Techno-economic analysis to identify the optimal conditions for green

hydrogen production
Henry, A., McStay, D., Rooney, D., Robertson, P., & Foley, A. (2023). Techno-economic analysis to identify the
optimal conditions for green hydrogen production. Energy Conversion and Management, 291, Article 117230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117230

Published in:
Energy Conversion and Management

Document Version:
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:

Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal

Publisher rights
Copyright 2023 The Authors.

This is an open access article published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the author and source are cited.

General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other
copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated
with these rights.

Take down policy

The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to
ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the
Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact openaccess@qub.ac.uk.

Open Access
This research has been made openly available by Queen's academics and its Open Research team. We would love to hear how access to
this research benefits you. – Share your feedback with us: http://go.qub.ac.uk/oa-feedback

Download date:20. Mar. 2024

 Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Techno-economic analysis to identify the optimal conditions for green

hydrogen production
Ashleigh Henry a, b, *, Daniel McStay a, b, David Rooney a, b, Peter Robertson a, b, Aoife Foley c, d, e
a
School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Queen’s University of Belfast, David Keir Building, Stranmillis Road, Belfast BT9 5AG, United Kingdom
b
Bryden Centre, Queen’s University Belfast, David Keir Building, Stranmillis Road, Belfast BT9 5AG, United Kingdom
c
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen’s University of Belfast, Ashby Building, Stranmillis Road, Belfast BT9 5AH, United Kingdom
d
Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
e
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom

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

Keywords: The intermittency of renewable energy sources necessitates energy storage to meet the full demand and
Green hydrogen balancing requirements of the grid. Green hydrogen (H2) is a chemical energy carrier that can be used in a
Economics flexible manner and store large amounts of energy for long periods of time. This techno-economic analysis in­
Electrolysis
vestigates H2 production from wind using commercially available desalination and electrolysis units. Proton
Wind power
exchange membrane and alkaline electrolyser units are utilised and compared. The intermittency of wind is
Energy storage
Power-to-X examined, with comparison against grid-bought electricity. A model is developed to determine the selling price
required to ensure profitability over a 10-year period. Firstly, where H2 is produced using energy from the grid,
with electricity purchased when below a specified price point or between specified hours. In the second scenario
a wind turbine is owned by the user and the electricity price is not considered, while the turbine capital
expenditure is. The price of H2 production from wind is found to be comparable with natural gas derived H2 at a
larger scale, with a minimum selling price calculated to be 4.85 £/kg at a setpoint of 500 kg of H2/hr. At a
setpoint of 50 kg of H2/hr, this is significantly higher at 12.10 £/kg. In both cases, the alkaline electrolyser
produced cheaper H2. This study demonstrates an economy of scale with H2 prices decreasing with increased
scale. H2 prices are also closely linked to the capital expenditure, with the equipment size, space and safety
identified as limiting factors.

1. Introduction
With the rise of renewable energy and the decline of fossil fuels, the
energy mix is constantly evolving. This is largely due to the intermit
nature of renewables, which necessitates multiple energy sources to
meet the full demand of the grid, wherein supply and demand do not
always align [1]. This can be accomplished through complementary
energy sources, but more commonly through energy storage solutions
[2]. The best energy storage option is typically scenario-specific,
dependent on the required storage capacity, environmental con­
straints, as well as operation and maintenance needs [3]. This will
ensure energy security while accommodating or mitigating the vari­
ability of the power source [4]. Additionally, the specific conditions of
the renewable source must be considered, and baseloads or backups,
including fossil fuels, batteries or grid electricity, may be needed at
intervals [5].
Many different types of energy storage technologies are discussed in
the literature. Le et al. conducted a techno-economic analysis comparing
hydrogen (H2), battery and hybrid energy storage systems. The optimal
storage depends on renewable energy availability, system size and the
energy demand of the system. H2 was found to reduce component
degradation and increase efficiency, allowing for > 80 % renewable
energy penetration [6]. H2 is best suited for long-term seasonal storage
but is expensive, while batteries are more cost-effective but better for
short-term storage. Marocco et al. highlight the potential need for bat­
teries as a buffer for the smoothing down of renewable energy sources,
increasing the reliability of the electricity provided and avoiding high-
cost grid connections. Batteries can be used on a daily basis but are
more expensive for long-term energy storage [7]. This is reiterated by Li
et al., who highlighted lithium-ion batteries and H2 as advantageous for
energy storage durations of less than 10 h and > 48 h, respectively. This

* Corresponding author at: School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Queen’s University of Belfast, David Keir Building, Belfast BT9 5AG, United Kingdom.
E-mail address: ahenry27@qub.ac.uk (A. Henry).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117230

Available online 7 June 2023

0196-8904/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Henry et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230

Nomenclature eelec Specific energy of electrolysis (kWh/kg)

Etotal Total energy use (kWh)
Abbreviations mhy Mass of H2 produced (kg)
CAPEX Capital expenditure N Number of electrolyser units
CO2 Carbon dioxide PCAPEX Capital expenditure
H2 Hydrogen Pdesal Price of the desalination unit
LCOE Levelised cost of energy Pelec Price of the electrolyser
LCOH Levelised cost of hydrogen Pgrid Cost of electricity from grid
PEM Proton exchange membrane Phy H2 selling price
RO Reverse Osmosis Plabour Cost of labour
ROR Rate of return POPEX Operational expenditures
SOEC Solid oxide electrolysis cell Ptot Cumulative costs
Punit Unit electricity price
Symbols t Time (hr)
celec Capacity of electrolysis unit (kg/hr) PO&M Maintenance costs
Edesal Energy use of desalination (kWh)
edesal Specific energy of desalination (kWh/kg) Greek symbols
Eelec Energy use of electrolysis (kWh) ηelec Electrolyser efficiency (%)

Fig. 1. Size, scale and maturity level of storage technologies (adapted from [3;4]).

study also predicted that by 2030, new energy storage types will reach
maturity, leading to rapid development and widespread deployment of
the industry. There will also be a need for H2 carriers like ammonia to be
developed to solve H2 transportation issues [8].
Gasanzade et al. studied geological compressed air energy storage,
which was found to supply up to 115 MW of electrical power and a
maximum of 49.9 GWh of electric energy for up to 429 hours, equivalent
to grid-scale power storage capacity. However, this technology is limited
by location [9]. Jiang et al. presented a novel amine-based thermal en­
ergy storage system that stores thermal energy during carbon dioxide
(CO2) desorption and releases thermal energy during absorption. The
study is preliminary but shows promise with > 70 % thermal energy
conversion efficiency and a moderate energy density [10]. Yang et al.
proposed a novel integrated system for H2 liquefaction and liquid air
energy storage to provide energy storage and power generation. The
system can achieve high energy efficiency and reduce the price of H2
liquefaction and storage while daily producing 50 tonnes of H2 and
generating 131.1 MWh at an efficiency of 58.9 % [11]. Common to
almost all recent literature sources on emerging energy storage tech­
nologies are suggestions for policymakers to prioritise research and
development to improve the performance and cost-effectiveness of the
technologies, with emphasis on collaboration between stakeholders.
Panda et al. reviewed the integration of energy storage with hybrid
power sources, determining the need for focus on acceptability and
affordability by low-income and economically backward communities.
They concluded that the hybridisation of energy storage systems, with
differing technological and operation characteristics, could satisfy the
requirements for power systems [12]. Hunter et al. analysed long-
duration energy storage and flexible power generation via techno-
economic analysis. The lowest-cost and lowest-carbon technologies to
support renewable energy grids were natural gas production with car­
bon capture and H2 systems with geologic storage over 120 hours.
Storage technologies such as pumped hydro, compressed air storage and
lithium-ion battery were more expensive over 12 hours of storage
duration due to storage related capital costs [13]. In agreement over a
shorter time period, Sreekanth et al. carried out a feasibility study on
energy storage in an arid region, with compressed air storage, pumped
hydro and sodium sulfur battery found to be the best for solving prob­
lems surrounding power supply optimisation and high demand at peak
loads [14]. Braga highlighted the need for energy demand management
measures to increase feasibility and cost-effectiveness for the integration
of renewable energy storage and for power system balancing. This study

