increased electricity production. As the result, lower spot
prices will be obtained if the share of wind power is sufficiently large to affect the market, as
described in section 2.5.
2.7 The Swedish Electricity Market

The Swedish electricity market consists of several independent units, where each unit handles
different parts of the electricity market. The types of, and the relation between, these units are
listed below and are illustrated in Figure 9, respectively.
System manager: Svenska Kraftnät (SvK) operates and manages the Swedish
electricity market.
Producer: Produces electricity.
24
Grid Owner: Manages transmission, regional, and local grid.
Electricity trading Purchase electricity from a producer and sell it to customers.

companies:
Electricity E.g., Nord Pool, where the electricity trading process takes place.
Marketplace:
The grid owners manage the electricity transportation from the production site to end users. As
seen in the list above, there are grids at different levels, which all are owned by different companies
depending on which region being viewed. The local grid is for example primarily owned by
E. ON, Vattenfall and Fortum in Sweden but there are also a number of other grid owners.
However, the transmission grid is owned and operated by SvK, which also manages the overall
Swedish electricity market. This type of management involves among other things, efficient
trading of electricity within Sweden as well as with other European countries. Additionally, SvK
ensures that production and imports of electricity equals consumption and exports [31][32].
The operational process involves transporting the generated electricity from the production site to
the transmission grid via a connecting point, operating at high voltages (400-220 kV), to the local
grid (<40-230 kV) via the regional grid (40-130 kV), which acts as an intermediate grid. At some
points, the generated electricity is directly supplied to the regional grid as seen in Figure 9. Once
the electricity reaches the local grid, it will be distributed to and purchased by end users, such as
households and industries, by the electricity trading companies [31][32]. The electricity price, so-
called spot price, is set according to the supply and demand, where the exchange marketplace
primarily takes place on the market Nord Pool.
Transmission Grid
Producent Regional grid

End users
Local grid
Electricity trading
companies
Nord Pool
Figure 9. Shows the interaction between the different units [32].
2.7.1 Grid Connection

In order for a producer to obtain accessibility to the grid to supply electricity, a so-called
transmission grid tariff must be paid. The tariff can further be divided into two different types of
costs: a varying and fixed cost. The fixed cost, power fee [€/MW], is the cost of coupling the
electricity production facility to a connecting point for the purpose of distributing electricity. The
income collected from the power fee will be used to cover the investment costs of technically
connecting the wind power plant to the grid and the O&M of the grid. The varying fee is called
the energy fee [€/MWh] and it corresponds to the cost of electricity input to the grid. The income
25
of this fee will be used to cover the costs of electrical losses in the network and must be paid by
all large-scale power plants, for example wind power plants with capacity larger than 1 500 kW.
Plants with lower capacity are classified, according to Swedish law (4 chapter 10§), as small-scale
electricity production facilities and are not required to pay the energy fee [32].
Moreover, in Sweden, the price of the energy fee is a function of the geographical location of the
connection point. Meaning, the tariff’s price, will vary depending on which bidding area is being
viewed as well as the regional location of the connecting point. Based on this, power producers in
northern Sweden belonging to the bidding area 1 and 2, are obligated to pay an energy fee to
compensate for its high electricity production compared to southern Sweden. However, in the
south, the energy fee will be received as a payment from SvK to the producers due to its relative
low electricity production. The aim is to compensate for the high load on the grid in northern
Sweden and to balance out the electricity prices between the bidding areas [33][34].
The power fee [€/MW] is based on the capacity size of the production facility, while the energy
fee [€/MWh] is calculated according to equation (11) [33][34].
Energy Fee = (Pt,e + r) ∙ F (11)
where Pt,e is the price of the electricity exchange's day-ahead trading per hour in the respective
bidding area. The loss coefficient is denoted as F, and r is the SvK risk surcharge for the connection
point [33][34][35]. Northern Sweden has a positive loss coefficient and therefore must pay the
energy fee to SvK, while for Southern Sweden, the loss coefficient is negative. A producer in
southern Sweden will thus receive a payment for electricity input to the grid, as previously stated
[33][34].
2.8 Hydrogen Production

Production of hydrogen can take place through various methods. These methods are, for example,
water electrolysis, biomass or coal gasification, and hydrocarbon reformation (e.g., steam methane
reforming, SMR). Currently, the most common practiced method is SMR due to generating 95%
of world’s hydrogen [36], while water electrolysis only produces 4% [37]. However, SMR is based
on fossil fuels, which makes this method a non-renewable production pathway, and therefore not
sustainable in the long run. Generation of hydrogen by water electrolysis powered by renewable
energy, is on the other hand sustainable and environmentally friendly in terms of reducing carbon
emissions and uses an in practical terms unlimited feedstock (renewable energy and water). A
summary of the conventional production methods’ advantages, drawbacks, and production cost
are presented in Table 6.
The most common and commercially available electrolyzers are the alkaline water electrolyzers
(AWE) and proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzers [38], where AWE is the most mature
and cheapest technology [39]. The Solid Oxide Electrolyzer (SOEC) is another type of water-
electrolyzer with a potential of becoming more affordable than AWE [40], while also possess
desirable properties such as a drastic reduction in power consumption [41]. However, due to it still
being in the development phase, it will not be reviewed in this thesis.
26
Table 6. Conventional hydrogen production methods and the respective advantages, disadvantages, and
hydrogen production cost [14][15].
Production Method Cost Advantages Disadvantages
Steam Reforming 1.5–2.27 [€/kg] Mature technology. Produces CO, CO2.

infrastructure available.
Coal Gasification 1.77–2.05 [€/kg] Cheap feedstock. Feedstock impurities.
Partial Oxidation 1.48 [€/kg] Established technology. Produces heavy oil and
petroleum coke.
2.8.1 Hydrogen Production by Water Electrolyzers

Water-electrolysis is a hydrogen production technology that uses an electrochemical process to
generate highly pure hydrogen (99.99%) with zero-carbon emissions. This process involves
dissociating pre-purified water into hydrogen gas (H2) and oxygen gas (O2), by using direct current
(DC). Water electrolyzer produces zero-carbon emissions since oxygen and heat are the sole by-
products. A basic and general description of the reaction process taking place in a water
electrolyzer is shown in equation (1) [15]:
kJ 1 kJ
1H2 O + Electricity (237.2 mol) → H2 + 2
O2 + Heat (48.6 mol
) (1)
All water-electrolysis technologies consist of three main components: anode, cathode and an
electrolyte containing charge carriers. However, these technologies can be separated and
categorized into different groups based on operating conditions, type of electrolyte, electrodes and
membranes, and ionic agents (OH-, H+, O2-) [15].
The investment cost of water-electrolysis varies depending on its technology and the year it was
produced, as shown in Table 7. AWE compared to PEM, is cheaper due to having a well-
established technology and it does not contain noble electro catalysts, making it more affordable
to purchase. The SOEC´s, still in development phase, capital cost is an estimate. In this thesis, the
only commercially available electrolyzers (PEM and AWE) will be viewed.
Table 7. Investment costs (CAPEX) for electrolyzers in year 2020 [42].

Electrolyzer Type Scenario CAPEX
PEM Lowest 0.385 [m€/kW]

PEM Medium 1.182 [m€/kW]
PEM Highest 2.068 [m€/kW]
AWE Lowest 0.571 [m€/kW]

AWE Medium 0.988 [m€/kW]
AWE Highest 1.268 [m€/kW]
27
SOEC Lowest 0.677 [m€/kW]
SOEC Medium 1.346 [m€/kW]
SOEC Highest 2.285 [m€/kW]
However, despite the advantages of water-electrolysis, it has couples of disadvantages, such as,
high electricity consumption, high capital costs, and low hydrogen evolution rate; which is the rate
of hydrogen production by water electrolysis. This explains why this technology is not yet
dominating the market for hydrogen production technologies. Therefore, researchers aim to
enhance the electrolyzer’s efficiency to reduce the specific power consumption and to develop
alternative low-cost components, such as cheaper materials for cathodes and anodes [15].
2.8.1.1 Alkaline Water Electrolyzer

The alkaline water electrolyzer (AWE) was firstly introduced in 1789, making it the oldest and
most mature water-electrolyser [15]. It is commercially available in capacities in the range of
megawatts with an energy efficiency of 70–80% (from electricity to energy content of the
produced hydrogen), and it is available for industrial applications. The technology of AWE is the
most well-developed of all electrolyzers due to its maturity. It possesses favourable properties,
such as, excellent reliability, durability, and security. Additionally, AWE is less expensive than
PEM as seen in Table 7, and this is for example due to using porous nickel-based electrodes instead
of noble electro catalysts. However, AWE’s disadvantages are slow dynamic operation, low
current density (>400 mA/cm2), low operational pressure (3–30 bar), and the overall performance
degradation over time due to formation of carbonates on the cathode electrode [15][43][44].
AWE operates at a temperature of approximately 30–80 ℃ and its electrolyte is alkaline based,
commonly a mixture of purified water with an alkaline solution of 30% wt of potassium hydroxide
(KOH) or 25% of sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The principles of AWE involve immersing the two
metallic electrodes into the electrolyte, which are separated from one another by a membrane or a
diaphragm. These electrodes are connected to an external power source in order to supply current
(current density of 2000–4000 A/m2) to the cell. At first, the water molecules will split once in
contact with the cathode’s surface under the influence of the applied current, to produce H2(g) and
OH- as seen in reaction (2). Thereafter, the generated H2(g) is lead out of the system while the
hydroxide ions will travel to the anode by passing the porous membrane, which is centrally
positioned in the cell. At the anode, water and oxygen are produced once the hydroxide ions are
discharged of its electrons according to reaction (3) [15][43][44]. The overall cell reaction is
expressed in reaction (4), and a schematic illustration of an AWE is available in Figure 10.
Cathode: 2H2 O + 2e− → H2 + 2OH− (2)

1
Anode: 2OH − → O2 + H2 O + 2e− (3)
2
1
Overall: H2 O → H2 + O2 (4)
2
28
Figure 10. Illustration of AWE and its operating principles [45].
2.8.1.2 Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolyzer

The Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) electrolyzer was developed in 1966 [15], in order to
overcome the limitations and disadvantages of AWE. This technology possesses desirable
properties such as high energy efficiency, production of ultrapure H2, high current density
(>200 A/m2), compact design and fast response time (flexible dynamic operation). However, it
also possesses a couple of disadvantages, such as, expensive noble metal based electrocatalysts in
electrodes (e.g., cathode is a Pt/Pd-based catalysts and anode is a RuO2/IrO2-based catalysts) and
low durability [15][43].
The working principles of PEM electrolyzer involves electrochemically dissociating deionized

water once in contact with the anode to produce protons (H+), electrons (e-) and oxygen gas (O2)
according to reaction (5). This reaction process is known as oxygen revolution reaction (OER) due
to the production of oxygen gas. The electrons will leave the anode by traveling through an external
power circuit to the cathode. Simultaneously, protons will travel from the anode to the cathode
electrode, however, via a thin solid polymer membrane (e.g., Nafion, Fumapem), which functions
as an electrolyte (proton conductor) that separates the two electrodes from each other. The protons
will re-combine with the electrons at the cathode to produce hydrogen gas as seen in reaction (6).
This reaction is known as the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) due to generating hydrogen gas.
The overall cell reaction is expressed in reaction (7). The applied DC current density to initiate
this non-spontaneous process, is between 10000 and 20000 A/m2 and the operating temperature is
50–80 ℃. A PEM electrolyzer and its principles are illustrated in Figure 11 [15][43].
1
Anode: H2 O → 2H+ + 2 O2 + 2e− (5)
Cathode: 2H+ + 2e− → H2 (6)
1
Overall: 2H2 O → H2 + O2 (7)
2
Figure 11. Illustration of PEM and its operating principles [45].
29
2.9 Compressor
A compressor is a mechanical device that is used to increase the pressure of a gas by reducing its
volume. This is accomplished by compressing the gas until the desired pressure is obtained. As
the result, the density of the gas increases, and therefore more gas can be stored in the same volume
[46]. Therefore, compressors serve an important role in enabling storage and distribution of gases,
such as hydrogen, which has a low density at standard conditions.
There are several types of compressor technology, such as, reciprocating, centrifugal, rotating
piston, oscillating compressors. These variants operate differently due to varying working
principles and construction design. A reciprocating compressor involves using a piston to achieve
high pressures, whereas lower pressures are normally obtained using a centrifugal compressor.
Some centrifugal compressors use multistage compression and can be applied for large volume
flow rates around 50000 Nm3 and are thus suitable for large-scale applications in industries [46].
Moreover, the operation of a compressor can be divided into the following categories: adiabatic
and isothermal compression. Adiabatic compressors involve increasing the gas pressure, where no
heat-exchange between the system and surroundings takes place. A simplified calculation of the
compression work (shaft power) for an adiabatic compressor is found in equation (8). The
isothermal compressors involve compressing a gas in multi-stages at a constant temperature. In
such cases, a cooling-system is required due to heat being released. The shaft power of an
isothermal compressor can be expressed according to equation (9) [46].
γ
γ P γ−1
RT1 (( 1 ) −1)
γ−1 P2
Wadi = (8)
ηadi
P
Wiso = nRTln (P1 ) (9)
2
Where γ is the specific heat ratio of a gas and R = 8.3145 JK-1mol-1 is the ideal gas constant. The
compressor’s efficiency drive (ηadi ) is commonly between 0.75 and 0.85. The temperature [K]
and pressure [Pa] are expressed as the variables T and P. The amount of gas expresses in moles
[Mol] is denoted as n [46].
The capital cost of a compressor is related to its capacity and technology. It is difficult to estimate
a real general investment cost of a compressor, since the literature often include other equipment
in the capital cost, e.g., compressor coupled to an on-site storage, as seen in Table 8 [42]. Table 8
shows the cost of different compressor capacities suited for large scale applications. However,
some sources have provided a way to relate the capital cost of a compressor to its capacity and
shaft work. This relation is expressed in equation 12, in chapter 3 [47].
Table 8. Investment costs (CAPEX) for compressor for large scale application including short term (on-site) storage
in year 2020 [42].
Capacity CAPEX Power Consumption
1168000 [kg/year] 3.889 [m€] 0.399 [kWh/kg]

16940240 [kg/year] 16.989 [m€] 0.399 [kWh/kg]
38663759 [kg/year] 38.775 [m€] 0.399 [kWh/kg]
30
2.10 Storage
Hydrogen has a highly reactive nature and possesses a low density, which makes it a challenging
gas to store. There are several storage methods, and these can be categorized as seen in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Types of hydrogen storage technologies [11].
Some of these storage categories are mature and commercially available, while others are still in
the development phase. This report primarily focuses on the physical storage of compressed
gaseous hydrogen as the targeted storage approach. However, an overview of the other storage
methods will be presented below.
2.10.1 Adsorption
The adsorption storage method involves an adsorption process, where physical van der Waals
bonding between molecular hydrogen and the pores at the surface of a solid material (often carbon-
based) takes place. The solid materials used can for example be porous polymeric materials, metal-
organic frameworks (MOFs), and zeolites. Multilayer of hydrogen adsorptions are possible;
however, the strength of the adsorption will decrease as the number of layers increases.
Furthermore, in order obtain a significant hydrogen storage density, parameter such as high
pressures (between 10-100 bar) and cryogenic temperatures (77 K) must be applied due to the
weakness of van der Waals forces. Liquid nitrogen is commonly used as a refrigerant [11].
2.10.2 Chemical Storage