2
A. Henry et al.
Fig. 2. Power-to-X scheme showing green H2 production and usage routes.
investigated the use of pumped hydro, batteries and H2 to store
renewable energy in Moldova using a varying mixture of wind and solar,
finding H2 storage to be unsuitable to these specific conditions and
battery to have the shortest payback period overall [15]. These examples
emphasise the specificity of energy storage to each application.
Fig. 1 further illustrates different types of energy storage, showing
their maturity levels, typical size and if they can store energy for long or
short periods of time. This ranges from capacitors with a small storage
capacity that may last only seconds to larger scale technologies like
pumped hydro that are also more developed and can store energy for
years. It is also evident that chemical compounds provide energy storage
at scale and over extended periods of time.
H2 is a promising chemical energy storage medium that can be used
as a primary energy source or processed further [16]. However, using H2
can be challenging due to storage [17], transport, safety concerns and
the need for the end user to change their system [18]. One possible
solution is to mix H2 with natural gas in pipelines, operating at a
maximum content of 20 % [19]. Using H2 as an intermediate is perhaps a
more promising solution, where it forms the centre of a Power-to-X type
scheme. Fig. 2 shows the various applications of H2, which can be pro­
duced through traditional and highly polluting methods like methane
steam reforming, emitting approximately 7 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of
H2 produced [20]. However, H2 produced through Power-to-X schemes
is green, having been produced from a renewable energy source [21].
This makes it a more suitable storage medium for intermittent renew­
able energy sources with less environmental impact [22]. In their re­
view, Wulf et al. found that more than 120 Power-to-X projects are
operational or in planning stages in Europe, with a trend towards
diversification of technologies and production of different final products
like methane, methanol, dimethyl ether and other long-chain hydro­
carbons [23].
Green H2 is generated via electrolysis, which splits water into H2 and
oxygen by applying a voltage to the cells and passing current between
two electrodes, which are in contact with an ion-conducting medium.
Alkaline and proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis are the two
main technologies used, with typical scale reaching up to 5 MW in size
[24]. Alkaline electrolysis, which uses an aqueous electrolyte to conduct
ions (tending to be 30 % potassium hydroxide), tends to be used in
commercial applications. The more recent PEM technology uses a solid
polymer electrolyte [25]. The solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) is
another technology that may be used, however, it requires both elec­
tricity and heat, as well as high operating temperatures (>750 ◦ C) [26].
While this is not as advanced or available at a commercial level, SOEC
may prove promising in the future for efficiency gains [26].
A challenge associated with green H2 production is its high cost when
not produced as a by-product of processes like steam methane reform­
ing. For instance, natural gas-derived H2 costs between 0.72-2.56 £/kg,
while renewable energy derived H2 costs 2.40–6.00 £/kg [27]. Despite
3
Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230
this, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) suggest that
the levelised cost of H2 (LCOH) from renewables could decrease to
approximately 1.10 £/kg in 2050 if the cost of electrolysers falls
accordingly, along with the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) of the
renewable energy source in question which can sometimes be an unre­
alistic simplification [28]. Some main drivers in cost reduction will be
global technological learning, learning-by-doing and economies of scale
[24].
This study particularly focuses on H2 production from wind energy.
The wind energy sector is rapidly growing, with a total of 780.3 GW of
current installed onshore capacity, 72.5 GW of which was installed in
2021 [29]. Olateju et al. investigated large-scale H2 production from
wind by analysing real-time wind energy data in Western Canada. This
data determined an optimal plant size that produces 760 m3 H2/hr while
also using a battery capacity of 360 MWh. This study found a minimum
H2 production cost of 7.20 £/kg H2, which could be reduced to 2.70 £/kg
H2 if existing wind farms were utilised. Touili et al. investigated the use
of a PEM electrolyser with a 4.2 MW wind turbine and found a levelized
cost of H2 of 10.82 £/kg H2 [30]. Furthermore, Apostolou et al. con­
ducted a literature review of wind-H2 systems finding H2 prices as high
as 21.84 £/kg H2, but generally, a figure around 8.40 £/kg H2 was
common [31].
Janke et al. investigated a wind-H2 system for a small-scale agricul­
tural project. This used 10–40 2 MW wind turbines and found the lev­
elized cost of H2 to range from 12.17 to 17.81 £/kg H2. This was found to
decrease when the scale of the project was increased, as well as when by-
products were recovered and sold, improving the overall feasibility of
the project, with a minimum levelized cost of H2 produced at 9.61 £/kg
H2 [32]. Khouya agreed with this, finding that in a wind-H2 system, the
levelized cost of H2 decreases with scale as long as the energy source is
adjusted accordingly [33]. Marocco et al. also found capital expenditure
(CAPEX) levels of H2 storage systems to be high, making them less
economically feasible in smaller systems. In the comparison of multiple
sites using the battery-H2 hybrid model, it was found that the lowest
LCOE occurred when either technology was used alone [7].
Hence, this study examines the price of H2 produced from wind
through a techno-economic analysis, differing from the analysis in
literature due to the use of quotations for multiple types of commercially
available electrolysers, as well as desalination equipment. This provides
a more realistic cost of H2. There are four sections to this paper, wherein
the first introduces the hypotheses and relevance of the work. This has
highlighted the levelized cost of H2 to be a general value and that there is
much development of this type of work to be carried out in the future. It
has also shown results to be scenario specific. The second section pre­
sents the methods for the techno-economic analysis, including the
introduction of three scenarios which are examined. In this study, two
types of electrolysers are investigated – the alkaline electrolyser and the
PEM. The production of H2 from the two types of electrolysers is
A. Henry et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230

Fig. 3. Schematic for the H2 production system using either wind or grid-derived electricity.

Scenario 1: Using energy from the grid when electricity pricing is

Table 1
below a certain setpoint only. This was based on historical data of
Quotations for commercially available PEM and alkaline (ALK) electrolysis
electricity prices from Nord Pool UK [34]. The system operates to pro­
technologies with associated capacities.
duce H2 when the price of electricity is at or below a specified setpoint
Equipment code H2 made (kg/hr) Equipment CAPEX (£/unit)
only. This setpoint is 100 £/MWh or lower, based on a UK average of
PEM1 0.23 223,850.00 audited data for the LCOE of wind farm sites, and this allows for elec­
PEM2 0.46 229,000.00 tricity prices equal to or less than wind to be identified [35].
PEM3 0.92 250,000.00
PEM4 2.30 530,000.00
Scenario 2: Using energy from the grid only between certain hours
PEM5 6.40 762,000.00 of the day. The system operates to produce H2 between specified hours
PEM6 6.89 1,450,000.00 of the day only. These are hours when there is less demand, and elec­
PEM7 24.60 2,352,000.00 tricity will be priced lower. These hours are 0:00–08:00 and
PEM8 82.00 7,840,000.00
12:00–16:00, with historical data from Nord Pool UK used [34].
PEM9 410.00 39,200,000.00
ALK1 0.82 44,800.00 Scenario 3: Using energy from a wind turbine owned by the user,
ALK2 1.23 67,200.00 wherein there is no electricity price incurred on the user. An initial
ALK3 2.46 134,400.00 CAPEX for turbine purchase is paid for by the user, and for the operation
ALK4 3.69 201,600.00 of the turbine, a capacity factor is assumed over a period of a year [36].
ALK5 4.92 268,800.00
The initial step for this system was to gather quotations for elec­
ALK6 8.20 448,000.00
trolysis and desalination equipment. The electrolysis technologies
considered were alkaline and PEM electrolysis, as they are the most
mature [37]. The SOEC technology is not commercially mature, and so is
Table 2
not suitable for this study [26]. The reverse osmosis technology is used
Quotations for commercially available reverse osmosis (RO) desalination tech­
for desalination, being the most widely used desalination technology,
nologies with associated capacities.
while also being the least energy intensive [38].
Equipment code Water made (m3/day) Equipment CAPEX (£/unit) The pieces of equipment used in this study were selected as they are
RO1 50 140,074.63 currently used in industry, with companies contacted directly for quo­
RO2 100 215,455.73 tations. The capacities and costings of the equipment are shown in
RO3 240 158,710.77
Table 1 and Table 2. A total of 105 scenarios were utilised in the model,
RO4 250 254,066.65
RO5 500 302,568.80 combining each electrolysis unit with each desalination unit.
RO6 500 348,310.27 Using the quotations gathered for commercially available equip­
RO7 1000 276,568.80 ment, the minimum price of H2 to reach a 10 % rate of return (ROR) in a
10-year period is calculated. This is using different combinations of the
quoted equipment in Tables 1 and 2, allowing the project to be viewed
compared based on the electricity that is consumed, either from the grid
from the standpoint of an investor. The price of H2 is found over a range
or from a wind turbine. For the grid-derived electricity, this is compared
of conditions per scenario. The scale of the project is also varied, with
between an arbitrage model and the purchase of electricity between
two different H2 production targets set to show the impact of scale, these
certain hours of the day only. For wind turbine derived electricity, the
are 50 kg/hr and 500 kg/hr. For Scenario 1, the arbitrage system works
intermittency and variability of the resource are investigated. The third
by applying a setpoint of 100 £/MWh or lower and in the case of Sce­
section discusses the results and their significance, presenting the
nario 3, the size of the turbine used in the case study is altered. Other­
calculated H2 selling prices at different scales and providing a case study
wise, the turbine size is constant at 8 MW.
for a real-life location using wind data from the chosen site. Finally, the
Using this method provides a more detailed analysis of the price to
fourth section discusses the results in a wider context and considers
produce H2. Firstly, with the use of accurate industry pricing of equip­
improvements for future research and real-life applications.
ment to inform the CAPEX figure of the system, providing detail for the
initial investments needed. Secondly, using the changing electricity
2. Methods
prices over the time period investigates the impact of the varying market
prices, feeding into the arbitrage and specified buying hours models
A techno-economic analysis is used to determine the price of H2
[34]. This avoids using average terms not representative of actual pri­
produced from the system shown in Fig. 3, using figures and quotations
ces. Additionally, Aldersey-Williams et al. found LCOE estimates to
for commercially available equipment.
generally be unreliable, with a range of 72.11–235.96 £/MWh for UK
Three scenarios are considered for this techno-economic analysis,
based wind farm data [35]. Thus, using the pricing for the wind turbine
these are:
instead to price Scenario 3 allows for more of a robust estimate instead

4
A. Henry et al.
Table 3
Assumptions for the techno-economic evaluation.
Assumption
Alkaline electrolysis specific energy (kWh/kg)* 58.94
PEM electrolysis specific energy (kWh/kg)* 62.44
Alkaline electrolysis efficiency (%)* 70.78 %
PEM electrolysis efficiency (%)* 68.96 %
Electrolysis water demand (kg H2O/kg H2) [41] 1.00
Desalination specific energy (kWh/kg)* 4.83E-03
Desalination efficiency (%)* 47.35 %
Operating period (hours) 8760.00
Turbine capacity (%) [36] 43.00 %
Alkaline maintenance as % of CAPEX (%)* 3.68 %
PEM maintenance as % of CAPEX (%)* 2.97 %
Desalination maintenance as % of CAPEX (%)* 12.73 %
Container cost (£) [42] 4,000.00
Shipping rate of container (£) [39] 16,000.00
of an average that is not representative of the overall range.
2.1. Method for techno-economic analysis
The mass of H2 (mhy) produced is based on the capacity of the elec­
trolysis unit (celec), in kg/hr (Table 1), and the number of operating hours
(t), assumed to be 8760 hours which provides annual results for the
system. Factoring in the number of units (N) and the efficiency (ηelec)
gives the final mass of H2 produced, in kg, annually. This is shown in
Equation (1).
mhy = celec Ntηelec
The system cost is calculated with Equation (2). The unit price of the
system is a factor of the number of necessary units to reach the required
H2 production. The container cost is included only where necessary,
with some of the quoted equipment already housed in prefabricated
containers. The shipping rate is assumed [39], and the piping cost is
based on the price of piping and the estimated length of piping required
[40].
System cost = Unit price + Container cost + Shipping rate + Piping costs
The energy used in the system is based on the amount of H2 made
from electrolysis, the amount of water made from desalination, and the
respective specific energies in kWh/kg of each process, eelec and edesal. It
has been assumed that the water used in the system is 1 kg per kg H2
produced, with this providing a figure for the water demand of the
electrolysis process. The energy use for each system is denoted as Eelec
and Edesal, for electrolysis and desalination, respectively, in kWh. These
calculations are shown in Equations (3) and (4).
Eelec = eelec mhy
Edesal = edesal mwater
The total energy used in the production of green H2 production, Etotal,
is the sum of the energy used in the electrolysis and desalination stages.
This is shown in Equation (5).
Etotal = Eelec + Edesal
The cumulative costs (Ptot) cover the costs associated with the system
over the defined 10-year period, shown in Equation (6). In the equations
below, the OPEX is the annual operational expenditure (POPEX), and time
denotes the number of years (t), with the results calculated over a 10-
year period. The equipment maintenance is assumed to be a % of the
CAPEX (PCAPEX) annually. The CAPEX denotes the capital expenditures
of the system. The individual calculations for CAPEX and OPEX are
shown in Equations (7) and (8). In this case, Pelec is the price of the
electrolyser, Pdesal is the price of the desalination unit, Plabour is the cost of
labour, PO&M denotes maintenance costs, and Pgrid is the cost of buying
Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230
electricity from the grid.
Ptot = PCAPEX + POPEX t (6)
PCAPEX = Pelec + Pdesal + Plabour (7)
POPEX = PO&M + Pgrid + Plabour (8)
The unit electricity price (Punit) is based on the average price from
Nord Pool UK for the time period [34]. The annual electricity purchase
price is excluded from Scenario 3, as the user has access to a wind tur­
bine and thus does not pay for electricity off the grid. Equation (9) shows
calculation of the electricity bill included in the system OPEX.
Pgrid = Etotal Punit (9)
Ptot
H2 price = (10)
t(1 − ROR)mhy
The H2 price (Phy) is calculated using Equation (10), where the ROR
is assumed to be 10 %. This is an arbitrary figure which can be changed if
required. Finally, Table 3 summarises the assumptions discussed in this
method. Where figures are marked with an asterisk (*), these are based
on average values compiled from an initial literature review, which is
summarised in the Appendices section (Tables A.1-A.3).
2.2. Case study: variable wind profile at Killybegs, Donegal
A case study is conducted at a specified site, utilising Scenario 3 and
determining how it may be optimised. The intermittency of the wind is
(1)
considered here, wherein there is not a level amount of energy provided
over the course of the year, and there is variability. Wind data is based
on historical data over the course of a year for a specified location, with
the wind profile shown (Fig. 4).
The location of choice is Killybegs, Donegal as it has a large natural
wind resource, as well as access to salt water which may be used in the
desalination process prior to the electrolysis step. There is also an
associated capacity factor for this site, showing the actual energy pro­
duced in the time period, and this is 56.41 % based on wind data [43]
from an online open source project [44]. Additionally, when looking at
(2)
wind atlas data as provided in [45] it is shown that this location has the
maximum average wind velocity of 6–8 m/s, showing the location to be
the most favourable for harnessing wind energy. Other locations of in­
terest include the North Sea and Scotland, which fall within the same
high average velocity zone, thus having the potential to provide similar
results as Killybegs, Donegal. Table 4 shows the costing assumptions
associated with the wind turbine used in the process, these are provided
by IRENA [36].
The overall scheme is optimised based on the use of a wind turbine.
In this case the scenarios that produced the cheapest H2 are optimised in
(3)
determining the effect of the size of the wind turbine and the number of
electrolysers used in the process.
(4)
The variability of wind can cause large fluctuations in load which can
be harmful for system operation [46]. This may lead to the requirement
of additional electrolyser units to cope with the load and sufficient
storage for additional H2 production. Ramping events are sudden
changes in the amount of supplied wind power, which must be
(5)
addressed in system design and sizing. A ramp may be defined as a
change in power output over 4 hours or less that is at least 50 % of the
installed capacity [47]. This is briefly investigated to estimate storage
requirements for H2 produced on the site. Determining the storage re­
quirements for a wind-H2 system is an important step in furthering this
research field [17]. For this case, Table 5 shows the storage assumptions
associated with current industry H2 storage technology. This includes
high pressure H2 storage at 517 bar [48] and the transport of H2 in tube
trailers [49] from the site in question.
Ramping events are identified in the historical data, and it is deter­
mined if this impacts the storage requirements of the system. The storage
5
A. Henry et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230