As seen in Figure 12, the chemical storage can further be divided into the following two
subcategories metal hydrides and chemical hydrides. There are three types of metal hydrides
groups: binary hydrides, intermetallic hydrides, and complex metal hydrides. Nevertheless, the
overall storage process for a metal hydride, involves hydrogen either being directly chemically
bonded to a metal atom, e.g., magnesium (Mg) or aluminum (Al), (elemental metal hydrides and
intermetallic hydrides) or an alloy (complex metal hydrides) e.g., lanthanum-nickel (LaNi5). An
example of a promising metal hydride is sodium borohydride (NaBH4). This type of bond is much
stronger than the physical bond of adsorption, which is described in section 2.10.1. In contrast,
there are no metallic elements in chemical hydrides that may be liquid (e.g., methanol or formic
acid) or gaseous (e.g., ammonia or methane). A special form of the liquid chemical hydrogen
carriers are the liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC), in which the carrier is liquid in both its
hydrogenated and dehydrogenated form [11].
31
2.10.3 Physical Storage
Physical storage offers the ability to store hydrogen in its molecular form with a high purity. This
is achieved by storing hydrogen either as liquid or compressed gas in an appropriate storage tank.
Furthermore, physical storage is the most well-established storage technology today, where the
tanks are commercially available in different construction designs. Therefore, physical storage is
commonly employed regardless of application scale [11][48]. Moreover, physical storage can be
utilized as both over- and underground storage. Underground storage, also known as geological
storage, includes for example engineered cavities (artificially made underground storage) and salt
caverns. However, underground storage is limited by geological conditions. Among the benefits
of underground storage are the low specific construction cost, rapid withdrawal and injection rates,
low leakage rates, and low risk for hydrogen contamination. An aboveground storage is an
alternative to geological storage due to being geographically flexible. It involves operating a tank
above the ground, typically situated close to the production facility. These types of storages mainly
consist of metal. The storage material will ensure the stability of the tank and for most applications
it is also important that it does not contaminate the hydrogen. In most cases, inspection of the
storage system is easier to perform on an aboveground storage than on an underground storage
[11].
2.10.3.1 Liquid Hydrogen Storage

Liquefaction of hydrogen has the advantage of attaining high storage densities already at
atmospheric pressure, where the saturated liquid hydrogen has the density of 70 kg/m3 at 1 atm
[11].
Liquefaction is a mature practice that is globally employed. However, the drawback is the energy-
intensive process required to obtain the liquid hydrogen due to two factors. Firstly, hydrogen has
an extremely low boiling point (20 K at 1 atm), and secondly hydrogen needs to be cooled down
to temperatures below 200 K to allow for liquefaction by a throttling process (adiabatic, isenthalpic
expansion). The reason for this is the negative Joule Thomson coefficient at temperatures above
200 K, which means that the temperature of hydrogen increases when expanded isenthalpically.
Another drawback is the evaporation of hydrogen, which occurs when heat is transferred from the
environment to the stored liquid hydrogen. To remove the pressure build-up occurring inside of
the storage vessel, which is caused by the evaporated hydrogen, the tank must be vented. This is
known as “boil-off” and is usually measured as the percentage of stored hydrogen that is lost per
day (boil-off rate) [11].
A proper storage tank for liquid hydrogen should have a spherical construction design to minimize
the surface-to-volume ratio, which can reduce the boil-off rate. Other construction methods are for
example implementing double walls to obtain vacuum in-between. The design of these tanks is
usually relatively complex; however, there are some indications that at large scales, liquid
hydrogen tanks cost less per weight of hydrogen than compressed hydrogen gas tanks [11].
2.10.3.2 Compressed Gaseous Hydrogen Storage
Compressed hydrogen storage (CGH2) is the most established storage technology. This technology
involves employing a storage vessel primarily constructed from steel, although some also include
composite materials, to store gaseous hydrogen. There are different types of vessels available, and
these are categorized into four different tank types (Type I, Type II, Type III and Type IV) that
operate at different pressure levels [49].
32
When selecting which tank type to utilize, the specific application in which it is intended to be
employed for, must be considered. For instance, Type I with operational pressure of 200–300 bar,
can be built in large sizes and therefore is the most commonly occurring tank within the industry
for large-scale production. It is the heaviest tank, which is one of few reasons why it is more
suitable for stationary applications (on-site storage) than for hydrogen storage in vehicles. Tank I
is the least expensive tank variant, which makes it cost-effective. Next, tank Type II with
operational pressure of 300–350 bar, is lighter and more expensive than Type I. Similar to Type I,
Type II is also more suitable for stationary applications than mobile applications. This is due to
these two tank types having a low hydrogen storage density and a higher risk to encounter
hydrogen embrittlement challenges. The latter is a slow process in which hydrogen makes a
material weak [49].
Tank Type III and IV, with operational pressure of 450 bar and 700–1 000 bar, respectively, are
more convenient for mobile applications, such as storage tanks in FCEV. This is due to a couple
reasons; both Type III and IV avoids the hydrogen embrittlement due to the wrapping liners that
functions as a hydrogen permeation barrier. Additionally, the liners also act as a load-bearing
element and increase the mechanical resistance by approximately >5% [49]. Tank Type III costs
more and is lighter than Type I and II, however Type IV is the lightest and most expensive tank of
these types. This is due to the fact it consists of carbon fiber, which contributes up to 75% of the
tank price. In addition, Type IV can endure high pressures of up to 1 000 bar [49][50]. A general
schematic illustration of these tanks can be seen in Figure 13 below. Additionally, estimated
investment cost (CAPEX) for each tank, is listed in Table 9.
Figure 13. Sketch of different tank types for physical storage of hydrogen gas [51].
Table 9. Investment cost for different types of compressed gaseous hydrogen storage [52][53][54].
Tank Type CAPEX
Tank Type I 490–500 [€/kg]

Tank Type II 600–800 [€/kg]
Tank Type III 1250 [€/kg]
Tank Type IV >2000 [€/kg]
2.11 Hydrogen Refuel Station

A hydrogen refueling station (HRS) is where hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEV) can be filled
with hydrogen. This type of station comprises various components, where the main ones are
cascade storage, compressor, refrigeration system, and dispenser. A cascade storage system is a
high-pressurized gas cylinder storage system, where its configuration is made up of multiple tanks
operating at varying pressure levels. These tanks are categorized as a low-pressure tank
(LPT, 350–500 bar), medium-pressure tank (MPT, 350–500 bar) and high-pressure tank
33
(HPT, ≥900 bar). These tanks are interconnected through a network of pipelines and are linked to
a compressor for filling of the tanks [55][56]. A simplified schematic illustration of the HRS can
be seen in Figure 14.
Figure 14. General sketch of HRS.
The operating process of HRS can be divided into two sections: the compressor system and the
refueling system. The former system includes the process of refilling the storage tanks and the
latter system involves refueling the FCEV. The refueling process is initiated when a vehicle is
connected to the dispenser’s nozzle. At first, the size of the vehicle’s tank is determined and then
the refilling process takes place. To provide a regulated gas flow during the refilling process, a
suitable average pressure ramp rate is set based on the ambient temperature and vehicle’s tank
pressure [55][56].
The refueling process starts with opening the LPT so a hydrogen stream can flow to the vehicle.
This will activate the compressor system as the compressor will now start delivering hydrogen to
the stream. During this step, if the amount of hydrogen delivered to the steam is greater than the
amount required for the refueling, then the excess hydrogen will be stored in the LPT. The
refueling process will continue to proceed in this matter until a switch from the LPT to the MPT.
This is due to the MPT having a higher operating pressure. Simultaneously, the compressor keeps
filling the LPT with hydrogen until it regains its initial condition. Finally, the HPT takes over the
hydrogen refueling process to maintain the pressure ramp rate due to the pressure of the MPT
being too low and needs to recover back to its initial state by the compressor. Once the total
refueling process is completed, the vehicle can be disconnected. The compressor will continue
operating the recovering process for the HPT, until the initial state of this tank is regained as well.
In this way, the HRS station will be ready for a new refueling process [55][56].
The HRS follows the SAE J2601 protocol as it provides an efficient and safe approach for high-
speed hydrogen refueling. The protocol states among other things, that the compressed hydrogen
has to be pre-cooled by a refrigeration unit down to -40 °C before injected into the tank, to obtain
a fueling process between 3–5 minutes without causing an overheat of the tank. Therefore, a
refrigeration system must be integrated into the dispenser [55][56].
The investment cost of HRS is somewhat difficult to estimate since the hydrogen market and
infrastructure are not well-established yet. However, research conducted by HyCoGen, has
estimated that the cost of HRS for fueling 350-700 bar on-board storage is between 1 and 5 m€.
Additionally, a refueling station for 350 bar on-board storage is cheaper than the corresponding
for 700 bar on-board storage. Moreover, stations with high capacity (kg H2/day) are more
expensive, however, if frequently used it can become cost-effective. A large frequently used
station would add approximately 3.6 €/kg to the final hydrogen price, where in the future it is
expected to be reduced to 1.8 €/kg [14].
A report from Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels (f3), has estimated
the investment cost for HRS for fueling a 700-bar on-board storage for the year 2020. The
estimated cost with respect to the HRS capacity is listed in Table 10. This cost includes
compressor, storage, and dispenser [57].
34
Table 10. Estimated Investment Cost for Hydrogen [57].
Hydrogen Capacity CAPEX
200 [kg/day] 1.3 [m€]

1000 [kg/day] 2.5 [m€]
2.12 Hydrogen Distribution

As previously mentioned, one kilogram of hydrogen occupies a volume exceeding 11 m3 at
standard conditions. Therefore, prior to transporting large quantities, hydrogen must either be
pressurized and delivered as a compressed gas (CGH2) in high-pressure cylinders, as liquefied
hydrogen (-253°C) stored in cryogenic vessels, or as chemically absorbed to an organic compound.
Thereafter, an appropriate distribution method is assigned. To assign a suitable delivery method,
different factors within the technical and economic aspects must be considered. These factors are
for example the quantity of hydrogen to be transported, delivery costs, transportation distance and
infrastructure. A summarization of these factors is illustrated in Figure 15, where the transportation
method is related to the travel distance and cost.
Figure 15. A visual presentation of H2 transportation costs with regards to distribution distance [km] (x-axis) and
volume [tons/day] (y-axis). Note that costs include movement, compressor and the storage used [58].
As seen in the Figure 15, for small hydrogen quantities and short travel distances, delivering
hydrogen as a compressed gas is most suitable. For longer distances (intercontinental) and small
quantities, hydrogen is suggested to be distributed chemically by using liquid organic hydrogen
carriers (LOHC). However, despite that LOHC is a cheaper long distance distribution option
compared to liquid hydrogen, LOHC is less likely to be selected over the commercially developed
liquid hydrogen as a transportation option. Therefore, on such occasions, liquid hydrogen replaces
LOHC in Figure 15.
A common denominator for all these distribution methods, is delivering hydrogen by trucks. The
drawback of delivering hydrogen by trucks is the high delivery cost and expensive capital cost of
these tube trailers. The capital cost of a tube trailer depends on its storage capacity and operating
pressure. Overall, the cost can be reduced by using tubes with high operating pressure as it equals
35
an increase in storage capacity; ultimately fewer trucks are needed for hydrogen distribution.
However, the purchase price of the truck will increase as well. The capital cost for a trailer tube
with a storage capacity of 370 kg H2 and an operating pressure of 200 bar is estimated to be
0.185 m€ [59][60]. Moreover, if infrastructure for distribution of hydrogen via pipelines is
available, such a distribution approach is preferable due to the low specific cost. Distribution of
hydrogen by pipeline can be applied both for small and large quantities regardless of the travel
distance. However, pipelines also have some drawbacks such as the risk of hydrogen
embrittlement and leaks. Thus, factors such as the material of the pipeline need to be considered.
Lastly, distribution of hydrogen can also take place in a form of shipping when large quantities
need to be delivered intercontinentally.
36
CHAPTER 3. CASE STUDY
As previously stated, the aim of this case study is to investigate if and at which electricity and
hydrogen price, a PtH plant has the potential of becoming economic profitable. One of the main
determining factors in this investigation is the dynamic power production profile of the offshore
wind farm, since wind power also affects the volatility of the spot prices. This means that at periods
of high wind currents, low spot prices are usually expected. On the other hand, at low wind currents
less electricity will be produced, which results with higher spot prices. Therefore, in theory, a
profitable hydrogen production could be obtained during periods of high wind currents as it may
result in lower spot prices. However, according to the second determining factor, which are the
customers, the green hydrogen price must be low enough in order to become competitive to the
already low-priced competitors e.g., diesel. Thus, despite low spot prices, the second determining
factor (the costumers) can reduce the chances for green hydrogen of becoming profitable within
the transport sector, given today's high equipment and operational costs of its production facility.
This is due to the current hydrogen infrastructure not being well-established. This will, in turn,
further complicate the process of determining a competitive selling price for the green hydrogen
and still ensure an economic profitability, while simultaneously predicting an accurate total capital
cost of a hydrogen production facility. Nonetheless, it is of interest to estimate whether green
hydrogen has the potential of becoming economic viable based on the data available today, if an
optimal utilization of the electricity produced from wind energy, is practiced. This means to
determine where an optimal utilization of the electricity lies by carefully considering the spot
prices. Therefore, the strategy of this report will be to divide the utilization of electricity, based on
the spot prices, into two alternatives. The first alternative involves low spot prices, where the
producer will choose to power the H2 production facility due to it being more profitable. The
hydrogen production will be scaled according to the number of hours where the spot prices are
low. During these hours, wind turbines must generate a power [MW] at least of what the
electrolyzer’s capacity is, otherwise hydrogen production will be scaled down to zero; regardless
of the spot price. This is since static operation of the electrolyzer is assumed in this report. The
second alternative involves high spot prices, during which the producer will choose to sell the
electricity and electricity certificates to the spot market due to being more profitable. During the
second alternative, no hydrogen production will take place.
The two alternatives will be compared by combining two types of economic models, contribution
margin, and opportunity cost, as described in section 5.1.2.4. These models will lay the foundation
of determining the price intervals of high and low spot prices, respectively. In this report, the sector
of interest is the transportation sector due to its high carbon emissions and the great interest in a
transition to green fuels. Moreover, this study is based on empirical data collected from the years
2019, 2020, and 2021. During year 2021, the spot price has been highly volatile due to various
external factors, making this analysis even more intriguing to undertake.
3.1 System Overview

The location of the Power-to-Hydrogen plant will be situated in bidding area two, and it will
consist of an offshore wind plant that is both connected to the grid and to the electrolyzer, as
schematically illustrated in Figure 16. The operational principles of the Wind Power-to-Grid and
Power-to-Hydrogen system will remain constant. However, the size of the H2 production facility
will vary, depending on the installed electrolyzer capacity.
37
Figure 16. Wind farm connected both to the grid and hydrogen facility by electric cables.
3.2 Offshore Wind Park

The construction of a hypothetical offshore wind farm is scheduled to take place in Gävleborg
County, where the power site will be located in the Bothnian Sea adjacent to Gävle harbor. The
choice of farm’s size is derived from a real Swedish offshore wind farm called Lillgrund, situated
in the Öresund region. Therefore, in this report, the wind farm will host 48 wind turbines, where
each will operate at varying wind speeds. These turbines will have a rated power of 2.3 MW,
resulting in a total capacity of 110 MW. Furthermore, the features of these turbines will be a rotor
with a diameter of 92.6 m, hub height of 65 m, and a minimum lifespan of 15 years. Furthermore,
similarly to Lillgrund, the turbines will start producing power at a wind speed of 4 m/s, and obtain
a nominal power at wind speeds of 12–13 m/s. The turbines will stop operating at wind speeds
exceeding 25 m/s for safety reasons and to prevent excessive wear. However, once the wind speed
reduces to a safe level, the turbines will resume operation [61].
In this report, the performance of the wind farm for the years 2019, 2020 and 2021 will be
estimated through analysis of a vast dataset comprising both meteorological data and the turbines’
operational data. Real meteorological data was collected from a wind speed measuring station
called Eggegrund A, due to its nearby proximity to the wind farm’s location. The data is available
to obtain from the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute’s (SMHI) website, a
Swedish governmental agency. Moreover, according to SMHI, the year 2019 had 5338 hours of
wind speed ranging between 4–25 m/s, while 2020 and 2021 had 5433 h and 6053 h, respectively
[62].
To generate operational data of the wind plant, MATLAB was used to compute the power output
of as a function of wind speed for all target years, where the real power output of Lillgrund was
used as a reference (Table 11) [61]. In this report, power output [MW] will be used for two
purposes: first to produce durability diagrams (Figure 19–21) and secondly to simulate the
hydrogen production (Figure 30–44). The power output can also be used to produce a so-called
power curve, which visualizes the variation in power production with wind velocity as shown in
Figure 17. This relation visualizes the intermittence nature of the wind plant, which in turn will
influence the spot prices as previous mentioned. Furthermore, Figure 18 shows generation of
electricity obtained at different wind speeds for all years of interest.
38
Table 11. 2.3 MW turbine’s power output with
respect to wind speed [61].
Wind Speed Power Output
0.0 [m/s] 0 [MW]