Fig. 4. Wind profile for Killybegs, Donegal showing variability in turbine output.

shows the varying output of the wind turbine there are times when there
Table 4
is not enough or no power output. This means there is no H2 produced,
Assumptions associated with wind turbine [36].
thus is a real-life scenario, there is a need for combination of wind with
CAPEX (€/MW) 4,662,063.00 either grid electricity or another complementary energy source. This
OPEX (€/kW/year) 92.11 will be included in future works.

3. Results and discussion

Table 5
Assumptions for storage technologies. This section discusses the results of the techno-economic analysis,
Storage capacity (kg) wherein the minimum H2 selling price is found from multiple scenarios
where different combinations of electrolysis and desalination equipment
High pressure H2 storage on site 774 kg maximum [48]
H2 transport via tube trailers 500 kg per tube trailer [49]
are utilised. Alkaline and PEM electrolysers are used alongside reverse
osmosis desalination equipment. Additionally, a case study is carried out
at the location of Killybegs, Donegal to determine the effect of wind
variability on H2 production.
Table 6
Calculated minimum H2 selling price and associated CAPEX, for a H2 production
setpoint of 50 kg/hr, for PEM and alkaline electrolysis technologies. 3.1. Techno-economic evaluation
Scenario Technology Minimum H2 CAPEX (£) Annual OPEX
selling price (£/year) A techno-economic evaluation has been completed to analyse the
(£/kg) selling price of H2 required to reach a 10 % ROR over a 10-year period,
1 PEM 9.72 7,789,625.51 3,093,903.97 based on the use of electrolysis and seawater desalination instead of
traditional methods. This is to identify the scenario which is the most
Alkaline 8.50 4,191,863.65 2,926,950.32
economically feasible. The utilisation of grid energy has been compared
2 PEM 35.13 7,789,625.51 2,105,834.35 to the use of wind turbines to produce green H2. The LCOH has been
investigated widely in literature, with the LCOH from electrolysis via
Alkaline 29.62 4,191,863.65 2,013,086.69 PEM and alkaline electrolysis ranging from 2.31-19.44 [50,51] and
3 PEM 13.22 29,346,425.51 2,275,305.49 2.02–10.61 [52,53] £/kg H2, respectively. PEM is generally the most
Alkaline 12.10 25,748,663.65 2,196,386.93
expensive technology, as it is less developed than alkaline electrolysis
[25].
This study investigated electrolysis (alkaline and PEM) and desali­
nation (reverse osmosis) technologies available commercially and pro­
technologies are not part of the techno-economic study, and this study is vided a more realistic selling price of H2 compared to the literature,
only to determine impacts on storage and sizing. based on more recent commercial prices of equipment, as shown in
Tables 1 and 2. Three scenarios have been considered, which are:
2.3. Assumptions and limitations Scenario 1: Using energy from the grid when electricity pricing is
below a certain setpoint only.
There are assumptions and limitations in the analysis which are lis­ Scenario 2: Using energy from the grid only between certain hours
ted in this section. Firstly, the data used is historical and so the calcu­ of the day.
lated results are based on data from a specified time. Furthermore, the Scenario 3: Using energy from a wind turbine owned by the user,
data is provided in hourly steps, which may not be a granular enough wherein there is no electricity price incurred.
view to show its unpredictable nature. In this study, ramping events for For comparison of the three scenarios discussed, Table 6 shows the
the wind generation are modelled briefly as part of an initial study. In minimum selling price of H2 found for each needed to make a 10 % ROR.
the future this requires further development to determine what system To ensure comparability of these values, H2 setpoints for each have been
requirements are needed in more detail. For further studies, the use of a set to 50 kg/hr, where the equipment selected ranges in capacity from
power curve for the electrolysers and wind turbines would allow for a 0.2 to 410 kg/hr. The CAPEX and annual OPEX calculated for each
more realistic view of H2 and power output, respectively. This will show scenario are shown, with the PEM technology being the most expensive
the effect of a changing load and how this will impact the overall system in all cases, which is in agreement with values found in the literature.
when not operating at full or optimal capacity, as there may be a fall in As shown in Table 6, Scenario 1 has the lowest H2 selling prices
efficiency with a varying load. Finally, when using a wind profile that required to meet a 10 % ROR over a 10-year period. In this scenario, the

6
A. Henry et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230

Fig. 5. Frequency distribution of wholesale electricity prices, in £/MWh [34].

CAPEX can be paid off, and profits generated. However, Scenario 1 may
Table 7
not be feasible because electricity prices cannot be accurately predicted
Calculated minimum H2 selling price and associated CAPEX, for a H2 production
[34], and with this reliance on electricity prices the system is constantly
setpoint of 500 kg/hr, for PEM and alkaline electrolysis technologies.
turning on and off when this setpoint is met. This does not consider the
Scenario Technology Minimum H2 CAPEX (£) Annual OPEX start-up and shutdown capabilities of the equipment, or the additional
selling price (£/year)
(£/kg)
energy needs which may be associated with these processes. While
Scenario 1 explores the arbitrage concept to generate the most profit, a
1 PEM 5.98 62,939,295.46 17,238,598.07
more realistic way to produce pricing that is close to the levelized costs is
Alkaline 5.12 38,178,932.18 16,345,789.91
2 PEM 17.24 62,939,295.46 7,860,402.42 through heavy subsidies and government incentives such as carbon
Alkaline 13.48 38,178,932.18 7,251,886.34 taxation or carbon credits.
3 PEM 5.60 181,501,695.46 3,926,313.59 The prices for Scenarios 2 and 3 are significantly higher than Sce­
Alkaline 4.85 156,741,332.18 3,456,088.53 nario 1 for the production setpoint of 50 kg/hr. This is because Scenario
2 is limited by the number of operating hours being set to certain times
H2 price was affected by the electricity setpoint, with lower prices of the day only, and in Scenario 3 significant CAPEX must be overcome
favouring higher production setpoints. The electricity price distribution before profit is generated. For Scenarios 2 and 3, to generate H2 prices
had the highest frequency at 40–45 £/MWh, as shown in Fig. 5. The closer to levelised values defined previously, the H2 setpoint must be
higher the electricity setpoint, the more hours in the year when the significantly increased to 500 kg/hr, as shown in Table 7. This indicates
system is in operation, hence with lower setpoints this is restricted to that systems like these are only feasible on very large scales, in particular
fewer hours. With more hours of operation, the quicker the initial if these prices are to be competitive with traditionally produced H2 [54].

Fig. 6. Overview of results from Scenario 1, 2 and 3 (S1, S2 and S3), showing the calculated selling price of H2 required to reach a 10% ROR over a 10-year period
with a changing CAPEX requirement. Each line represents a different scenario with a specific H2 production setpoint in kg/hr.

7
A. Henry et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230

Fig. 7. Overview of results from Scenario 1, 2 and 3 (S1, S2 and S3), showing the calculated selling price of H2 required to reach a 10 % ROR over a 10-year period
with a changing CAPEX requirement for a specific H2 production setpoint of 500 kg/hr, with separation of alkaline and PEM electrolyser technologies.