1.0 [m/s] 0 [MW]
2.0 [m/s] 0 [MW]
3.0 [m/s] 0 [MW]
4.0 [m/s] 0.065 [MW]
5.0 [m/s] 0.180 [MW]
6.0 [m/s] 0.352 [MW]
7.0 [m/s] 0.590 [MW]
8.0 [m/s] 0.906 [MW]
9.0 [m/s] 1.308 [MW]
10.0 [m/s] 1.767 [MW]
11.0 [m/s] 2.085 [MW]
12.0 [m/s] 2.234 [MW]
13.0 [m/s] 2.283 [MW]
14.0 [m/s] 2.296 [MW]
15.0 [m/s] 2.299 [MW]
16.0 [m/s] 2.300 [MW]
17.0 [m/s] 2.300 [MW]
18.0 [m/s] 2.300 [MW]
19.0 [m/s] 2.300 [MW]
20.0 [m/s] 2.300 [MW]
21.0 [m/s] 2.300 [MW]
22.0 [m/s] 2.300 [MW]
23.0 [m/s] 2.300 [MW]
24.0 [m/s] 2.300 [MW]
25.0 [m/s] 2.300 [MW]
Figure 17. Power curve of a singular turbine. Figure 18. Hourly power production for the year 2019 (A),
2020 (B) and 2021 (C).
The annual electricity generated in the year 2019, 2020 and 2021 were summed up to 0.21 TWh,
0.20 TWh and 0.23 TWh, respectively. To put this into perspective, this hypothetical wind park
generated less electricity compared to the wind park Lillgrund. In the years 2019, 2020 and 2021,
the hypothetical wind park produced roughly 63%, 60%, and 70%, respectively, of Lillgrund's
Commented [SG1]: Är det en nominell kapacitet eller är den
electricity production, which is around 0.33 TWh per year [63]. Moreover, durability diagrams verklig för dessa år? Om det är det senare är det konstigt att det är
were obtained from power output for all target years. These diagrams provide information about samma siffra för alla tre åren.
the duration of each power output sorted from highest to lowest value (Figure 19–21). A durability Commented [MZ2R1]: "vindkraftsparken årligen producerat
omkring 330 GWh " står det när man googlar runt..
Commented [MZ3R1]: Har nu omformulerat texten
39
diagram can serve as reference point when selecting appropriate electrolyzer capacities, which is
explained in section 3.3.2.
Figure 19. Durability diagram year 2019. Figure 20. Durability diagram year 2020. Figure 21. Durability diagram year 2021.
The wind park’s total investment cost is projected to be similar to Lillgrund’s capital cost, given
it is an installation of a similar size. Therefore, the construction cost, including installation and
components, is estimated to be 0.18 billion euros [64]. To cover both fixed and variable costs, the
wind park will rely on its sources of income, which will be generated from one of the two possible
alternatives. The fixed and variable costs are listed in Table 12.
Table 12. Fixed and variable cost of the offshore wind [64][65].
Parameter Value
CAPEX 0.18 [m€]

Operating and Maintenance (O&M) 18 [€/MWh]
3.3 Development of Power-to-X Park

This section is divided into several subsections, where the objective is to construct the hydrogen
production facility. Parameters such as the equipment’s technology, dimensions, and capital costs,
among other things, will be discussed.
3.3.1 Hydrogen Production Facility

A hypothetical large-scale hydrogen production facility will be connected to the offshore wind
farm via electric cables and an AC/DC converter. In contrast to the wind farm, the hydrogen
facility will be installed onshore at the Gävle harbor industrial port. The facility’s configuration
includes among other things, auxiliary and main components, such as, PEM electrolyzer,
compressor, and storage. Compared to the main components, the influence of auxiliary parts on
achieving profitability is significantly smaller. Therefore, the auxiliary components will
henceforth be collectively denoted as Balance of Plant (BoP), while the main ones will be
discussed individually. Furthermore, the cost of all equipment, both variable and fixed, are
expected to be covered by the hydrogen sales. This report will solely focus on sales of electricity
(€/MWh) and hydrogen (€/kg), although it would be possible to generate income from selling the
byproducts like heat as well under certain circumstances.
The hydrogen prices are based on the transport sector, where diesel is recognized as the
competitive fuel. Based on research conducted by SWECO about hydrogen fuel to become
competitive to diesel in terms of heavy trucks, the cost of green hydrogen should not exceed
40
≤ 0.56 €/km. This is due to the research has estimated that heavy trucks consume approximately
0.08 kg H2/km. At a price of 0.56 €/km and a fuel consumption of 0.08 kg H2/km, hydrogen’s price
is calculated to be 7 €/kg. Since SWECO has stated that the hydrogen price should not exceed
0.56 €/km in order for hydrogen to compete to diesel thesis [66], the hydrogen price will maximum
cost 7 €/kg in this. Furthermore, the hydrogen price will start off at 3 €/kg for the purpose of
investigate whether green hydrogen can become profitable at low prices. Thus, the price of the
hydrogen in this report will be set to range 3–7 €/kg. The purpose is to analyze at which hydrogen
price the facility becomes economic profitable, while also staying competitive to diesel. Lastly,
the cost of realizing the PtH project is an estimation based on the costs of commercially available
H2 components, real offshore wind farm, and literature.
3.3.2 Modelling A Power-to-Hydrogen Plant

Developing a hydrogen production facility that is connected to a wind farm, while also aiming to
obtain a technical and financial optimized connection, is a challenging task to accomplish. This is
due to limited access to the individual equipment’s operational data and the overall data
performance of operating a wind power-to-hydrogen park. Technical parameters such as the
electrolyzer’s real electricity use and the operational performance (e.g., operating temperature,
thermal inertia etc.) of respective equipment at different conditions, must be taken into account,
while simultaneously considering the investment and operational costs. Moreover, the spot prices’
volatility further complicates the process of forecasting the hydrogen production, which in turn
makes it difficult to estimate in advance how much income is expected to be generated. Therefore,
implementation of advanced mathematical models in an appropriate programming language, are
necessary in order to accurately forecast the facility’s performance [81].
In this report, the performance of a general designed PtH plant will be evaluated based on data
generated from MATLAB and Python codes. MATLAB will be used to generate the wind park’s
operational data (power output), while Python will be used to compute the corresponding hydrogen
production. On both occasions, nominal operation conditions are assumed. Thus, the obtained data
performance of the PtH plant should be considered as an approximation.
The initial step of developing a Power-to-Hydrogen plant involves the coupling between the wind
farm and electrolyzer. This makes the properties of electrolyzer a crucial factor to consider in order
to make this coupling become dynamic compatible [67]. Therefore, selection of the electrolyzer’s
capacity and technology, will be based on the following two factors: the wind farm’s power output
(durability diagrams) and its dynamic electricity production profile (Figure 18), respectively.
Based on the latter factor, the desired characteristic of an electrolyzer, is to have a flexible
operation due to the wind farm’s fluctuating electricity production. In the former factor, the
capacity of the electrolyzer, should be able to absorb the power production of the wind turbines.
Furthermore, establishing a compatible coupling will not only yield in obtaining a working
dynamic between these two components, but will also optimize the investment costs through
selecting a suitable size for the electrolyzer. By selecting a suitable size for the electrolyzer, one
can avoid choosing unsuitable dimensioning of the facility’s other main components, which sizes
are derived from the electrolyzer’s capacity. Unsuitable dimensions mean that the facility’s main
equipment are either over- or under-dimensioned. This becomes an issue if the sizes of the
equipment do not match the quantity of hydrogen produced. One example is when small hydrogen
quantities are produced, and the facility’s equipment are over-dimensioned. This means that the
size of these equipment are too large, thus becoming not cost-effective due to not being used to its
full capacity. A contrary example would when large quantities of hydrogen are produced but the
equipment’s capacities are too small (under-dimensioned). As a result, hydrogen becomes wasted.
41
In this research, an optimal electrolyzer capacity [MW] (denoted as variable y) is a function of the
wind farm’s power output [MW] (variable x) expressed as y(x)=x [67]. This is because the mission
is to select a capacity [MW] for the electrolyzer which the wind farm is capable to produce. In this
way, one can avoid choosing an electrolys capacity that is too large for the wind farm and instead
select an electrolyzer capacity that is compatible with the power output of the wind farm.
Therefore, durability diagrams (Fig. 19⎯21) of the wind farm’s power production for all target
years were produced and used to select suitable electrolyzer capacity. These diagrams will not only
provide information about the wind farm’s power outputs, but also show the duration of each
power output. The duration of respective power output can then be used to estimate the number of
operational hours that the electrolyze will have based on the selected capacity. This can be seen in
in Figure 22, where the durability diagram of year 2021 (Fig. 21) is used as an example.
Figure 22. The process of selecting capacities (20 MW, 10 MW and 5 MW) for electrolyzer and obtaining
the corresponding operational hours using durability diagram of the wind farm.
As seen in Figures 19⎯21 and 22, the durability curve decreases when going from low to high
power outputs. This means that large power outputs (e.g., 20 MW) have lower durability compared
to smaller power outputs (e.g., 5 MW). In this report, the durability is assumed to be equivalent to
the number of annual operation hours an electrolyzer will have. This means that an electrolyzer
with large capacities will have fewer annual operation hours, while electrolyzer with small
capacities will have more annual operation hours, which is also seen in Figure 22. In this report,
three different electrolyzer capacities (5 MW, 10 MW, and 20 MW) have been selected and are
described in section 3.3.2.1. These three capacities were selected because a suitable electrolyzer
size should be at or less than 20% of the wind park’s total capacity, where factors such as
commercial availability and sufficient operation hours, are also considered. According to the
durability diagrams in Figure 19–21, the annual operation hours of 5 MW is approximately
<5500 h, <4600 h for 10 MW, and <3400 h for 20 MW, for all three target years. The process of
obtaining these hours is also specified in Figure 22. However, these operation hours only serve as
a starting point to estimate how many operation hours per year the respective capacity will have.
It should be noted that these hours are not necessarily profitable hours to produce hydrogen, since
external factors, such as spot prices, are not considered here. Moreover, in this report, hydrogen
production will only take place when the power output of the wind farm is at least 100% of the
electrolyzers’ nominal power. This means that the electrolyzers will only produce hydrogen when
operating at full capacity, regardless of technically having a dynamic operation ranging at 20–
100% of its capacity [67].
Moreover, these capacities will be set to operate as independent cases; thus, three different
hydrogen production facility sizes will be produced. The purpose is to compare the operational
performance (volume of hydrogen produced) of these three selected capacities, and relate it to the
investment cost, respectively. The objective is to identify and analyze the correlation between
facility’s size and the capability of becoming profitable. The technical and economic differences
of these hydrogen facilities are presented and discussed in section 3.3.2.5.
42
3.3.2.1 Technical and Economic Description of Electrolyzer
All sizes of PEM electrolyzer are assumed to operate under similar conditions and will thus have
similar water and power consumption, stack replacement hours, and lifespan [68]. The capital
expenditure (CAPEX) is estimated to be 1.4 m€/MW [42]. The maintenance & operational cost
(O&M) and stack replacement cost are approximately 3% and 30⎯50% of CAPEX, respectively
[52]. This means that the O&M will cost 0.042 m€/MW per year and the stack replacement will
cost between 0.42⎯0.7 m€/MW for every 9 years. Further, BoP (piping, electrical equipment,
purification process, etc.) is evaluated to cost 50 [€/kW] and will be added to the CAPEX [42].
Moreover, the energy tax of the electrolyzer is reduced from 36 [€/MWh] to 0 [€/MWh] with the
motivation that its utilization promotes sustainability [69]. Technical and economic parameters for
each unit size are displayed in Table 13 and 14, respectively.
Table 13. Technical parameters for all PEM electrolyzers [68].
Parameter Technical Data
Power Consumption 50 [kWh/kg H2]

Pressure Output 30 [bar]
Water Consumption 9 [l/kg H2]
Lifetime Stack 80 000 [h]
Life Span 15 [years]
Table 14. Investment and BoP costs for all PEM electrolyzers [42].
Capacity Investment BoP
5 [MW] 7 [m€] 0.25 [m€]

10 [MW] 14 [m€] 0.50 [m€]
20 [MW] 28 [m€] 1 [m€]
3.3.2.2 Technical and Economic Description of Compressor

To ensure proper storage of hydrogen gas, it needs to be pre-compressed to a specific pressure
level before it can be injected into an on-site storage system via a gathering pipeline. Therefore,
the outlet pressure of the electrolyzer must equal the inlet pressure of the compressor. However,
the outlet pressure of the compressor is dependent on the type of storage system employed [52].
In this study, a Type I vessel with an operational pressure of 200 bar is selected as the on-site
storage system and is described in section 3.3.2.3. Thus, the outlet pressure of the compressor will
be 200 bar. Moreover, the investment cost (CAPEX) for all compressor sizes can be calculated in
relation to the applied shaft power, P [kW]. The Shaft power can be defined as the power needed
to compress a certain amount of hydrogen to a specific pressure level. Therefore, shaft power can
be calculated according to equation (12) [42].
γ−1
1 ZTR Nγ P Nγ
P = Q (24∙3600) M (( Pout ) − 1) (12)
H2 η γ−1 in
1
Where Q is the hydrogen flow rate (kg/day), and the factor (24∙3600) convert days into seconds.
The compressor’s inlet and outlet pressure are denoted as P in and Pout, respectively. In practice,
the pressure is not constant but will vary. The inlet temperature (T) is 310.95 K, as only nominal
condition is considered. Number of compressor stages (N) is assumed to be two, the ratio of
specific heats is γ = 1.4, and η = 75% is the compressor efficiency (isentropic efficiency).
43
The hydrogen compressibility factor is Z = 1.03198 and the molecular mass is MH2 = 2.016 g/mol.
R is the universal constant of ideal gas, valued to be 8.314 J/molK. The compressor is assumed to
operate with a 95% overall motor efficiency. Lastly, the National Research Council’s method is
applied to compute the investment cost as it relates the calculated electrical load in equation (12)
to CAPEX [m€] according to the equation (13) [42][47].
CAPEX = 2545(P) (13)
The specific technical parameters (regardless of compressor capacity) and capital cost for all
compressor sizes are listed in Table 15 and 16. Moreover, the energy tax for electricity to the
compressor is reduced from 36 [€/MWh] to 6 [€/MWh] as the compressor, similarly to the
electrolyzer, contributes to promoting sustainability [69].
Table 15. Technical parameters for all compressor units [42][69].
Parameter Technical Data
Power Consumption 0.200 [kWh/kg H2]

Inlet Temperature 310.95 [K]
Inlet Pressure 30 [Bar]
Outlet Pressure 200 [Bar]
Table 16. Investment cost for all compressor units for the year 2020 [69].
Capacity CAPEX
420200–511400 [kg/year] 0.5–0.6 [m€]