Fig. 8. H2 price in £/kg based on a range of turbine sizes and showing the number of electrolysers required. Result shown for both alkaline and PEM electrolysers.

Table 8
Overview of results from the Killybegs case study over range of turbine sizes used.
Electrolyser technology Turbine size (MW) No. electrolysers H2 made (tonne) H2 price (£/kg) CAPEX (million £) Annual OPEX (million £/year)

PEM 7 5 554.02 10.24 28.55 2.25

14 10 1,108.03 8.80 56.90 3.08
25 18 1,978.63 8.20 101.88 4.42
ALK 7 8 586.91 8.72 24.39 2.17
14 16 1,173.82 7.35 48.57 2.91

With the increase in H2 production setpoint, it can be seen that
Scenario 3 provides the cheapest selling price for H2, at 5.60 and 4.85
£/kg for the PEM and alkaline systems, respectively. In comparison,
while the selling prices from Scenario 1 have been reduced with the
higher H2 setpoint of 500 kg/hr, they have not decreased as
significantly. The prices for Scenario 1 are 5.98 and 5.12 £/kg for the
PEM and alkaline systems, respectively. Similarly, this also occurs for
Scenario 2, which still has the highest selling prices. With the larger H2
production setpoint of 500 kg/hr this provides more opportunity for
profit, however, for the scenarios where electricity is bought from the

8
A. Henry et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230

Table 9 Table A1
Results for initial ramping study, using PEM and alkaline electrolysers. Table of data from desalination literature sources.
Electrolyser Average H2 Average H2 Average no. Largest Capacity Specific energy Price of water OPEX Reference
technology production not covered by tube trailers identified m3 water/day kWh/m3 water £/m3 water % of
(kg/week) onsite storage per week ramp (kg H2) produced produced CAPEX
(kg/week) *
128,000.00 5.85 – – [55]
PEM 1,517.85 789.76 1.58 61.32 24,000.00 5.00 – –
ALK 1,607.97 875.47 1.75 64.96 100,000.00 – 0.36 –
320,000.00 – 0.53 –
15,000.00 – 0.38 –
grid, this also increases the OPEX as more electricity must be purchased. 60,000.00 – 1.29 –
Table 7 shows this increase in OPEX, which in turn is higher than the 1,000.00 – 0.56 –
4,800.00 – 1.38 –
OPEX associated with a wind turbine, which is required annually for 200.00 7.20 – –
maintenance over the 10-year period. 1,000.00 – 1.44 –
Scenario 3 has a significantly larger CAPEX than the scenarios that 25,000.00 – 4.16 –
use electricity from the grid. This is due to the CAPEX of the turbine at 100.00 – 5.20 –
2.00 4.40 [56]
the outset, based on IRENA projected prices [36]. Despite this, Scenario
– –
5.70 3.15 – –
3 H2 prices are also lower than that of Scenario 2. With the set operating 7.50 3.25 – –
hours defined for Scenario 2, this means there are a limited number of 9.30 3.32 – –
operating hours compared to the other scenarios studied, especially 10.00 3.40 – –
Scenario 3 which is assumed to operate at a constant level over a period 10.20 3.45 – –
10.25 3.40 – –
of a year. This will mean more equipment is needed to reach the defined 9.80 3.38 – –
H2 production goals in Scenario 2, which will subsequently have higher 9.60 3.36 – –
OPEX costs per year in addition to electricity prices not incurred for 9.50 3.38 – –
Scenario 3. 9.40 3.36 – –
40,000.00 3.10 1.26 [57]
Fig. 6 shows an overview of the scenario results and Fig. 7 shows an –
1,025.00 – 2.88 – [58]
overview of the 500 kg/hr scenarios with electrolyser types identified. 128,000.00 5.00 0.32 –
These figures clearly show the impact of scale and electrolyser tech­ 400.00 4.60 0.25 – [59]
nology type on the price of H2 produced. In all scenarios, an increase in 180.00 4.65 0.11 –
scale decreases the H2 selling price, showing an economy of scale. Fig. 7 300.00 5.28 0.11 –
500.00 3.03 0.05 –
shows how alkaline electrolysers in general have a smaller H2 selling 600.00 9.38 0.09 –
price, which may be related to how the technology is more advanced 580.00 6.16 0.03 –
than the PEM and its lower specific energy [25]. Additionally, the 500.00 8.36 0.11 –
gathered quotations for PEM electrolysers were across a larger range of 1,200.00 5.00 1.31 – [60]
100.00 4.00 [61]
production capabilities, covering higher H2 production quantities. This – –
1,000.00 – 3.20 –
is reflected in the more extreme CAPEX values shown in the scheme, 2,500.00 – 1.20 –
which ultimately were not economically feasible in this scheme. 1,000.00 3.30 0.94 –
Other factors are imperative in the optimisation of this system. These 50.00 5.00 4.80 –
include the space requirements of the system and how many of each 2,000.00 4.00 2.20 –
4,000.00 5.00 1.60 2.5 % [62]
piece of equipment may be required per scenario and how many will 5,000.00 3.50 0.80 –
operate at once, their respective start-up and shutdown times, and their 200.00 5.00 – – [63]
overall operating lifetime. This will highlight the additional mainte­ 18.00 8.40 2.00 –
nance and replacement fees which will add to the OPEX of the system. 200.00 7.50 0.80 –
5,000.00 2.90 0.67
With space requirements, this is linked to any specific site that may have –
12.00 3.40 2.08 –
such a scheme implemented. There will be a pinch point at which the 100.00 – 1.17 – [64]
lowest H2 selling price possible will be found per specific locations, but 200.00 3.50 – – [65]
no further optimisation is possible due to monetary or spatial limita­ 3,000.00 6.50 – –
tions. In this study, space has not been implemented as a limitation. 5,200.00 2.50 – – [66]
5,700.00 2.30
These are pieces of work for future study.
– –
22,800.00 3.34 – – [67]
250.00 11.00 1.78 27 % [68]
500.00 – 1.53 23 %
3.2. Case study: Killybegs, Donegal 2,000.00 – 1.22 23 %
3,500.00 – 1.14 22 %
A case study is conducted for Killybegs, Donegal wherein a wind 4,800.00 8.00 0.91 23 %
20,000.00 3.10 – – [69]
profile for the location is utilised to show the effect of wind variability 8.50 3.40 1.89 – [70]
on the price of H2 produced. Additionally, the system is optimised to
reduce the H2 selling price to a minimum. This is based on the number of 200.00 6.90 – –
electrolysers used and the size of the wind turbine used. This is to 0.40 – – –
30.50 3.71
determine the effect of both scale of operation and the footprint of the – –
1,000.00 2.70 – –
apparatus, wherein the larger systems take up space and so there may be 400.00 4.30 0.87 –
a cut-off point at which a certain size is not feasible.
Fig. 8 shows the range of H2 selling prices calculated over the varying 10.95 12.25 – –
wind turbine sizes, as well as the number of electrolysers. The number of 10.95 14.10 – –
24.00 4.38 3.744
electrolysers is optimised to the amount of energy available from the
–

wind turbine at the location, wherein an average capacity factor of 7.50 4.24 – –
56.41 % is found. (continued on next page)
The H2 selling price favours a larger size of wind turbine, with the 25