523900–710800 [kg/year] 0.61–0.83 [m€]
817800–830400 [kg/year] 0.95–0.97 [m€]
877400–916600 [kg/year] 1.02–1.1 [m€]
1020400–1347200 [kg/year] 1.1–1.56 [m€]
3.3.2.3 Technical and Economic Description of On-Site Storage

To select an appropriate storage tank, two important factors were considered: a minimum lifespan
of 15 years and stationary application. Based on these two factors, both Type I and Type II tanks
are suggested to be suitable. The Type II compared to Type I, is more expensive and has a longer
life expectancy (25 years) [70] due to e.g., its physical properties being strengthened by outer
wrapping [71]. However, the average lifespan of above-ground storage tanks is approximately 20
years [72], making Type I sufficient to implement. Additionally, storage of gaseous hydrogen is
one of most expensive components of a H2 production plant [73], giving an additional reason to
select Type I over II. The technical and economic parameters for storage Type I, are listed in
Table 17. Furthermore, the operational pressure is 200 bar [49], making it a suitable hydrogen
reservoir to the HRS located in Gävle harbor, where the operating vehicles can refuel.
Next, the dimensioning of storage was based on two factors: average daily hydrogen production
and the intermittent nature of wind energy. The average daily hydrogen produced from the
facilities were calculated from the annual hydrogen production of respective facility at a target
year. Thereafter, based on the average daily hydrogen production, the storage size was over-
dimensioned to be capable of storing a hydrogen production equivalent to seven days. The purpose
was to compensate for hours of little to no hydrogen production.
44
Table 17. Technical and Economic Parameters for Tank Type I [52][49].
Parameter Value
Operating pressure 200 [bars]

Operating temperature 298 [K]
CAPEX 500 [€/kg]
3.3.2.4 Technical and Economic Description of On-Site HRS

Hydrogen refueling station (HRS) for 700 bar- on-board storage, was strategically situated on-site
in Gävle harbor, which eliminates the expenses of transportation required for hydrogen
distribution. Moreover, selection of a suitable HRS capacity will be based on the daily hydrogen
production of respective facility size.
As previously mentioned, the fundamental components of an HRS comprises of a cascade storage,

compressor, refrigeration system, and dispenser. Therefore, in this report, the total capital cost of
an HRS will be based on these components.
The cost of a tank is proportional to operating pressure, where a higher pressurized tank increases
the investment cost. Therefore, an optimal strategy is to have a small volume for the HPT and a
larger volume for the LPT, resulting in a more cost-effective investment.
Moreover, an estimate of the investment cost for a 700-bar pressure HRS can be derived from
previously conducted research. The research indicated that an HRS with a capacity of 1000 kg/day
would require a capital investment of 2.5 m€ in 2020 [57]. To simplify the calculations of the
investment cost, this literature will be used as a starting point to compute the CAPEX of HRS as
a function of its daily capacity (Table 18). It should be noted that there may be additional factors
that could also affect the total investment cost of an HRS. However, these factors will be
disregarded due to hydrogen infrastructure not being established.
Table 18. Investment cost for HRS 700-bar on-board storage [57].
Capacity Investment Cost
1000⎯1350 [kg/day] 2.5⎯3.38 [m€]

1385⎯1890 [kg/day] 3.5⎯4.73 [m€]
2240⎯2400 [kg/day] 5.6⎯6 [m€]
2800⎯3700 [kg/day] 7⎯9.3 [m€]
3.3.2.5 Capital Investment Cost of Hydrogen Production Facility

In this section, the total capital cost of the hydrogen production facility for all three sizes, will be
determined. However, it is important to note that the capital cost in this report will only include
the following components: the main equipment, HRS and BoP, as listed in Table 19⎯21. The cost
values provided in the tables correspond to the respective capacities of these components, which
in turn are based on facilities annual hydrogen production.
45
There are two primary reasons for limiting the capital cost to the previous mentioned components.
Firstly, these components have a significantly higher capital cost that directly impact the facility's
potential of becoming profitable. Therefore, the relatively lower CAPEX of other minor
components becomes insignificant compared to the investment cost of the main components.
Secondly, the lack of a well-established hydrogen infrastructure creates challenges in identifying
and accurately estimating the costs of all components.
Table 19 presents the total capital cost of a hydrogen facility that includes a 5 MW electrolyzer.
According to Table 40⎯42 in Appendix B, a 5 MW facility can annually produce between
420200⎯548700 kg H2, depending on the following factors: target year, spot- and hydrogen prices.
To select a suitable compressor capacity for such annual production, figures from Table 16, which
includes a corresponding investment cost, were used. Based on Table 16, a compressor with a
capacity ranging between 420200⎯710800 kg H2 is estimated to cost between 0.5 and 0.83 m€.
Furthermore, the capacity and cost of HRS is determined using a similar approach in Table 18.
The daily hydrogen production of the 5 MW facility is approximately between 1150 and 1502 kg.
Thus, the HRS is estimated to cost between 2.5 and 4.73 m€. Moreover, the estimated storage cost
is 500 €/kg, which applies to all three facility sizes.
Table 19. Total investment cost for PtH plant including 5 MW electrolyzer.
Equipment Costs
Electrolyzer CAPEX 7 [m€]

Electrolyzer OPEX 0.21 [m€/year]
BoP 0.25 [m€]
Compressor CAPEX 0.5⎯0.83 [m€]
Compressor OPEX 0.015⎯0.025 [m€/year]
Storage CAPEX 500 [€/kg]
HRS 2.5⎯4.73 [m€]
The calculation of capital cost for the 10 MW and 20 MW facilities in Table 20⎯21, follow the
same approach as the calculation of 5 MW facility’s capital cost. According to the Table 43⎯45
and Table 46⎯48, the annual hydrogen production for the 10 MW facility ranges between 690000
and 916600 kg, while for the 20 MW facility, it is between 1020400 and 1347200 kg. This
corresponds to an approximate daily hydrogen production of 1890–2513 kg and 2797⎯3688 kg,
respectively. This data was then used to estimate the investment costs of the compressor, storage,
and HRS.
Table 20. Total Investment Cost for PtH Plant Including 10 MW Electrolyzer.
Equipment Costs

BoP 0.5 [m€]
HRS 4.73⎯7.0 [m€]
46
Table 21. Total investment cost for PtH plant including 20 MW electrolyzer.
Equipment Costs

BoP 1.4 [m€]
HRS 7.0⎯9.3 [m€]
The CAPEX of compressor, storage, and HRS are the underlying factors that contribute to the
variation in the total capital cost are presented in Appendix C. These costs are related to the amount
of hydrogen produced per year, while the investment cost of electrolyzers is independent of it. The
purpose of customizing the respective equipment’s capacities is to avoid unnecessary under- or
over-sizing, as mentioned earlier. Additionally, by considering the specific hydrogen production
capacity of respective PtH facility, the components’ costs can be accurately estimated, ensuring a
cost-effective design.
3.4 Offshore Wind Park Connected to Grid

The offshore wind plant in question, will supply power to the grid through a connecting point.
Therefore, the two following grid tariffs, energy, and power fee, must be paid. The power fee is
listed in (Table 22), while the energy fee is available in Table 23. The energy fee arises due to the
connection point’s northern geographic location. Furthermore, to obtain the power fee, data was
collected from Svenska Kraftnät (SvK) and computed, with regards to the Ockelbo region, to be a
yearly fee of 5300 €/MW [33][34], thus the fixed tariff of this wind farm will be 0.583 m€/year.
Table 22. Power fee for the 100 MW wind Park for Different Years [33][34].
Year Power fee
2019 583000 [€/year]

2020 583000 [€/year]
2021 583000 [€/year]
The power fee will not be included in the report’s calculations but rather serve as a visualization
of how much the power fee would have been for a wind farm with a capacity of 110 MW. However,
the energy fee will be included in the report’s calculation as it is a variable cost that arises when
selling the electricity to the grid.
To calculate the energy fee, equation 11 was used. The spot price (Pt,e) was set as the annual
average electricity costs of the respective target year, to simplify calculations. The loss coefficient
(F) was fixed at 1%, and the risk factor cost (r) at 1 €/MWh [33][34][35] due to negligible small
variations for the different target years. The obtained energy fees are listed in Table 23. These fees
are expected to be covered by electricity and certificate sales (Table 24). Electricity certificate
functions as a market-based support system for production of renewable electricity. This means
that producers will receive one certificate for every MWh of renewable electricity produced.
47
Table 23. Energy fee based on target year, average spot price, loss coefficient and risk factor [33][34].
Year Average Spot Price (Pt,e) Loss Coefficient (F) Risk Factor Cost (r) Energy Fee
2019 37.94 [€/MWh] 1 [%] 1 [€/MWh] 0.38 [€/MWh]

2020 14.39 [€/MWh] 1 [%] 1 [€/MWh] 0.14 [€/MWh]
2021 43.29 [€/MWh] 1 [%] 1 [€/MWh] 0.43 [€/MWh]
Table 24. Electricity certificate for different years [74].
Year Electricity Certificate
2019 3.5 [€/MWh]

2020 1.8 [€/MWh]
2021 0.5 [€/MWh]
48
CHAPTER 4. GÄVLE HARBOR
Gävle harbor is the largest logistics hub in mid Sweden, where six million tons of goods are
annually handled. Its infrastructure consists of six different terminals, including bulk, container,
energy, and combined terminal. These terminals are managed by various specialized companies
and are daily visited by large transport ships and trains. The operations taking place in the harbor
include, among other things, the export of the region’s industrial production of steel, wood, and
paper, while simultaneously importing raw materials for industry, consumer products, fuel, and
project cargoes [75].
Gävle harbor has the aim to contribute to the global transition process of implementing green
operating methods. Specifically, the Gävle harbor has planned to execute a 10-year program called
“Energy-Optimized Port Cluster 2030”, where the main mission is to reduce CO2-emissions and
promote energy efficiency, both at national and regional level in accordance with the Paris
Agreement [75]. This program includes the entire operations taking place in the port, and therefore
will be carried out in a collaboration with the companies present in the port. Some of the actions
that will take place in the program are [75]:
 Sustainable development of the port – implementing methods that yield in

enhanced energy efficiency and increase the usage of electrically powered
vehicles.
 Electrify the railways that are directly connected to the terminals –

infrastructure investment by the Swedish Transport Agency.
 Sustainable cargo management – the container terminal’s cranes will either be

operating on fossil-free fuels such as green hydrogen or electrified.
 Green transportation – the use of green fuels when transporting goods from the
region’s industries to the port. The aim is to reduce CO2-emissions from the
heavy truck traffic.
Furthermore, Gävle harbor AB is also actively engaging in the development of regional hydrogen
infrastructure. The port has planned to dedicate a “green refueling zone”, where fossil-free fueled
operating trucks can visit and refill the tank [75]. As previously mentioned, the company Svea
Vind Offshore is currently in the process of developing a grid-powered hydrogen production
facility in the harbor. In the future, this company also plans to construct an offshore wind plant
right outside of the harbor, and Mattias Wärn, CEO of Svea Vind Offshore, in an article says that
from the perspective of hydrogen production, this could mean a significant increase in production
scale [76].
4.1 Vehicles Operating in Gävle Harbor

This section aims to provide an insight into the various types of vehicles operating in the port, and
the methodology employed to estimate the respective diesel consumption. The purpose is to apply
equation (10) to calculate the corresponding hydrogen consumption. Based on this, information
about the harbor’s hypothetical daily hydrogen demand can be computed.
49
4.1.1 Trucks
The haulage contractors in the harbor, have reported that an average of 202 specific trucks are
operating in the port every day, where each is estimated to consume about 230 l diesel/day. This
information can be used to determine the corresponding hydrogen consumption by applying
equation (10), with the specific variable’s values listed in Table 25. The calculated corresponding
hydrogen consumption of these trucks is available in Appendix E, Table 58.
Table 25. Data of diesel engine, Fuel cell, and the corresponding fuels [19].
Variable Value
ηdiesel 45 [%]
ηH2 60 [%]
Ediesel 9.8 [kWh/l]
EH2 33.33 [kWh/kg]
4.1.2 Machines
The loading machines operating in the harbor are majority owned by Yilport, while some belongs
to Sören Thyr AB. The quantity and types of machines operating in the terminals are listed in
Table 26 [19].
Table 26. Specific Data and Information Regarding the Machines Operating in Gävle Habor [19].
Machines Lift Capacity Quantity Operator
Forklifts 2–33 (average 9.52) [tons] 43 Yilport

Reachstackers 45 [tons] 14 Yilport
Wheel Loaders 2–22 (average 9.75) [tons] 14 Yilport
Terminal Tractors 32 [tons] 11 Yilport
Forklifts unknown 10 Sören Thyr AB

Reachstackers unknown 4 Sören Thyr AB
Wheel Loaders unknown 4 Sören Thyr AB
Terminal Tractors unknown 7 Sören Thyr AB
In contrast to the calculation of the trucks’ hydrogen consumption, some of the assumptions about
the machines needs to be made prior to calculation of the diesel consumption. This includes
considering which type of fuel is being used due to some machines are HVO-fueled. In this report,
it is assumed that all machines are operating on diesel fuel. Furthermore, certain machines in the
harbor, such as small forklifts, are already electrically powered. However, the number of electrified
forklifts in the port are unavailable. This means that the actual number of forklifts needing a
transition to green fuel is lower than what is specified in Table 26. The sizes of Sören Thyr AB’s
machines were unknown, therefore, these machines will henceforth be assumed to have the similar
sizes as Yilport’s machines [19].
Technical information about the machines were limited, due to some manufacturers being
unknown and therefore assumptions were made. The manufacturer Kalmar’s product catalogue
was used as a reference to estimate the diesel consumption of reachstackers and forklifts (lift
capacity larger than 5 tons) [19]. This is due to around 35% of Yilport’s machines were from the
manufacturer Kalmar. The performance data of the reachstackers in the Kalmar catalogue were
50
presented in ranges, where the mean value was used to compute the diesel consumption. Apart
from the manufacturer Kalmar, technical information could also be obtained from manufacturer
Linde as 13% of Yilport’s machines were from there. This information was used to compute the
diesel consumption of forklifts with a lift capacity of lower than 5 tons [19].
The diesel-fueled Kalmar machines are equipped with diesel engines that were manufactured by
Volvo. The engine efficiency can be estimated to be around 50% [19]. This value was assumed in
all calculations of hydrogen consumption when implementing equation (10). Technical data about
the diesel and corresponding hydrogen consumption for the forklifts and reachstackers, are
available in Appendix D, Table 59 and 60, respectively [19].
Moreover, estimation of the wheel loaders’ diesel consumption required additional assumptions in
terms of the drivers’ operating behavior. That is the diesel consumption of such vehicles were
directly influenced by how these vehicles were operated by the driver [19]. Technical information
regarding the diesel consumption of the wheel loaders were obtained from [19], which provided
data about various models’ fuel consumption based on different workloads (low, medium, or high).
In this report, the wheel loaders were assumed to operate at a medium load. The diesel
consumption and the corresponding hydrogen consumption of the wheel loaders could be
calculated and are available in Table 61, in Appendix E [19].
Technical information about the terminal tractors were obtained from [19]. According to this
source, terminal tractors were estimated to consume about 4.55 l diesel/h. This value was applied
to the terminal tractor of Gävle harbor, and the computed hydrogen consumption is listed in Table
62 [19]. To estimate the daily hydrogen consumption of these machines, it was assumed that a
standard working day in the harbor consist of 8 hours for a whole year (365 days).
4.1.3 Transition Process

The transition process from diesel fueled to green hydrogen fueled vehicles is expected to occur
gradually. Therefore, three different hydrogen transition stages are proposed: 15%, 50% and 100%
of the daily hydrogen demand required to operate the trucks and machines of the Gävle harbor.
The final stage represents a fully green-fueled operating harbor, where the PtH plant is capable to
provide 100% of the daily hydrogen demand. Furthermore, these transition stages will serve as a
foundation to estimate within which range the hydrogen produced from the three different facility
sizes, would fall within. The daily hydrogen demand of the respective transition stage is presented
in Table 27. This table is based on the vehicle composition listed in Table 63, in Appendix E.
Table 27. Daily hydrogen demand based on transition stages [19].

Transition Stage Value
15 [%] 1808 [kg/day]

50 [%] 6025 [kg/day]
100 [%] 12050 [kg/day]
51
CHAPTER 5. METHODOLOGY
This chapter aims to provide an insight into the methods employed to analyze the case study. This
involves describing the process of extracting and processing relevant data and information about
each component in the PtH plant from. A flowchart will also be developed to illustrate the process
of producing hydrogen from wind energy. This flowchart will serve as a foundation to formulate
and express the operational processes of respective component in the PtH plant using mathematical
equations.
5.1 Pre-Processing and Transformation of Data

This section will explain the process of re-calculating and pre-processing the gathered information
and data in order to adjust and simulate the PtH plant’s operation according to the study case. As
previously mentioned, the simulations of the PtH park will be carried out by implementing two
different strategies. The first step is described in section 5.1.1, which involves simulating power
production of the wind plant using MATLAB. The second step is described in section 5.1.2, and
it involves producing hydrogen based on predetermined conditions using Python. Once
accomplished, the resulting outcome will be integrated into two different economic modeling
tools, described in section 5.2, for further analysis.
5.1.1 Electricity Production from Wind Farm

To simulate the wind power production in MATLAB, hourly wind speed data for the years 2019,
2020, and 2021 were collected from the wind station Eggegrund A [62]. It was discovered that 38
out of 8 760 wind speed hours were missing. The majority of these missing data points were spread
out over the year and could simply be computed by interpolating the closest data points. However,
in some instances, there were sequences of missing wind data. These data points could be
calculated by combining the wind data measured by the nearby wind station, Utvalnäs Aut, with
Eggegrund A’s data points that were closest to the sequence gap, also using interpolation.
Additionally, the average wind speed in the vicinity of Eggegrund A, is available in Table 28.
Table 28. Average Wind Speed at Eggegrund A [62].

Year Average Wind Speed
2019 5.39 [m/s]

2020 4.41 [m/s]
2021 5.56 [m/s]
The MATLAB code used to simulate power production throughout a year, is available in Appendix
A. The code utilizes a linear interpolation to produce power output as a function of wind speed,
with Lillgrund being used as a reference.
5.1.1.1 Wind Farm Connected to Grid

A wind farm located in the northern region of Sweden is integrated into the grid via a connecting
point. The farm’s geographical location and its electricity input into the grid can be used to identify
and quantify the varying expenses (WGcost) [€/MWh] and varying incomes (WGinc) [€/MWh]. The
expenses involve the cost of supplying electricity to the grid (energy fee), while the income is
52
generated from the sales of electricity and electricity certificate. These are expressed in equations
14 and 15, respectively.
WGcost = Energy Fee (14)

WGinc = Spot price + Certificate (15)
The total generated income can be obtained by subtracting (14) from (15) as seen in equation 16.
WG3 = WGinc − WGcost (16)
WG3 in equation (16) is the alternative income obtained if the electricity would have been sold to
the grid instead of powering the hydrogen production facility. Therefore, equation (16) will be
integrated into the calculations of the break-even spot prices in equation (30), as the opportunity
cost.
5.1.2 Hydrogen Production Facility

In this section, the operational processes of the main equipment are derived from the flowchart
visualized in Figure 23 and expressed in the form of operational equations as described in section
5.1.2.1–5.1.2.3. The operational equations for each unit are then converted into variable cost
equations. Moreover, in the hydrogen production simulation, factors such as the spot price, target
year, generated wind power and electrolyzer capacity, are considered. The Python code utilized to
simulate the H2 production is available in Appendix B.
Figure 23. A simplified flowchart of the H2 production facility’s operational process.
5.1.2.1 Variable Operational Process of Electrolyzer

In this thesis, the variable operation (VOElec) for all electrolyzer units includes the following two
two parameters; power (Epower) (MWh/kg H2) and water (Wcons) (kg H2O(l)/kg H2) consumptions.
This is due to electricity and water being the only feedstocks to the water electrolyzer as seen in
Figure 23. The operational cost of an electrolyzer can be obtained by linking its consumption cost
of power (Epower) (MWh/kg H2) and water (Wcons) (kg H2O(l)/kg H2) to the spot price (€/MWh)
and water cost (CW) (€/kg H2O), respectively. However, since this report involves operating the
hydrogen production site at profitable production hours, the power consumption of electrolyzer
(Epower) (MWh/kg H2) will be linked to equation (16) as expressed in the equations (18) and (19).
This is due to the aim of finding spot prices where it is more profitable to produce hydrogen over
selling the electricity to the grid.
EH2 = EPower ∙ WG3 (18)
Wwater = Wcons ∙ CW (19)
53
Where EH2 (€/kg H2), Wwater (€/kg H2) and WG3 (€/MWh) are the variable cost of power
consumption, water consumption and the opportunity cost of alternative two, respectively.
Additional variable costs such as energy tax (EEn,tax ) (€/MWh) for using electricity to produce
hydrogen, is also considered. Thus, the total variable cost (€/kg H2) of an electrolyzer can be
expressed according to equation (20).
VCElec = EH2 + Wwater + EEn,tax ∙ EPower (20)
The equation (20) can be re-written to equation (21).
VCElec = EPower ∙ WG3 + Wcons ∙ CW + EEn,tax ∙ EPower (21)
However, since EEn,tax = 0 (EUR/MWh) for an electrolyzer, the equation (21) can be reduced to
equation (22).
VCElec = EPower ∙ WG3 + Wcons ∙ CW (22)
Where VCElec (€/kg H2) is an expression for the electrolyzer’s total variable cost.
5.1.2.2 Variable Operational Process of Compressor

The variable cost of a compressor (VCcomp) can be derived from the shaft power (Cpower)
(MWh/kg H2) required to compress the hydrogen until a specific pressure is obtained. Therefore,
the variable operational cost includes the cost of electricity (€/MWh) that is consumed by the
compressor. Therefore, the alternative profit, WG3 (€/MWh), is also considered here and since the
hydrogen production site will only operate at profitable hours; the compressor’s electricity
consumption (CH2 ) (€/kg H2) includes the shaft power being linked to equation (16) as seen in
equation (24). Additional costs can also be energy tax (EEn,tax ) (€/MWh) due to using electricity
for hydrogen compression as seen in equation (25).
CH2 = Cpower ∙ WG3 (24)

Energy tax = EEn,tax ∙ Cpower (25)
Where the WG3 (€/MWh) is the alternative income of alternative two.
The equations (24) and (25) can be summed to equation (26) to obtain an expression of the total
operational cost (€/kg H2) of a compressor.
VCcomp = Cpower ∙ WG3 + EEn,tax ∙ Cpower (26)
5.1.2.3 Total Variable Operational Process of Hydrogen Facility

The total variable cost (VCtot) (€/kg H2) can be written as the sum of the equation (22) and (26) as
shown in (28).
VCtot = VCElec + VCcomp (28)
Where equation (28) can be re-written to equation (29), which represents the total variable cost
(VCtot) (€/kg H2) of the hydrogen production facility in this case study.
54
VCtot = EPower ∙ WG3 + Wcons ∙ CW + Cpower ∙ WG3 + EEn,tax ∙ Cpower (29)
5.1.2.4 Break-even Spot Price

Break-even can be defined as the point in which the total cost is equal to the total income, resulting
in a zero-profit scenario. Therefore, the objective of this section is to determine break-even spot
price of the respective hydrogen price. All spot prices below the break-even spot price are
considered to be profitable electricity prices for hydrogen production. This is accomplished by
combining the two economic models (opportunity cost and contribution margin discussed in
section 5.2) of the two alternatives as shown in equation (30). Thereafter, the break-even spot price
can be computed.
Hydrogen price = (EPower + Cpower ) ∙ (WG3) + (EEn,tax ∙ Cpower ) + Wwater (30)
Furthermore, since the hydrogen price ranges from 3–7 €/kg as described in section 3.3.1, five
different breakeven spot prices are obtained from equation (30). These prices are listed in Table
29–31. The target years have different break-even spot prices, and this is due to different prices of
electricity certificate and energy fee, as seen in Table 23⎯24. Moreover, when the spot price
approaches the break-even point, it will result in a decreased profitability of hydrogen production
and vice versa.
Table 29. Breakeven Spot price as function of hydrogen selling price for year 2019.
Hydrogen Price Breakeven Electricity Cost
3 [€/kg H2] 49.3 [€/MWh]

4 [€/kg H2] 69.2 [€/MWh]
5 [€/kg H2] 89.13 [€/MWh]
6 [€/kg H2] 109.1 [€/MWh]
7 [€/kg H2] 129 [€/MWh]
3 [€/kg H2] 50.7 [€/MWh]

4 [€/kg H2] 70.7 [€/MWh]
5 [€/kg H2] 90.6 [€/MWh]
6 [€/kg H2] 110.5 [€/MWh]
7 [€/kg H2] 130.5 [€/MWh]
55
3 [€/kg H2] 52.3 [€/MWh]

4 [€/kg H2] 72.2 [€/MWh]
5 [€/kg H2] 92.2 [€/MWh]
6 [€/kg H2] 112.1 [€/MWh]
7 [€/kg H2] 132.1 [€/MWh]
5.2 Economic Modeling Tools

This section will present two types of economic modelling tools, contribution margin and
opportunity cost. The objective is to describe how these models are used to evaluate the respective
alternatives. Given that this report aims to determine the spot prices at which production of
becomes profitable, these two models are well-suited for such purpose.
5.2.1 Contribution Margin

The contribution margin serves a tool for companies to determine whether producing a specific
product is profitable. Contribution margin can be calculated by subtracting the variable production
cost of the product from the revenue generated through sales, as shown in equation (31). A positive
resulting value signifies that a positive income (the revenue minus variable costs) is generated,
while a negative value refers to a negative income [77][78].
Contribution margin = Total variable income − Total variable cost (31)
5.2.2 Opportunity Cost

The contribution cost is the loss of a benefit when choosing a particular option over other potential
options. This type of analysis is an economic method used to compare the economic resulting
outcome of each option, with the aim of selecting the option that yields the most desirable
economic outcome. Furthermore, in this report, the opportunity cost involves comparing the
resulting outcome of the two alternatives.
5.2.3 Annuity Method

In this report, the annuity method is applied to determine the annual investment cost of the
hydrogen production facility. This is obtained by multiplying respective facility’s total capital cost
(for its whole lifespan) with an annuity constant. The annuity constant is based on the facility’s
lifespan and a discount rate, which are listed in Table 32. The selected lifespan of 15 years is based
on the average lifespan (10–20 years) of a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer [79]. The
facilities annual fixed costs are meant to be covered by the annual incomes generated from sales
of hydrogen, for the entire lifecycle of the facility.
56
Table 32. Parameters of Annuity Method [80].
Parameter Value
Lifespan 15 [years]
Discount rate 7 [%]
Annuity constant 0.110
57
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS
6.1 Simulations of Hydrogen Production
This chapter will present the resulting outcome of respective hydrogen facility, starting with
analyzing the conducted simulations of the hydrogen productions taking place in the years 2019,
2020 and 2021. The simulations provide information about the quantity of hydrogen produced,
which in turn was used to calculate the corresponding generated income. Thereafter, the
profitability of respective facility is determined by subtracting the fixed capital investment from
the variable income of that facility. Finally, the chapter will present within which range of the
transition stage these facilities can contribute to the Gävle harbor’s transitioning process from
diesel to hydrogen fuel.
6.1.1 Annual Hydrogen Production

Simulations of the annual hydrogen production of the three facilities with respect to the break-
even spot and hydrogen prices for each target year, are plotted and available in Appendix D as
Figure 30–44. Based on these simulations, the amount of hydrogen produced as a function of
operational hours of the electrolyzer, along with the corresponding income generated per target
year could be obtained and are in detail listed in Table 40⎯42 for the 5 MW facility, Table 43⎯45
for the 10 MW facility and Table 46⎯48 for the 20 MW facility in Appendix B. The following
Tables 33⎯35 are a summary of Table 40–48 in Appendix B, for all target years.
Table 33. Annual income generated for 5 MW, 10 MW and 20 MW facilities in year 2019, where hydrogen price ranges
from 3–7 €/kg.
Spot Price Hydrogen Price Annual Income 5 MW Annual Income 10 MW Annual Income 20 MW
49.3 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 1.26 [m€] 2.07 [m€] 3.06 [m€]

69.2 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 1.97 [m€] 3.27 [m€] 4.87 [m€]
89.13 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 2.47 [m€] 4.11 [m€] 6.11 [m€]
109.1 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 2.97 [m€] 4.94 [m€] 7.33 [m€]
129 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 3.46 [m€] 5.76 [m€] 8.56 [€m]
Table 34. Annual income generated for 5 MW, 10 MW and 20 MW in year 2020, where hydrogen price ranges from
3–7 €/kg.
50.7 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 1.52 [m€] 2.47 [m€] 3.56 [m€]

70.7 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 2.04 [m€] 3.32 [m€] 4.78 [m€]
90.6 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 2.56 [m€] 4.15 [m€] 5.98 [m€]
110.5 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 3.07 [m€] 4.98 [m€] 7.18 [m€]
130.5 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 3.58 [m€] 5.81 [m€] 8.37 [m€]
Table 35. Annual income generated for 5 MW, 10 MW and 20 MW in year 2021, where hydrogen price ranges from
3–7 €/kg.
52.3 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 1.26 [m€] 2.13 [m€] 3.16 [m€]

72.2 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 2.10 [m€] 3.51 [m€] 5.18 [m€]
92.2 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 2.69 [m€] 4.50 [m€] 6.62 [m€]
112.1 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 3.27 [m€] 5.47 [m€] 8.10 [m€]
132.1 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 3.84 [m€] 6.42 [m€] 9.43 [m€]
58
The hourly spot prices (Figure 24⎯28) used in the calculations, belong to bidding area two. The
wind speed influencing these spot prices, were measured by the wind station Eggegrund A
(Figure 27⎯29). Placing the wind speed and spot price figures side by side, shows the correlation
between the wind velocity and electricity price. One notable example of this correlation can be
observed between 3000 and 5000 h in Figure 24 and 27. During this period, the wind speed in
Figure 27 fluctuates from low to high and then back to low, resembling the shape of an arrowhead.
As the result, the spot prices in Figure 24, follow a similar pattern of variation, however, negatively
correlated.
Moreover, the Figures 27–29 were used in combination with Table 11 to generate the annual power
production of the offshore wind farm. The annual power production was then used to generate
simulations of hydrogen productions at hours where the spot prices were below break-even point.
Hydrogen was only produced when the wind turbine generated a power at or higher than the
electrolyzer’s capacity.
Figure 24. Simulation of spot price year 2019. Figure 27. Simulation of wind speed year 2019.
59
6.1.2 The Profitability of Power-to-Hydrogen Park