9
A. Henry et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230

Table A1 (continued ) Table A3

Capacity Specific energy Price of water OPEX Reference
Table of data from alkaline electrolyser literature sources.
m3 water/day kWh/m3 water £/m3 water % of Efficiency Specific energy Cost of H2 OPEX Reference
produced produced CAPEX 3
% kWh/kg H2 kWh/m H2 £/kg H2 % of
82.80 4.75 – – produced produced produced CAPEX
5,671.00 – 0.62 – [71]
– – – – 2% [74]
100,000.00 3.65 – – [72] 45 % 57.50 4.72 – – [75]
200,000.00 3.50 – – – 56.15 4.60 – – [84]
200,000.00 4.35 – – – 67.68 5.55 – – [81]
305,000.00 3.40 – – 60 % – – 6.10 – [50]
36,000.00 6.67 – – 80 % – – 5.32 –
36,000.00 5.85 – – 80 % – – 10.64 –
50,000.00 5.11 – – 80 % – – 9.16 –
57,800.00 5.11 – – 80 % – – 3.26 –
66,000.00 4.76 – – – – – – 5% [85]
80,000.00 4.63 – – – 49.05 4.02 3.09 – [53]
80,000.00 4.50 – –
85,000.00 4.33 – – – – – – 6% [82]
86,500.00 4.10 – – – 68.90 5.65 – – [86]
347,900.00 – 0.50 – [73] – 53.40 4.38 – – [87]
100,000.00 – 0.58 – – – – 2.02 – [52]
200,000.00 – 0.66 –
143,700.00 – 0.96 – – 42.00 3.44 – 2% [88]
110,000.00 – 0.62 – – 59.76 4.90 – – [83]
– 67.07 5.50 – –
– 59.76 4.90 – –
– 67.07 5.50 – –
Table A2
Table of data from PEM literature sources.
(Table 3), as well as the lower CAPEX and OPEX values.
Efficiency Specific energy Cost of H2 OPEX Reference Table 9 shows the results from the brief ramping study carried out for
% kWh/kg H2 kWh/m3 H2 £/kg H2 % of the site. This is carried out using the smallest electrolyser set-up from the
produced produced produced CAPEX case study in Table 8. This included a 7 MW turbine size for both elec­
– – – – 2% [74] trolyser types, with 5 and 8 PEM and alkaline electrolysers, respectively.
45 % 57.50 4.72 – – [75] The assumed H2 storage on site is 774 kg, with tube trailers transporting
65.85 5.40 [76]
– – –
500 kg each, with these figures identified in the previous methods
64 % 52.45 4.30 – – [77]
64 % 52.25 4.28 – – section.
– – – – 3% [78] In general, approximately half of the H2 produced on site is not
– 56.83 4.66 – 3% [79] covered by the onsite storage, which is the result for both electrolyser
– – – – – [80] technologies. For both, there is also a need for a total of two tube trailers
65.85 5.40 [81]
per week on average. This is resulting in 1000 kg of H2 transported from
– – –
60 % – – 6.10 – [50]
80 % – – 5.32 – the site per week. It is evident from these initial results that this type of
80 % – – 10.64 – system is better at large scale, due to the associated storage re­
80 % – – 9.16 – quirements. With regards to the ramping event identified in the system,
80 % 3.26
– – –
this does not appear to have an impact on the storage requirements of
– – – – 6% [82]
– – – 17.38 – [51]
the system in this case. However, it is clear that in a smaller system the
– – – 19.44 – additional H2 production would have a larger impact on storage re­
– – – 8.90 – quirements, as it would make up a larger percentage of the H2 produced
– – – 8.00 – per week. It is to be noted that these results are unique to the site used in
2.30 [52]
the study.
– – – –
– 74.39 6.10 – 2% [83]
– 74.39 6.10 – 2%
4. Conclusion

MW system producing a selling price of 6.79 and 8.20 £/kg for the
alkaline and PEM systems, respectfully. In turn, however, the number of
electrolysers required increases drastically, wherein the 7 MW turbine
system uses 8 and 5 electrolysers for the alkaline and PEM systems,
respectfully, and the 25 MW system used 30 and 18, respectfully. An
overview of these results is shown in Table 8. This increase is significant,
and thus there will be a limit to the spatial usage for the system, which is
dependent on the size of the site in use and also any safety aspects which
may be associated with the number of electrolysers and H2 storage
allowed in proximity.
H2 storage is not included within the scope of this work, but cannot
be excluded in any real-life implementation. This is a stage that tends to
be costly. Furthermore, these much larger systems require a significant
initial investment, with the required CAPEX for each shown in Table 8.
As found previously, the alkaline system produces the cheapest H2
overall. This is linked to the lower specific energy of the alkaline system
This study has provided a more detailed analysis of the price to
produce wind-H2, focusing on commercially available equipment for
electrolysis and desalination. This study demonstrates the importance of
accurate pricing, using quotations from currently operating companies
and avoiding terms not representative of actual prices. By investigating
the impact of changing electricity prices and using wind turbine prices, a
more robust estimate of the cost of H2 is calculated, while also avoiding
average LCOE terms which can be unreliable.
Scenario 3 uses a wind turbine owned by the operator and is the most
cost-effective option. Although this scenario has a larger CAPEX, it
avoids limitations associated with set operating hours and electricity
bills incurred annually, as well as higher maintenance fees. The study
also highlights the importance of operating at scale to achieve the lowest
H2 selling price, with the alkaline electrolyser producing the lowest
prices at 5.12, 13.48, and 4.85 £/kg for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3,
respectively.