The annual investment cost of the hydrogen production facilities was expected to be covered by
the yearly income generated from hydrogen production; this means that the facility is generating
a profit. To investigate and determine whether the annual revenue generated were sufficient to
cover the variable expenses, the contribution margin in equation (13) was applied. The investment
cost of each facility size available in Table 19–21, was subtracted from the generated income that
is listed in Table 40–48, in Appendix B. The resulting values are detailly documented in Appendix
C as Table 49–57 and serves as indicators of the profitability. A negative value signifies a financial
loss, indicating that the generated income from the hydrogen sales is insufficient to cover the
annual investment costs. An example of this can be observed in Table 40, where the spot- and
hydrogen price of 49.3 (€/MWh) and 3 (€/kg), respectively, resulted in a yearly loss of -0.38 m€,
as seen in Table 49. In contrary to this, when the spot- and hydrogen price are 89.13 (€/MWh) and
5 (€/kg), respectively, a profit of 0.7 m€ was yielded as is seen in Table 49. In such instances, the
hydrogen facility can be deemed as profitable. However, it is important to keep in mind that the
hydrogen facilities modeled in this report are simplified versions. This means that not all costs
have been included and that the 0.7 m€ profit would in the reality be used to cover other expenses,
which ultimately could result in a break-even or an economic loss scenario. Moreover, the Tables
49⎯51 and Table 52⎯54 in Appendix C, shows that the 5 MW and 10 MW facilities started to yield
positive contribution margins at hydrogen prices ≥4 €/kg for all target years. The 20 MW facility
obtained a positive contribution margin at hydrogen prices ≥5 €/kg for all target years, according
to Table 55⎯57 in Appendix C. However, these profits were significantly low. The following
Tables 36⎯38 are a summarization of Table 49⎯57 in Appendix C, for all target years.
Table 36. Profit generated from hydrogen sales 5 MW, 10 MW and 20 MW in 2019, hydrogen price ranges from
3–7 €/kg.
Spot Price Hydrogen Price Profit of 5 MW Profit of 10 MW Profit of 20 MW
49.3 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] -0.36 [m€] -0.91 [m€] -2.20 [m€]

69.2 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 0.19 [m€] 0.04 [m€] -0.77 [m€]
89.13 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 0.69 [m€] 0.87 [m€] 0.46 [m€]
109.1 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 1.19 [m€] 1.70 [m€] 1.68 [m€]
129 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 1.68 [m€] 2.52 [m€] 2.90 [m€]
60
3–7 €/kg.
50.7 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] -0.29 [m€] -0.77 [m€] -2.03 [m€]

70.7 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 0.23 [m€] 0.07 [m€] -0.82 [m€]
90.6 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 0.75 [m€] 0.90 [m€] 0.38 [m€]
110.5 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 1.26 [m€] 1.73 [m€] 1.57 [m€]
130.5 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 1.77 [m€] 2.56 [m€] 2.77 [m€]
3–7 €/kg.
52.3 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] -0.37 [m€] -0.89 [m€] -2.17 [m€]

72.2 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 0.26 [m€] 0.17 [m€] -0.62 [m€]
92.2 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 0.86 [m€] 1.11 [m€] 0.78 [m€]
112.1 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 1.39 [m€] 2.06 [m€] 2.15 [m€]
132.1 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 1.96 [m€] 3.00 [m€] 3.53 [m€]
6.2 Hydrogen Demand of Gävle Harbor

The daily hydrogen demand for each transition stage (15%, 50% and 100%) listed in Table 27, are
derived from the suggested vehicle composition in Table 63, in Appendix E. These quantity
demands can serve as an axis to analyze and determine at which stage of the transition process
these different hydrogen facilities potentially will be positioned. These positions were obtained by
converting the annual hydrogen produced listed in Table 40–48 in Appendix B, into average daily
hydrogen production. These daily hydrogen productions were then used to estimate to which
transition stage the respective facility can contribute to by applying equation 32.
Average Daily Production [H2 kg]

Transition Stage [%] = 100% Transition Stage [H2 kg]
(32)
Where the 100% transition state corresponds to the daily hydrogen production of 12 062 kg, as
seen in Table 27.
The average transition stage for each facility size is listed in Table 39. Based on the amount of
annual hydrogen production of 5 MW facility, it can be determined that the 5 MW facility
contributes to less 15% of the transition stage. Furthermore, the 10 MW-facility seems to be
capable of contributing between 10% and 20% to the transitioning process, while the 20 MW
facility can contribute between the range of 23% and 30%. The purpose of doing such measure, is
to estimate facilities capability to contribute to Gävle port’s green transition goals.
61
Table 39. Average TS contribution of the three different PtH plants.
H2 Production Facility Size Average Transition Stage
5 [MW] 9.6–12.5 [%]

10 [MW] 15.7–20.8 [%]
20 [MW] 23.2–30.6 [%]
62
CHAPTER 7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
7.1 Discussion
The aim of this project was to investigate whether a hydrogen production facility powered by an
offshore wind farm, had the potential of becoming profitable. Thus, it is important to note that the
facilities modeled in this report were designed to provide a generalized configuration of how a
typical PtH plant would look like. As a result, certain equipment, e.g., AC/DC converter and
thermal module, and additional factors, e.g., electricity consumption of storage and HRS’s
operation, that also could influence the economic and technical aspects, have not been included in
the calculations.
The primary objective was to determine if the amount of hydrogen produced and sold were
sufficient to cover the variable and fixed cost of the main components and HRS. The results
presented in Table 36–38 in section 6.1.2 indicates that significant profits were only attainable at
higher hydrogen prices for all facility sizes and target years. One of the main reasons were the high
capital cost of equipment used in the hydrogen production plant, which are expected to be reduced
in the future. Furthermore, one can argue that including the investment costs of HRS was also a
contributing factor to the results of only obtaining significant profits at high hydrogen prices. To
investigate this matter, the influence of the HRS’ investment cost (Table 19–21) on the annual
total investment cost for all facility sizes (Table 49–57) in appendix C, were studied. For example,
the annual total investment costs for the 5 MW facility, for all target years, in
Table 49–51 were between 1.32 m€ and 1.86 m€, and the investment cost of HRS used in the 5
MW facility (Table 19) was 2.5–4.73 m€; which corresponds to an annual cost of 0.28–0.52 m€
using the annuity method. This means that the annual cost of HRS (0.28–0.52 m€) contributed
around 21–28% to the annual total investment cost (Table 49–51) of the 5 MW facility. The same
approach was applied to investigate the influence of the HRS’ investment cost (Table 20–21) to
the annual investment cost of 10 MW (Table 52–54) and 20 MW (Table 55–57) facilities for all
target years.
The total cost of HRS used in the 10 MW facility (Table 20) was between 4.73 m€ and 7.0 m€,
which corresponds to an annual cost of 0.52–0.77 m€ using the annuity method. The annual
investment cost of the 10 MW facility (Table 52–54) was between 2.98 m€ and 3.42 m€. This
means that the annual cost of HRS (0.52–0.77 m€) increased the total annual investment cost of
10 MW facility (Table 52–54) by 17–23%. Lastly, the investment cost of HRS used in the 20 MW
facility (Table 21) was around 7.0⎯9.3 m€. By using the annuity method, the annual cost of HRS
used in the 20 MW facility (Table 21) was between 0.77 m€ and 1 m€. The total annual investment
cost of 20 MW facility (Table 55–57) was between 5.26 m€ and 5.90 m€. This means that the
annual cost of HRS (0.77⎯1 m€) increased the 20 MW facility’s total investment cost by 15–17%.
One common denominator for all these facility sizes is that the investment cost of HRS contributed
to less than 30% of the total annual investment cost (Table 49–57) for all target years. For the
5 MW facility, the influence of the HRS’ investment cost on the total annual investment cost was
at its highest (21–28%), while for the 20 MW facility, the HRS’ investment cost on the total annual
investment cost was at its lowest (15–17%) for all target years. The influence of the HRS’
investment cost on the 10 MW facility’s total annual investment cost, fell between the 5 MW and
20 MW facilities (17–23%) for all target years. Now, if the investment cost of the HRS was not
included, e.g., was paid by the costumer Gävle harbor, then the total annual investment cost for all
facilities would have been reduced by 15–28% depending on facility size. How this would have
influenced the economic outcome can for example be seen in the 5 MW facility in Table 49, at a
hydrogen price 3 €/kg, where a loss of -0.36 m€ was obtained. If the cost of HRS (0.28 m€) was
63
excluded at the hydrogen price of 3 €/kg, then the annual investment cost of the 5 MW facility
would have been reduced by 21% from 1.32 m€ to 1.04 m€, which in turn would have yield a
profit of 0.22 m€ instead of the -0.36 m€ loss. However, 0.22 m€ is still considered to be a
significantly low profit to generate when considering the previous mentioned factors that were
excluded when constructing the Power-to-hydrogen plant. Same approach can be applied for the
10 MW and 20 MW facilities for all target years. Based on this, one can conclude that the
investment cost of HRS in this report, does not significantly influence the resulting economic
outcome. Meaning, whether HRS is included in the total investment cost of 5 MW, 10 MW and
20 MW facilities or not, significant profits are to be still only attainable at high hydrogen prices.
Moreover, the generated revenue listed in Table 36–38, would in a real practice be consumed by
the expenses of the excluded equipment’s capital (e.g., AC/DC converter and thermal module) and
operational costs (e.g., electricity consumption of storage and HRS’s operation). Apart from that,
it is also important to consider the risk of additional unforeseen expenses that may occur. These
expenses may arise due to limited knowledge about executing and operating a large-scaled
hydrogen production facility and the lack of an established hydrogen infrastructure. Therefore, an
economic buffer is necessary.
Storage is one of the most expensive components of a hydrogen production facility. Therefore, it
is the one of the main components that needs to become less expensive in order to increase the
chances of green hydrogen becoming profitable at lower prices. Therefore, geological storage such
as salt caverns, have the potential to reduce the capital cost of hydrogen storage and at the same
time be able to store large quantities. However, the drawback is that geological storage is
geographically limited.
This study introduces three different sizes of H2 production facilities. The objective was to a find
a correlation between the facility size and the probability of achieving economic profitability. The
purpose was to determine which plant size demonstrated a greater chance of achieving economic
profitability.
As observed in Table 40–42 in Appendix B, the 5 MW facility demonstrated the most profitable
annual operational hours (4203–5115 h), while the 20 MW facility had the fewest (2552–3369 h).
This outcome was expected, not only due to lower power requirement to operate a 5 MW
electrolyzer but also because lower power levels are more frequently attainable compared to higher
power levels when dependent on wind speed. As previously mentioned, low wind speeds generate
low power while high wind speeds generate high power, which can also be seen in Table 11.
Additionally, this can as well be seen in the durability diagram in Figure 22, where there were
more hours of 5 MW being produced by the wind turbine compared to 10 MW and 20 MW. This
was also visually observed in the simulations of hydrogen production (Figure 30–44) Appendix
D), where the 5 MW electrolyzer had more spikes in the plots compared to 20 MW electrolyzer.
However, the 20 MW electrolyzer produces four times more hydrogen than 5 MW per hour,
resulting in a higher income generated. Therefore, the calculated profits (Table 49–57, Appendix
C) were much higher for the 20 MW compared to the 5 MW. Nonetheless, the 5 MW electrolyzer
had a more frequent production over the target years, whereas the 20 MW electolyzer experienced
prolonged periods, longer than seven days, of zero production for all target years; keeping in mind
that the storage was dimensioned for maximum 7 days of production. In order words, there were
periods of the storage being empty. Thus, it is not accurate to claim that the 20 MW plant had an
average daily production. However, for the sake of this report, the 20 MW facility was assumption
to provide an average daily hydrogen production to enable different calculations e.g., determining
the contribution of the 20 MW facility to the transition process of Gävle harbor.
64
The 10 MW electrolyzer fell between that of 5 MW and 20 MW, both in terms of the economic
and technical aspect. The 10 MW had fewer operational hours than 5 MW, but more than 20 MW
for all target years. As the result, the 10 MW facility’s generated income exceeded that of the
5 MW but was lower than the income generated by the 20 MW as seen in Table 33-35. This is due
to the 10 MW electrolyzer producing two times more hydrogen than the 5 MW electrolyzer per
hour but two times less than 20 MW per hour. Nevertheless, the facility sizes demonstrated both
advantages and drawbacks based on which aspect that is being viewed. From the production
aspect, the 5 MW electrolyzer is more reliable to deliver an average daily production due to having
more operational hours, while the 10 MW electrolyzer was on the verge of becoming capable to
do so as well. However, similar to the 20 MW electrolyzer, the 10 MW facility had some periods
longer than 7 days with zero hydrogen production. The 20 MW electrolyzer demonstrated the
fewest operational hours and therefore had prolonged gaps of zero hydrogen production. This
would mean that the HRS would not be able to provide fuel to the vehicles in Gävle Habror due
to no production taking place for so long that the storage would have been empty. Consequently,
no vehicles would be able to operate. This makes both 20 MW and 10 MW facilities too unreliable
to operate if these facilities were solely powered by an intermittent power source such as wind
energy. Nonetheless, it is still difficult to determine which facility size that had the highest chance
of becoming profitable due to previously mentioned excluded factors. Apart from that, complex
simulations of the facility’s operation are necessary in order to obtain a detailed analysis of its
performance. In this way more information can be gathered to make a final accurate decision.
7.2 Conclusion
Based on the results presented for the investigated cases in this thesis, green hydrogen from
electrolyzers does not seem to be profitable at low selling prices but rather needs to have a price
exceeding 7 €/kg to become profitable. Even the revenues obtained at the selling price of 6 €/kg
and 7 €/kg for all facilities sizes, with or without including the investment cost of HRS, for all
target year, were too low to generate a profit. Additionally, if the facilities would have been more
complexly designed than the simplified cases analyzed here, the revenues would have been even
lower if not entirely consumed by the expenses for the equipment and operational costs that were
disregarded in the investigated cases in this thesis.
Developing a large-scale hydrogen production facility powered by a renewable energy source is a