10
A. Henry et al.
The case study identifies the effect of varying wind on the system at
the Killybegs site. Increasing the wind turbine size decreases the H2
selling price, but also increases the number of electrolysers needed and
the CAPEX. There will be a pinch point at which the lowest H2 selling
price possible will be found per specific locations, but no further opti­
misation is possible due to monetary or spatial limitations.
This study underscores the importance of limitations like the system
footprint and CAPEX. The H2 storage must be considered in further in­
vestigations, with this step tending to be costly and only an initial study
carried out for this site when looking at ramping events so far. With the
calculated H2 prices higher than previously defined natural gas derived
H2 costs between 0.72 and 2.56 £/kg, and still on the higher end or
above renewable energy derived H2 costs of 2.40–6.00 £/kg, afford­
ability and accessibility of these alternative energy systems are key
challenges. Systems like these are feasible only at large scale and with
government incentives such as subsidies, carbon tax or carbon credits.
This is the only way in which competitive prices will be reached. Other
factors to consider for future works are use of a power curve for
equipment to determine the impact of intermittency and the investiga­
tion of use of a complementary energy source, as well as the potential for
more granular data to be obtained.
In a broader context, this study can provide suggestions for policy­
makers to prioritise research and development aimed at enhancing the
performance and cost-effectiveness of related technologies and schemes,
promoting collaboration between stakeholders. This work provides
insight into the realistic cost of H2 production, which can aid financial
planning for future energy sector projects. The successful implementa­
tion of renewable energy storage will ultimately lead to reduced carbon
emissions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ashleigh Henry: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization.
Daniel McStay: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. David
Rooney: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision,
Funding acquisition. Peter Robertson: Conceptualization, Writing –
review & editing, Supervision. Aoife Foley: Conceptualization, Writing
– review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
Ashleigh Henry would like to acknowledge the Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy (DfE). This work is funded by the Bryden
Centre project which is supported by the European Union‘s (EU)
INTERREG VA Programme, managed by the Special EU Programmes
Body (SEUPB). The views and opinions expressed in this paper do not
necessarily reflect those of the European Commission or the Special EU
Programmes Body (SEUPB). The views and opinions expressed in this
document do not necessarily reflect those of DfE and or the EU.
Appendix
See Tables A1-A3.
11
Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230
References
[1] Sinsel SR, Riemke RL, Hoffmann VH. Challenges and solution technologies for the
integration of variable renewable energy sources—a review. Renew Energy 2020;
145:2271–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.147.
[2] Koohi-Fayegh S, Rosen MA. A review of energy storage types, applications and
recent developments. J Energy Storage 2020:27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
est.2019.101047.
[3] Aneke M, Wang M. Energy storage technologies and real life applications – a state
of the art review. Appl Energy 2016;179:350–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.06.097.
[4] Asiaban S, Kayedpour N, Samani AE, Bozalakov D, De Kooning JDM, Crevecoeur G,
et al. Wind and solar intermittency and the associated integration challenges: a
comprehensive review including the status in the Belgian power system. Energies
2021;14:2630. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN14092630.
[5] Pommeret A, Schubert K. Optimal energy transition with variable and intermittent
renewable electricity generation. J Econ Dyn Control 2022;134:104273. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.JEDC.2021.104273.
[6] Le TS, Nguyen TN, Bui D, Ngo TD. Optimal sizing of renewable energy storage: a
techno-economic analysis of hydrogen, battery and hybrid systems considering
degradation and seasonal storage. Appl Energy 2023;336:120817. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120817.
[7] Marocco P, Ferrero D, Gandiglio M, Ortiz MM, Sundseth K, Lanzini A, et al. A study
of the techno-economic feasibility of H2-based energy storage systems in remote
areas. Energy Convers Manag 2020;211:112768. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2020.112768.
[8] Li Y, Wei Y, Zhu F, Du J, Zhao Z, Ouyang M. The path enabling storage of
renewable energy toward carbon neutralization in China. ETransportation 2023;
16:100226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2023.100226.
[9] Gasanzade F, Witte F, Tuschy I, Bauer S. Integration of geological compressed air
energy storage into future energy supply systems dominated by renewable power
sources. Energy Convers Manag 2023;277:116643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2022.116643.
[10] Jiang K, Liu H, Li K. Amine-based thermal energy storage system towards industrial
application. Energy Convers Manag 2023;283:116954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2023.116954.
[11] Yang Y, Tong L, Liu Y, Guo W, Wang L, Qiu Y, et al. A novel integrated system of
hydrogen liquefaction process and liquid air energy storage (LAES): energy,
exergy, and economic analysis. Energy Convers Manag 2023:280.
[12] Panda A, Kumar A, Chua H, Tan RR, Aviso KB. Recent advances in the integration
of renewable energy sources and storage facilities with hybrid power systems.
Clean Eng Technol 2023;12:100598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2023.100598.
[13] Hunter CA, Penev MM, Reznicek EP, Eichman J, Rustagi N, Baldwin SF. Techno-
economic analysis of long-duration energy storage and flexible power generation
technologies to support high-variable renewable energy grids. Joule 2021;5:
2077–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2021.06.018.
[14] Sreekanth KJ, Al Foraih R, Al-Mulla A, Abdulrahman B. Feasibility analysis of
energy storage technologies in power systems for arid region. J Energy Resour
Technol Trans ASME 2019:141. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040931.
[15] Braga D. Integration of Energy Storage Systems into the Power System for Energy
Transition towards 100% Renewable Energy Sources. In: Proc 2021 10th Int Conf
ENERGY Environ CIEM 2021 2021. doi: 10.1109/CIEM52821.2021.9614778.
[16] Capurso T, Stefanizzi M, Torresi M, Camporeale SM. Perspective of the role of
hydrogen in the 21st century energy transition. Energy Convers Manag 2022;251:
114898. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2021.114898.
[17] Rasul MG, Hazrat MA, Sattar MA, Jahirul MI, Shearer MJ. The future of hydrogen:
challenges on production, storage and applications. Energy Convers Manag 2022;
272:116326. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2022.116326.
[18] Moradi R, Groth KM. Hydrogen storage and delivery: review of the state of the art
technologies and risk and reliability analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:
12254–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.041.
[19] Burgess J. UK’s gas grid ready for 20% hydrogen blend from 2023: network
companies 2022. Available from: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/
en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/011422-uks-gas-grid-ready-for-20-
hydrogen-blend-from-2023-network-companies (accessed April 27, 2022).
[20] Soltani R, Rosen MA, Dincer I. Assessment of CO2 capture options from various
points in steam methane reforming for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2014;39:20266–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.09.161.
[21] Velazquez Abad A, Dodds PE. Green hydrogen characterisation initiatives:
definitions, standards, guarantees of origin, and challenges. Energy Policy 2020;
138:111300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111300.
[22] Olateju B, Kumar A, Secanell M. A techno-economic assessment of large scale wind-
hydrogen production with energy storage in Western Canada. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2016;41:8755–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2016.03.177.
[23] Wulf C, Linßen J, Zapp P. Review of power-to-gas projects in Europe. Energy
Procedia, vol. 155, Elsevier Ltd; 2018, p. 367–78. doi: 10.1016/j.
egypro.2018.11.041.
[24] UK Department of Business Energy & Industrial. Hydrogen Production Costs 2021.
2021.
[25] Scott K. Chapter 1: Introduction to Electrolysis, Electrolysers and Hydrogen
Production. RSC Energy Environ Ser 2020:1–27. doi: 10.1039/9781788016049-
00001.
[26] Vialetto G, Noro M, Colbertaldo P, Rokni M. Enhancement of energy generation
efficiency in industrial facilities by SOFC – SOEC systems with additional hydrogen
production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:9608–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2018.08.145.
A. Henry et al.
[27] IEA. The Future of Hydrogen Report Seizing today’s opportunities. 2019.
[28] International Renewable Energy Agency. Hydrogen: A Renewable Energy
Perspective. 2019.
[29] Global Wind Energy Council. Global Wind Report 2022. 2022.
[30] Touili S, Merrouni AA, Hassouani Y El, Amrani A-I, Azouzoute A. Techno-economic
investigation of electricity and hydrogen production from wind energy in
Casablanca, Morocco. In: IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020. doi: 10.1088/1757-
899X/948/1/012012.
[31] Apostolou D, Enevoldsen P. The past, present and potential of hydrogen as a
multifunctional storage application for wind power. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;112:917–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.049.
[32] Janke L, McDonagh S, Weinrich S, Nilsson D, Hansson PA, Nordberg Å. Techno-
economic assessment of demand-driven small-scale green hydrogen production for
low carbon agriculture in Sweden. Front Energy Res 2020;8:311. https://doi.org/
10.3389/FENRG.2020.595224/BIBTEX.
[33] Khouya A. Levelized costs of energy and hydrogen of wind farms and concentrated
photovoltaic thermal systems. A case study in Morocco. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2020;45:31632–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2020.08.240.
[34] NORD POOL. N2EX Day Ahead Auction Prices 2020. Available from: https://www.
nordpoolgroup.com/Market-data1/GB/Auction-prices/UK/Hourly/?view=chart.
[35] Aldersey-williams J, Broadbent ID, Strachan PA. Better estimates of LCOE from
audited accounts – a new methodology with examples from United Kingdom off
shore wind and CCGT. Energy Policy 2019;128:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2018.12.044.
[36] IRENA. Future of Wind: Deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and
socio-economic aspects. 2019.
[37] Parra D, Patel MK. Techno-economic implications of the electrolyser technology
and size for power-to-gas systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:3748–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.12.160.
[38] Gude VG. Desalination and sustainability - an appraisal and current perspective.
Water Res 2016;89:87–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.012.
[39] Felgenhauer M, Hamacher T. State-of-the-art of commercial electrolyzers and on-
site hydrogen generation for logistic vehicles in South Carolina. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2015;40:2084–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.12.043.
[40] swimfix. PVC-U Pressure Pipe - 1m - Metric - Grey 2021. Available from: https://
swimfix.co.uk/products/pressure-pipe-pvc-u-1m-grey-pvc-metric?
variant=13623644061771 (accessed May 10, 2021).
[41] Henry A, McCallum C, McStay D, Rooney D, Robertson P, Foley A. Analysis of wind
to hydrogen production and carbon capture utilisation and storage systems for
novel production of chemical energy carriers. J Clean Prod 2022;354:131695.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2022.131695.
[42] portablespace. 40ft Containers for sale 2021. Available from: https://www.
portablespace.co.uk/shop/containers-for-sale/40ft-container (accessed May 10,
2021).
[43] Staffell I, Pfenninger S. Using bias-corrected reanalysis to simulate current and
future wind power output. Energy 2016;114:1224–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENERGY.2016.08.068.
[44] Staffell I, Pfenninger S. Renewables.ninja 2018. Available from: https://www.
renewables.ninja/ (accessed February 23, 2022).
[45] Stepek A. Review of existing wind atlases for the North Sea and the Netherlands.
2015.
[46] Ouyang T, Zha X, Qin L, He Y, Tang Z. Prediction of wind power ramp events based
on residual correction. Renew Energy 2019;136:781–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.RENENE.2019.01.049.
[47] Argonne National Laboratorry. A Survey of Wind Power Ramp Forecasting. 2011.
doi: 10.4236/epe.2013.54b071.
[48] Hyfindr.com. Hydrogen Storage System H2Max Pods 2023. Available from:
<https://hyfindr.com/marketplace/systems/hydrogen-storage-systems/hydrogen-
storage-system-h2max-pods/> (accessed January 5, 2023).
[49] Hydrogen Europe. Tech Descriptions: Hydrogen Transport & Distribution 2017.
Available from: https://hydrogeneurope.eu/in-a-nutshell/tech-descriptions/
(accessed April 12, 2023).
[50] Proost J. State-of-the art CAPEX data for water electrolysers, and their impact on
renewable hydrogen price settings. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:4406–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.07.164.
[51] Genç G, Çelik M, Serdar GM. Cost analysis of wind-electrolyzer-fuel cell system for
energy demand in Pnarbaş-Kayseri. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:12158–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.05.058.
[52] ACIL Allen Consulting. Opportunities for Australia from Hydrogen Exports 2018:
1–114.
[53] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Analyzing the Levelized Cost of
Centralized and Distributed Hydrogen Production Using the H2A Production
Model, Version 2. 2009. doi: 10.2172/965528.
[54] Dagdougui H, Sacile R, Bersani C, Ouammi A. Hydrogen production and current
technologies. Hydrog Infrastruct Energy Appl 2018:7–21. https://doi.org/
10.1016/b978-0-12-812036-1.00002-0.
[55] Al-Karaghouli A, Kazmerski LL. Energy consumption and water production cost of
conventional and renewable-energy-powered desalination processes. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24:343–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.064.
[56] Miranda MS, Infield D. A wind-powered seawater reverse-osmosis system without
batteries. Desalination 2003;153:9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(02)
01088-3.
[57] Voutchkov N. Energy use for membrane seawater desalination – current status and
trends. Desalination 2018;431:2–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2017.10.033.
12
Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230
[58] Shahzad MW, Burhan M, Ang L, Ng KC. Energy-water-environment nexus
underpinning future desalination sustainability. Desalination 2017;413:52–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.03.009.
[59] Avlonitis SA, Kouroumbas K, Vlachakis N. Energy consumption and membrane
replacement cost for seawater RO desalination plants. Desalination 2003;157:
151–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(03)00395-3.
[60] Zejli D, Benchrifa R, Bennouna A, Zazi K. Economic analysis of wind-powered
desalination in the south of Morocco. Desalination 2004;165:219–30. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.06.025.
[61] Tzen E, Papapetroub M. Promotion of renewable energy sources for water
production through desalination. Desalin Water Treat 2012;39:302–7. https://doi.
org/10.1080/19443994.2012.669232.
[62] IRENA. Water Desalination Using Renewable Energy. 2013.
[63] Loutatidou S, Liosis N, Pohl R, Ouarda TBMJ, Arafat HA. Wind-powered
desalination for strategic water storage: techno-economic assessment of concept.
Desalination 2017;408:36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.01.002.
[64] Gude VG. Energy storage for desalination processes powered by renewable energy
and waste heat sources. Appl Energy 2015;137:877–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2014.06.061.
[65] Ma Q, Lu H. Wind energy technologies integrated with desalination systems:
review and state-of-the-art. Desalination 2011;277:274–80. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2011.04.041.
[66] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Integrated Wind Energy / Desalination
System 2005.
[67] Manth T, Gabor M, Oklejas E. Minimizing RO energy consumption under variable
conditions of operation 2003;157:9–21.
[68] Hafez A, El-manharawyb S. Economics of seawater RO desalination in the Red Sea
region, Egypt. Part 1. A case study 2002;153:335–47.
[69] Redondo JA. Lanzarote IV , a new concept for two-pass SWRO at low O & M cost
using the new high-flow FILMTEC SW30-380 2001;138:231–6.
[70] Mito MT, Ma X, Albuflasa H, Davies PA. Reverse osmosis (RO) membrane
desalination driven by wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) energy: state of the art and
challenges for large-scale implementation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;112:
669–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.008.
[71] Rosales-Asensio E, Borge-Diez D, Pérez-Hoyos A, Colmenar-Santos A. Reduction of
water cost for an existing wind-energy-based desalination scheme: a preliminary
configuration. Energy 2019;167:548–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2018.11.004.
[72] Zarzo D, Prats D. Desalination and energy consumption. What can we expect in the
near future? Desalination 2018;427:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2017.10.046.
[73] Ghaffour N, Missimer TM, Amy GL. Technical review and evaluation of the
economics of water desalination: current and future challenges for better water
supply sustainability. Desalination 2013;309:197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2012.10.015.
[74] International Renewable Energy Agency. Hydrogen From Renewable Power:
Technology outlook for the energy transition. 2018.
[75] Shi X, Liao X, Li Y. Quantification of fresh water consumption and scarcity
footprints of hydrogen from water electrolysis: a methodology framework. Renew
Energy 2020;154:786–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.026.
[76] Bos MJ, Kersten SRA, Brilman DWF. Wind power to methanol: renewable methanol
production using electricity, electrolysis of water and CO2 air capture. Appl Energy
2020;264:114672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114672.
[77] Abdin Z, Zafaranloo A, Rafiee A, Mérida W, Lipiński W, Khalilpour KR. Hydrogen
as an energy vector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020:120. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2019.109620.
[78] McDonagh S, Ahmed S, Desmond C, Murphy JD. Hydrogen from offshore wind:
Investor perspective on the profitability of a hybrid system including for
curtailment. Appl Energy 2020;265:114732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2020.114732.
[79] McDonagh S, Wall DM, Deane P, Murphy JD. The effect of electricity markets, and
renewable electricity penetration, on the levelised cost of energy of an advanced
electro-fuel system incorporating carbon capture and utilisation. Renew Energy
2019;131:364–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.058.
[80] Saba SM, Müller M, Robinius M, Stolten D. The investment costs of electrolysis – a
comparison of cost studies from the past 30 years. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:
1209–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.11.115.
[81] Schmidt O, Gambhir A, Staffell I, Hawkes A, Nelson J, Few S. Future cost and
performance of water electrolysis: an expert elicitation study. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2017;42:30470–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.10.045.
[82] Parra D, Valverde L, Pino FJ, Patel MK. A review on the role, cost and value of
hydrogen energy systems for deep decarbonisation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;101:279–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.010.
[83] Hou P, Enevoldsen P, Eichman J, Hu W, Jacobson MZ, Chen Z. Optimizing
investments in coupled offshore wind -electrolytic hydrogen storage systems in
Denmark. J Power Sources 2017;359:186–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2017.05.048.
[84] Yadav D, Banerjee R. Net energy and carbon footprint analysis of solar hydrogen
production from the high-temperature electrolysis process. Appl Energy 2020;262:
114503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114503.
[85] Kuckshinrichs W, Ketelaer T, Koj JC. Economic analysis of improved alkaline water
electrolysis. Front Energy Res 2017:5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00001.
A. Henry et al. Energy Conversion and Management 291 (2023) 117230

[86] Götz M, Lefebvre J, Mörs F, McDaniel Koch A, Graf F, Bajohr S, et al. Renewable [88] Greiner CJ, KorpÅs M, Holen AT. A Norwegian case study on the production of
power-to-gas: a technological and economic review. Renew Energy 2016;85: hydrogen from wind power. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:1500–7. https://doi.
1371–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.066. org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.10.030.
[87] Burkhardt J, Patyk A, Tanguy P, Retzke C. Hydrogen mobility from wind energy – a
life cycle assessment focusing on the fuel supply. Appl Energy 2016;181:54–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.104.

13