complex and expensive process. For a seasonal hydrogen production to become profitable, the
investment cost of the equipment also needs to be reduced and the hydrogen infrastructure must
become well-established. In this way, green hydrogen will get a higher chance to compete with
diesel fueled and electric cars. Once these factors have been achieved, then this would increase the
probability of companies and people becoming encouraged to invest in hydrogen fueled cars due
to the cheap fuel cost and easy access to a hydrogen refuel station.
65
CHAPTER 8. FUTURE WORKS
A suggestion for future work would be to eliminate the delimitations of this thesis. Specifically,
implementing a deeper analysis of the Power-to-Hydrogen’s operational process, where important
factors (e.g., hydrogen and electricity losses) and the excluded components (e.g., thermal module)
are considered. In this way, a more detailed data performance of a PtH plant’s operation as well as
the construction of the hydrogen production facility, can be obtained. A detailed facility can then
be both quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed by proper simulation tools to provide a more
accurate and realistic presentation of the components’ inlet and outlet flows.
66
Bibliography
[1] Government offices of Sweden. (2020). “Sweden’s long-term strategy for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions”. Ministry of the Environment. [Online].
Available: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/LTS1_Sweden.pdf.
[2] Government Offices of Sweden. (2015). “Goal 12: Responsible consumption and
production”. [Online]. Available: https://www.government.se/government-policy/the-global-
goals-and-the-2030-Agenda-for-sustainable-development/goal-12-responsible-consumption-and-
production/.
[3] European Climate Law. (2021). [Online]. Available: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-
action/european-green-deal/european-climate-law_en.
[4] International Energy Agency. (2023). “Transport - Energy System”. [Online].
Available: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport.
[5] International Energy Agency. (2021). “Transport – Topics”. [Online].
Available: https://www.iea.org/topics/transport.
[6] A. Züttel. (2004). ”Hydrogen storage methods”. Naturwissenschaften, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 157–
172. [Online]. Available: doi: 10.1007/s00114-004-0516-x.
[7] H. Cavendish and S. A. Arrhenius. (1997). “Hydrogen”. Chemistry of the Elements. [Online].
Available: doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7506-3365-9.50009-2.
[8] S. S. Makridis. (2016). “Hydrogen storage and compression”. Methane Hydrogen. Energy
Storage. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1049/PBPO101E_ch1
[9] H-deux Suiso. (2023). “What is hydrogen?”. [Online].
Available: https://en.h-deux.com/what-is-h2.
[10] Y. Huang, et al. (2021). “Experimental Techniques”. Industrial Ventilation Design
Guidebook, vol. 2, pp. 185–277. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-816673-
4.00004-3.
[11] J. Andersson, S. Grönkvist. (2019). “Large-Scale Storage of Hydrogen”. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 44, no. 23, pp. 11901–11919. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.063.
[12] S. Luidold, A. Helmut. (2007). “Hydrogen as a Reducing Agent: State-of-The-Art Science
and Technology”. JOM, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 20–26. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-007-0072-x.
[13] A. Davoodabadi, A. Mahmoudi, H. Ghasemi. (2021). “The potential of hydrogen hydrate as
a future hydrogen storage medium”. IScience, vol. 24, no. 1. [Online]. Available: https://doi:
10.1016/j.isci.2020.101907.
[14] A. Wickström. (2022). “Vätgasens potentiella värde som bränsle för framdrift av fordon
samt andra industriella processer”. [Online]. Available:
https://www.ri.se/sites/default/files/2022-05/HyCoGen.
[15] S. Shiva Kumar and V. Himabindu. (2019). “Hydrogen production by PEM water
electrolysis – A review”. Mater. Sci. Energy Technol., vol. 2, no. 3. [Online].
Available: https://doi: 10.1016/j.mset.2019.03.002.
[16] Hydrogen Council. (2020). Path to Hydrogen Competitiveness a Cost Perspective. [Online].
Available: https://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Path-to-Hydrogen-
Competitiveness_Full-Study-1.pdf.
67
[17] Naturvårdsverket. (2023). “Sveriges Utsläpp Och Upptag Av Växthusgaser”. [Online].
Available: https://www.naturvardsverket.se/data-och-statistik/klimat/sveriges-utslapp-och-
upptag-av-vaxthusgaser/.
[18] “Sweden Energy Prices.” (2023). [Online]. Available:
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Sweden/.
[19] H. Langels and O. Syrjä. (2021). “Hydrogen production and storage optimization based on
technical and financial conditions: a study of hydrogen strategies focusing on demand and
integration of wind power”. [Online].
Available: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1530360.
[20] M. Rabe. (2021)”. 100-Tals Miljoner till Svensk Satsning På Vätgasstationer.” Teknikens
Värld, 13 december. [Online]. Available: https://teknikensvarld.expressen.se/nyheter/miljo-och-
teknik/100-tals-miljoner-till-svensk-satsning-pa-vatgasstationer/.
[21] M. J. Palys, P. Daoutidis. (2022). “Power-To-X: A Review and Perspective”. Computers &
Chemical Engineering, vol. 165. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022.107948.
[22] M. Mahapatra, P. Singh. (2013). “Fuel Cells. Future Energy”. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-099424-6.00024-7.
[23] T. Tsoutsos. (2010). Hybrid wind–hydrogen energy systems. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781845695279500081?via%3Dihub.
[24] Svenska Kraftnät. (2021). ” Uträkning av stödnivåer till elområde 3 och 4 (oktober 2021 –
september 2022)”. [Online]. Available: https://svk.se/stod-till-elanvandare/elstod-till-
privatpersoner-elomrade-3-och-4/utrakning-av-stodnivaer-elomrade-3-och-4/
[25] Svenska Kraftnät. “Mimer”. [Online]. Available:
https://mimer.svk.se/ProductionConsumption/ProductionIndex.
[26] Elrpiser24. “Spotpriser på el”. (2022). [Online]. Available: https://elpriser24.se/spotpris/.
[27] WindEurope. “Wind Energy in Europe: 2022 Statistics and the Outlook for 2023–2027”.
(2023). [Online]. Available: https://windeurope.org/intelligence-platform/product/wind-energy-
in-europe-2022-statistics-and-the-outlook-for-2023-2027/.
[28] R. Puertas, M. Luisa. (2022)”. Renewable Energy Production Capacity and Consumption in
Europe”. Science of the Total Environment, vol. 853. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158592.
[29] IEA. (2019). “Africa Energy Outlook 2019”. [Online].
Available: www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2019.
[30] S. Hussain, Siyal. (2019). “Techno-Economic Assessment of Wind Energy for Renewable
Hydrogen Production in Sweden”.
[31] Eon. (2023). “Så Fungerar Sveriges Elnät.” [Online].
Available: https://www.eon.se/artiklar/sa-fungerar-elnaetet.
[32] A. Wegener. (2007). “Nätanslutning av vindkraft,” no. 489.
[33] E. Effektavgiften and E. Energiavgiften. (2021). “TRANSMISSIONSNÄTET”.
[34] E. Effektavgiften and E. Energiavgiften. (2022). “TRANSMISSIONSNÄTET”.
[35] M. Kindmark. (2022). “Lokaliseringens och tidpunktens inverkan på ersättning vid
inmatning av el”. En utvärdering av Metod 2020.
[36] J. Moore, et al. (2022). “Chapter 9 - Compressors and Expanders”. Machinery and Energy
Systems for the Hydrogen Economy. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-
90394-3.00002-3.
68
[37] G. Franchi, et al. (2020). “Hydrogen Production via Steam Reforming: A Critical Analysis
of MR and RMM Technologies”. Membranes, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 10. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes10010010.
[38] D. Lj Stojić, et al. (2008). “A Comparison of Alkaline and Proton Exchange Membrane
Electrolyzers”. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A, vol. 82, no. 11. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1134/s0036024408110289.
[39] S. A. Grigoriev, et al. (2022). “4.18 - Alkaline Electrolysers”. Comprehensive Renewable
Energy, vol. 4. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819727-1.00024-8.
[40] J. Dohyung, et al. (2022). “Techno-Economic Analysis and Monte Carlo Simulation of
Green Hydrogen Production Technology through Various Water Electrolysis Technologies”.
Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 258. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115499.
[41] A. Nechache, S. Hody. (2021). “Alternative and Innovative Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell
Materials: A Short Review”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 149. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111322.
[42] A. Christensen. (2020). Assessment of Hydrogen Production Costs from Electrolysis:
United States and Europe. International Council on Clean Transportation.
[43] G. Yujing, et al. (2019). “Comparison between Hydrogen Production by Alkaline Water
Electrolysis and Hydrogen Production by PEM Electrolysis”. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, vol. 371, no. 4. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/371/4/042022.
[44] A. B. T. Nelabhotla, D. Pant, C. Dinamarca. (2021). “Chapter 8 - Power-to-gas for
methanation”. Emerging Technologies and Biological Systems for Biogas Upgrading.
[45] N. Gallandat, et al. (2017). “An Analytical Model for the Electrolyser Performance Derived
from Materials Parameters.” Journal of Power and Energy Engineering, vol. 05, no. 10.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4236/jpee.2017.510003.
[46] J. Thomas. (2022). “Chapter 2 - Hydrogen Technologies”.
[47] J. André, et al. (2014). “Time Development of New Hydrogen Transmission Pipeline
Networks for France”. Vol. 39, no. 20. [Online].
[48] Department of Energy. “Physical Hydrogen Storage.” Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office. [Online]. Available: www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/physical-hydrogen-
storage.
[49] H. W. Langmi, et al. (2022). “Chapter 13 - Hydrogen Storage”.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819424-9.00006-9
[50] M. Hosseini, et al. (2012). “Thermodynamic Analysis of Filling Compressed Gaseous
Hydrogen Storage Tanks”. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 37, no. 6. [Online].
[51] European Train the Trainer Programme for Responders. “Lecture 3 Hydrogen Storage
LEVEL II”. [Online]. Available: https://hyresponder.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2021/06/L3_HyResponder_Level2_210616.pdf.
[52] F. I. Gallardo, et al. (2021). “A Techno-Economic Analysis of Solar Hydrogen Production
by Electrolysis in the North of Chile and the Case of Exportation from Atacama Desert to
Japan”. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol 46, no 26. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.07.050
69
[53] E. Tzimas, C. Filiou, S. D. Peteves, and J. Veyret. “Hydrogen Storage: State-of-the-Art and
Future Perspective”.
[54] T. Q. Hua et al., (2011). “Technical Assessment of Compressed Hydrogen Storage Tank
Systems for Automotive Applications”. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 36, no.
4. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.11.090.
[55] E. Rothuizen and M. Rokni. (2014). “Optimization of the Overall Energy Consumption in
Cascade Fueling Stations for Hydrogen Vehicles”. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
vol. 39, no. 1. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.10.066.
[56] M. Minutillo., et al. (2021). “Analyzing the Levelized Cost of Hydrogen in Refueling
Stations with On-Site Hydrogen Production via Water Electrolysis in the Italian Scenario”.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 46, no. 26. [Online].
[57] F. Sartini, S. Grönkvist, and F. Magnus. (2017). “Ifrastructure and Vehicles for Heavy
Long-haul Transports Fuelled by Electricity and Hydrogen - An Overview”. Swedish Knowl.
Cent. Renew. Transp. Fuels, Sweden. [Online]. Available: www.f3centre.se.
[58] Bloomberg NEF. (2020). “Hydrogen Economy Outlook”. Bloom. New Energy Financ.,
p. 12. [Online]. Available: https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/24/BNEF-Hydrogen-
Economy-Outlook-Key-Messages-30-Mar-2020.pdf.
[59] W. A. Amos. (1998). “Costs of Storing and Transporting Hydrogen”. [Online]. Available:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6574-OBMlES/webviewable/.
[60] C. Yang. (2007). “Determining the lowest-cost hydrogen delivery mode”. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol 32, no 2. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.05.009.
[61] J. Jeppsson, P. E. Larsen, and A. Larsson. (2008). “Technical Description Lillgrund Wind
Power Plant”. Vattenfall Vindkraft AB.
[62] SMHI. “Ladda Ner Meteorologiska Observationer”. Eggegrund A. [Online].
Available: https://www.smhi.se/data/meteorologi/ladda-ner-meteorologiska-
observationer/#param=wind,stations=core.
[63] L. Shafiee. (2014)”. Validation of Models for Analysis of the Flexibility of the Swedish
Power System”.
[64] Pratakarnkraft. (2023).” Lillgrund & Markbygden vs Olkiluoto - Ett räkne-exempel”.
[65] Storgrundet Vindkraftspark. (2009). ”Miljökonsekvensbeskrivning”.
[66] Svea Vind Offshore. (2021).” Schematisk potentiell systemdesign”.
[67] F. J. Pino, L. Valverde, and F. Rosa. (2011). “Influence of Wind Turbine Power Curve and
Electrolyzer Operating Temperature on Hydrogen Production in Wind–Hydrogen Systems”.
Journal of Power Sources, vol. 196, no. 9. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.10.060.
[68] Cummins. (2021). “Hydrogen: the next generation”. Discover cumin electrolyzer
technologies, pp. 10–11.
[69] A. Wickström. (2021). “Styrmedel för vätgasproduktion med sektorkoppling till
fjärrvärme”.
[70] R. K. Ahluwalia., et al. (2020). “System Level Analysis of Hydrogen Storage Options”.
[71] Hyfindr. (2023). “Hydrogen tank”. [Online]. Available: https://hyfindr.com/hydrogen-
tank/.
70
[72] PALA Group. (2022). “What is the Average Aboveground Fuel Storage Tank’s Life
Expectancy?”. [Online]. Available: https://www.palagroup.com/what-is-the-average-
aboveground-fuel-storage-tanks-life-expectancy/.
[73] D. Véronique., et al. (2020). “Energy and Economic Costs of Chemical Storage”. Frontiers
in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 6. [Online]. Available: doi: 10.3389/fmech.2020.00021.
[74] Energimyndigheten. (2022). “Elkundens bidrag till förnybar elproduktion”.
[75] Gävle Hamn. (2023). ”Hållbarhet”. [Online]. Available: https://gavlehamn.se/hallbarhet/.
[76] F. Mårtensson. (2021). ” Vindkraftsbolag ska producera vätgas i Gävle hamn”. Tidningen
Energi. [Online]. Available: https://www.energi.se/artiklar/2021/oktober-2021/vindkraftsbolag-
ska-producera-vatgas-i-gavle-hamn/.
[77] M. Gutiérrez. (2021). “Making better decisions by applying mathematical optimization to
cost accounting: An advanced approach to multi-level contribution margin accounting”. Heliyon,
vol. 7, no. 2. [Online]. Available: doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06096.
[78] E. Estevez. (2023). “Contribution Margin: Definition, Overview, and How To Calculate”.
The Investopedia Team. [Online]. Available:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/contributionmargin.asp.
[79] A. R. Dahiru, A. Voukila, D. M. Huuhtanen. (2022)”. Recent development in Power-to-X:
Part I - A review on techno-economic analysis”. Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 56. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.105861.
[80] L. Wester. (2015). “Tabeller och Diagram för energitekniska beräkningar”. Marklund
Solutions.
[81] C. Varela, M. Mostafa, and E. Zondervan. (2021). “Modeling alkaline water electrolysis for
power-to-x applications: A scheduling approach”. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 46, no. 14.
[Online]. Available: doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.12.111.
71
APPENDIX A: MATLAB AND PYTHON CODES
MATLAB Code
x=[0:25]; %Wind speed limit
y=[ ]; %Power output [MW] obtained at different wind speed
z=[ ]; %Eggegrund A wind data
f=fit(x(:),y(:),'linearinterp'); %linear interpolation
k=f(z); %Power output as a function of Eggegrund A wind data
Q=[1:8760]; %Annual hours
Python Code
import pandas as pd
#Spot Price
tak19 = [ ] #Spot Price year 2019
#Extract data from Specific Column Excel File

cols = ['5 MW',
'10 MW',
'20 MW']
#Read Excel File

df19 = pd.read_excel('spotprisvindhastvatgas_fixad.xlsx',index_col=0, sheet_name='2019')
df20 = pd.read_excel('spotprisvindhastvatgas_fixad.xlsx',index_col=0, sheet_name ='2020')
df21 = pd.read_excel('spotprisvindhastvatgas_fixad.xlsx',index_col=0, sheet_name = '2021')
#Scale Hydrogen Production to Zero men Exceeding Spot Price at different years
df19.loc[df19['spotpris']>=tak19,cols] = 0 #Year 2019
df20.loc[df20['spotpris (euro)']>=tak20,cols] = 0 #Year 2019
df21.loc[df21['spotpris (euro)']>=tak21,cols] = 0 #Year 2019
#Only Produce H2 when Effect Produced Exceeds Electrolyers’ Capacity

df19[df19[cols] < [100,200,400]] = 0 #5 MW
df20[df20[cols] < [100,200,400]] = 0 #10 MW
df21[df21[cols] < [100,200,400]] = 0 #10 MW
#Daily H2 Production for Different Years

df19_dag = df19[cols].resample('d').sum()
#Plot (Simulate) Annual Hydrogen Production

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
df19_dag.plot(subplots=True)
72
APPENDIX B: PROFITABLE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
5 MW hydrogen Production Facility

Table 40. Profitable hydrogen production, 5 MW, in year 2019, where hydrogen price ranges from 3–7 €/kg.
Spot Price Hydrogen Price Annual Spot Hours Annual Production Annual Income
49.3 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 4203 [h] 420200 [kg] 1.26 [m€]

69.2 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 4918 [h] 491700 [kg] 1.97 [m€]
89.13 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 4943 [h] 494200 [kg] 2.47 [m€]
109.1 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 4947 [h] 494600 [kg] 2.97 [m€]
129 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 4947 [h] 494600 [kg] 3.46 [m€]
50.7 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 5055 [h] 505400 [kg] 1.52 [m€]

70.7 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 5101 [h] 510000 [kg] 2.04 [m€]
90.6 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 5113 [h] 511200 [kg] 2.56 [m€]
10.5 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 5115 [h] 511400 [kg] 3.07 [m€]
30.5 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 5115 [h] 511400 [kg] 3.58 [m€]
52.3 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 4213 [h] 421200 [kg] 1.26 [m€]

72.2 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 5240 [h] 523900 [kg] 2.10 [m€]
92.2 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 5382 [h] 538100 [kg] 2.69 [m€]
112.1 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 5453 [h] 545200 [kg] 3.27 [m€]
132.1 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 5488 [h] 548700 [kg] 3.84 [m€]
73
49.3 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 3451 [h] 690000 [kg] 2.07 [m€]

69.2 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 4090 [h] 817800 [kg] 3.27 [m€]
89.13 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 4111 [h] 822000 [kg] 4.11 [m€]
109.1 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 4114 [h] 822600 [kg] 4.94 [m€]
129 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 4114 [h] 822600 [kg] 5.76 [m€]
50.7 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 4108 [h] 821400 [kg] 2.47 [m€]

70.7 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 4145 [h] 828800 [kg] 3.32 [m€]
90.6 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 4152 [h] 830200 [kg] 4.15 [m€]
110.5 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 4153 [h] 830400 [kg] 4.98 [m€]
130.5 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 4153 [h] 830400 [kg] 5.81 [m€]
52.3 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 3555 [h] 710800 [kg] 2.13 [m€]

72.2 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 4388 [h] 877400 [kg] 3.51 [m€]
92.2 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 4502 [h] 900200 [kg] 4.50 [m€]
112.1 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 4557 [h] 911200 [kg] 5.47 [m€]
132.1 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 4584 [h] 916600 [kg] 6.42 [m€]
74
49.3 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 2552 [h] 1020400 [kg] 3.06 [m€]

69.2 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 3045 [h] 1217600 [kg] 4.87 [m€]
89.13 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 3056 [h] 1222000 [kg] 6.11 [m€]
109.1 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 3056 [h] 1222000 [kg] 7.33 [m€]
129 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 3056 [h] 1222000 [kg] 8.56 [€m]
50.7 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 2967 [h] 1186400 [kg] 3.56 [m€]

70.7 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 2986 [h] 1194000 [kg] 4.78 [m€]
90.6 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 2990 [h] 1195600 [kg] 5.98 [m€]
110.5 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 2991 [h] 1196000 [kg] 7.18 [m€]
130.5 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 2991 [h] 1196000 [kg] 8.37 [m€]
52.3 [€/MWh] 3 [€/kg] 2635 [h] 1053600 [kg] 3.16 [m€]

72.2 [€/MWh] 4 [€/kg] 3237 [h] 1294400 [kg] 5.18 [m€]
92.2 [€/MWh] 5 [€/kg] 3310 [h] 1323600 [kg] 6.62 [m€]
112.1 [€/MWh] 6 [€/kg] 3349 [h] 1339200 [kg] 8.10 [m€]
132.1 [€/MWh] 7 [€/kg] 3369 [h] 1347200 [kg] 9.43 [m€]
75
APPENDIX C: PROFIT GENERATED FROM HYDROGEN SALES
Table 49. Profit generated from hydrogen production, 5 MW, in 2019, hydrogen price ranges from 3–7 €/kg.
Hydrogen Price Annual Production Annual Income Annual Investment Cost Profit
3 [€/kg] 420200 [kg] 1.26 [m€] 1.32 [m€] -0.36 [m€]

4 [€/kg] 491700 [kg] 1.96 [m€] 1.41 [m€] 0.19 [m€]
5 [€/kg] 494200 [kg] 2.47 [m€] 1.41 [m€] 0.69 [m€]
6 [€/kg] 494600 [kg] 2.97 [m€] 1.41 [m€] 1.19 [m€]
7 [€/kg] 494600 [kg] 3.46 [m€] 1.41 [m€] 1.68 [m€]
3 [€/kg] 505400 [kg] 1.52 [m€] 1.80 [m€] -0.29 [m€]

4 [€/kg] 510000 [kg] 2.04 [m€] 1.81 [m€] 0.23 [m€]
5 [€/kg] 511200 [kg] 2.56 [m€] 1.81 [m€] 0.75 [m€]
6 [€/kg] 511400 [kg] 3.07 [m€] 1.81 [m€] 1.26 [m€]
7 [€/kg] 511400 [kg] 3.58 [m€] 1.81 [m€] 1.77 [m€]
3 [€/kg] 421200 [kg] 1.26 [m€] 1.64 [m€] -0.37 [m€]

4 [€/kg] 523900 [kg] 2.10 [m€] 1.84 [m€] 0.26 [m€]
5 [€/kg] 538100 [kg] 2.69 [m€] 1.87 [m€] 0.86 [m€]
6 [€/kg] 545200 [kg] 3.27 [m€] 1.88 [m€] 1.39 [m€]
7 [€/kg] 548700 [kg] 3.84 [m€] 1.86 [m€] 1.96 [m€]
76
Table 52. Profit generated from hydrogen production, 10MW,in 2019, hydrogen price ranges from 3–7 €/kg.
3 [€/kg] 690000 [kg] 2.07 [m€] 2.98 [m€] -0.91 [m€]

4 [€/kg] 817800 [kg] 3.27 [m€] 3.27 [m€] 0.04 [m€]
5 [€/kg] 822000 [kg] 4.11 [m€] 3.24 [m€] 0.87 [m€]
6 [€/kg] 822600 [kg] 4.94 [m€] 3.24 [m€] 1.70 [m€]
7 [€/kg] 822600 [kg] 5.76 [m€] 3.24 [m€] 2.52 [m€]
3 [€/kg] 821400 [kg] 2.46 [m€] 3.24 [m€] -0.77 [m€]

4 [€/kg] 828800 [kg] 3.32 [m€] 3.25 [m€] 0.07 [m€]
5 [€/kg] 830200 [kg] 4.15 [m€] 3.25 [m€] 0.90 [m€]
6 [€/kg] 830400 [kg] 4.98 [m€] 3.25 [m€] 1.73 [m€]
7 [€/kg] 830400 [kg] 5.81 [m€] 3.25 [m€] 2.56 [m€]
3 [€/kg] 710800 [kg] 2.13 [m€] 3.02 [m€] -0.89 [m€]

4 [€/kg] 877400 [kg] 3.51 [m€] 3.34 [m€] 0.17 [m€]
5 [€/kg] 900200 [kg] 4.50 [m€] 3.39 [m€] 1.11 [m€]
6 [€/kg] 911200 [kg] 5.47 [m€] 3.41 [m€] 2.06 [m€]
7 [€/kg] 916600 [kg] 6.42 [m€] 3.42 [m€] 3.00 [m€]
77
3 [€/kg] 1020400 [kg] 3.06 [m€] 5.26 [m€] -2.20 [m€]

4 [€/kg] 1217600 [kg] 4.87 [m€] 5.65 [m€] -0.77 [m€]
5 [€/kg] 1222000 [kg] 6.11 [m€] 5.65 [m€] 0.46 [m€]
6 [€/kg] 1222000 [kg] 7.33 [m€] 5.65 [m€] 1.68 [m€]
7 [€/kg] 1222000 [kg] 8.55 [m€] 5.65 [m€] 2.90 [m€]
3 [€/kg] 1186400 [kg] 3.56 [m€] 5.58 [m€] -2.03 [m€]

4 [€/kg] 1194000 [kg] 4.78 [m€] 5.60 [m€] -0.82 [m€]
5 [€/kg] 1195600 [kg] 5.98 [m€] 5.60 [m€] 0.38 [m€]
6 [€/kg] 1196000 [kg] 7.18 [m€] 5.60 [m€] 1.57 [m€]
7 [€/kg] 1196000 [kg] 8.37 [m€] 5.60 [m€] 2.77 [m€]
3 [€/kg] 1053600 [kg] 3.16 [m€] 5.33 [m€] -2.17 [m€]

4 [€/kg] 1294400 [kg] 5.18 [m€] 5.79 [m€] -0.62 [m€]
5 [€/kg] 1323600 [kg] 6.62 [m€] 5.85 [m€] 0.78 [m€]
6 [€/kg] 1339200 [kg] 8.04 [m€] 5.88 [m€] 2.15 [m€]
7 [€/kg] 1347200 [kg] 9.43 [m€] 5.90 [m€] 3.53 [m€]
78
APPENDIX D: SIMULATIONS OF ANNUAL HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
Figure 30. Hydrogen production at spot price < 49.3 [€/MWh].
79
80
Figure 34. Hydrogen production at spot price < 129 [€/MWh].
81
82
83
84
85
86
APPENDIX E: GÄVLE HARBOR
Table 58. Data of Truck’s diesel consumption and the corresponding hydrogen consumption [19].
Number Average Average Hydrogen Total
of Trucks Diesel Consumption Consumption per Truck Hydrogen
202 230 [l/day] 50.72 [kg/day] 10245 [kg/day]
Table 59. Technical Data of Forklifts, ranging from light- to heavyweight [19].
Forklifts’ Lift Number Assumed Diesel Estimated Hydrogen Total
Capacity of Consumption Consumption per Hydrogen
Forklifts per Forklift Forklift Consumption
2 [ton] 4 3.2 [l/h] 0.78 [kg/h] 3.12 [kg/h]

3.5 [ton] 2 3.6 [l/h] 0.88 [kg/h] 1.76 [kg/h]
4 [ton] 3 4.6 [l/h] 1.13 [kg/h] 3.39 [kg/h]
4.5 [ton] 1 4.8 [l/h] 1.18 [kg/h] 1.18 [kg/h]
5 [ton] 9 5.0 [l/h] 1.23 [kg/h] 11.1 [kg/h]
8 [ton] 17 7 [l/h] 1.72 [kg/h] 29.2 [kg/h]
15 [ton] 13 9 [l/h] 2.21 [kg/h] 28.7 [kg/h]
16 [ton] 1 9.5 [l/h] 2.33 [kg/h] 2.33 [kg/h]
30 [ton] 2 14 [l/h] 3.43 [kg/h] 6.86 [kg/h]
33 [ton] 1 15 [l/h] 3.68 [kg/h] 3.68 [kg/h]
Table 60. Technical Data of reachstackers, ranging from light- to heavyweight [19].
Number Assumed Diesel Estimated Hydrogen Total Hydrogen
of Consumption Consumption per Consumption
reachstackers per reachstackers reachstackers
19 17 [l/h] 4.17 [kg/h] 70.89 [kg/h]
Table 61. Technical Data of Wheel Loaders [19].

Number Operating Comparable CAT Assumed Diesel Estimated Hydrogen Total Hydrogen
of Wheel Weight Wheel Loader Consumption Consumption per Consumption
Loaders Model per Wheel Loaders Wheel Loaders
1 3394 907D 4.75 [l/h] 1.16 [kg/h] 1.16 [kg/h]

2 3747 907D 4.75 [l/h] 1.16 [kg/h] 2.32 [kg/h]
1 4100 907D 4.75 [l/h] 1.16 [kg/h] 1.16 [kg/h]
1 9400 914M 6.80 [l/h] 1.67 [kg/h] 1.67 [kg/h]
1 11800 920 6.80 [l/h] 1.67 [kg/h] 1.67 [kg/h]
1 13567 926M 6.85 [l/h] 1.68 [kg/h] 1.68 [kg/h]
1 15250 930M 7.15 [l/h] 1.75 [kg/h] 1.75 [kg/h]
5 19000 950M 11.35 [l/h] 2.78 [kg/h] 13.9 [kg/h]
1 21000 962M 12.20 [l/h] 2.99 [kg/h] 2.99 [kg/h]
2 28500 980M 20.70 [l/h] 5.07 [kg/h] 10.14 [kg/h]
1 31000 980M 20.70 [l/h] 5.07 [kg/h] 5.07 [kg/h]
87
Table 62. Technical Data of Terminal Tractor [19].
Number Assumed Diesel Estimated Hydrogen Total Hydrogen

of Consumption Consumption Consumption
Terminal Tractor per reachstackers per reachstackers
18 4.55 [l/h] 1.11 [kg/h] 19.98 [kg/h]
Table 63. Composition of vehicles at different hydrogen transition stages, where TS = Transition Stage and OW =
operating weight [19].
Vehicle Type Technical Data TS 15% TS 50% TS 100%
Forklift 2 [tons] 4 4 4
Forklift 4.5 [tons] 1 1 1
Wheel Loader (3394-4100 kg OW) 4 4 4
Wheel Loader (9400-11800 kg OW) 1 2 2
Wheel Loader (13567 kg OW) 0 1 1
Trucks 30 101 202
Reachstacker 3 9 19
Terminal Tracor 1 3 18
Total Hydrogen Fuel 1808 kg/day 6025 kg/day 12062 kg/day

Required per Day
88

TEA Wind To Hydrogen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEA Wind To Hydrogen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEGREE PROJECT IN TECHNICAL CHEMISTRY ENGINEERING,

SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KTH

2.2 Hydrogen Application 17

2.2.2 Transportation Sector 18

2.4 Mid Sweden Hydrogen Valley 21

2.5 Bidding Area Two 22

2.6 Wind Power Parks in Europe 23

2.6.1 Development of Wind Turbines Technology 23

2.7 The Swedish Electricity Market 24

2.7.1 Grid Connection 25

2.8 Hydrogen Production 26

2.8.1.1 Alkaline Water Electrolyzer 28

2.8.1.2 Proton Exchange Membrane 29

2.10.2 Chemical Storage 31

2.10.3 Physical Storage 32

2.10.3.1 Liquid Hydrogen Storage 32

2.10.3.2 Compressed Gaseous Hydrogen Storage 32

2.11 Hydrogen Refuel Station 33

2.12 Hydrogen Distribution 35

3.2 Offshore Wind Park 38

3.3 Development of Power-to-X Park 40

3.3.1 Hydrogen Production Facility 40

3.3.2 Modelling a Power-to-Hydrogen Plant 41

3.3.2.1 Technical and Economic Description of Electrolyzer 43

3.3.2.2 Technical and Economic Description of Compressor 43

3.3.2.3 Technical and Economic Description of On-Site Storage 44

3.3.2.4 Technical and Economic Description of On-Site HRS 45

3.3.2.5 Capital Investment Cost of Hydrogen Production Facility 45

3.4 Offshore Wind Park Connected to Grid 47

4.1.3 Transition Process 51

5.1.1 Electricity Production from Wind Farm 52

5.1.1.1 Wind Farm Connected to Grid 52

5.1.2 Hydrogen Production Facility 53

5.1.2.1 Operational Process of Electrolyzer 53

5.1.2.2 Operational Process of Compressor 54

5.1.2.3 Total Variable Operational Process of Hydrogen Facility 54

5.1.2.4 Break-even Spot Price 55

5.2 Economic Modeling Tools 56

5.2.1 Contribution Margin 56

5.2.2 Opportunity Cost 56

5.2.3 Annuity Method 56

6.1.1 Annual Hydrogen Production 57

6.1.2 The Profitability of Power-to-Hydrogen Park 59

6.2 Hydrogen Demand of Gävle Harbor 60

7 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 61

Alternative 2: Directly sell the electricity to the grid.

To accomplish this techno-economic analysis, a case study of a Power-to-Hydrogen (PtH) plant

Figure 1. Hydrogen Molecule [9].

Figure 2. Phase diagram of hydrogen molecule [6].

2.2.2 Transportation Sector

kg H2 ηdiesel Ediesel l Diesel

Private Car 1 [kg/H2/100 km] 20–40 [km/day] 0.2–0.4 [kg H2/day]

2021 Toyota Mirai XLE 45500 [€] 0.82 [kg/H2/100 km]

Figure 3. General illustration of various fuel cells operating principles [23].

Figure 4. Generalized configuration of the Power-to-Power process.

Figure 5. Generalized configuration of a Power-to-Hydrogen process.

2.4 Mid Sweden Hydrogen Valley

2.5 Bidding Area Two

1 2.47 [TWh] 4.01 [TWh] 4.61 [TWh]

1 18.5 [TWh] 19.0 [TWh] 22.1 [TWh]

1 40.10 [€/MWh] 15 [€/MWh] 43.2 [€/MWh]

2.6 Wind Power Parks in Europe