On the ability of pem water electrolysers to provide

power grid services

L. Allidières, A. Brisse, P. Millet, S. Valentin, M. Zeller

To cite this version:

L. Allidières, A. Brisse, P. Millet, S. Valentin, M. Zeller. On the ability of pem water electrolysers to
provide power grid services. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Elsevier, 2019, 44, pp.9690 -
9700. �10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.11.186�. �hal-03487000�

HAL Id: hal-03487000

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03487000
Submitted on 20 Dec 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial| 4.0 International

License
Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319918338473
Manuscript_65c5b8ce8e1f54f5db70f1ab2493c00d

1 ON THE ABILITY OF PEM WATER ELECTROLYSERS TO PROVIDE

2 POWER GRID SERVICES

4 L. Allidières1, A. Brisse2, P. Millet3*, S. Valentin1, M. Zeller2

1
5 Air Liquide, 1 Chemin de la Porte des Loges, 78350 Les Loges-en-Josas, France
2
6 EIFER, Emmy-Noether-Str. 11, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.
3
7 Paris-Sud University, ICMMO, Bât. 410, 15 rue G. Clémenceau, 91405 Orsay, France
*
8 Corresponding author e-mail: pierre.millet@u-psud.fr

10

11 ABSTRACT

12 Water electrolysis is considered as a cornerstone technology for the large scale storage of energy

13 and for carbon abatements in the frame of the energy transition. The purpose of this research work

14 was to analyze power grid operational constraints, to design specific load profiles of interest for

15 power grid management and then to use these protocols for the characterization and qualification of

16 polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) water electrolysers in view of grid balancing services. In the

17 first section, management constraints of European power grids are described and analyzed. Using a

18 typical regulation mechanism as an illustrative example, power specifications for primary and

19 secondary reserve management are specified. The economics of such management procedures is

20 also analyzed. In the second section, some key technical characteristics of PEM water electrolysis

21 stacks are described. Test specifications designed for the qualification of water electrolysers to both

22 primary and secondary reserve markets are defined. In the last section, selected test results are

23 reported and the ability of PEM water electrolysis stacks to provide the services of interest is

24 analyzed. In particular, a set of key performance indicators, designed for the characterization of

1
© 2018 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the CC BY NC user license
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
 1 PEM water electrolysers operating in transient power conditions of interest for grid services, are

2 defined. Test results show the ability of PEM water electrolysis stacks to satisfy the most stringent

3 grid constraints, but remaining limitations are identified. The main innovative contributions of this

4 research work were to design test protocols for both primary and secondary power reserves

5 management, and to demonstrate that PEM water electrolysers can be used for such applications.

7 Keywords: hydrogen production; PEM water electrolysis; power grids; grid services.

9 1. INTRODUCTION

10 Large scale energy storage is at the heart of the energy transition [1,2]. Since the mid-1970s

11 and up to now, hydrogen has been considered as the main chemical energy vector for that purpose.

12 The so-called concept of hydrogen economy [3] relies on a two-step reversible process (the water

13 dissociation for energy storage and hydrogen electrochemical combustion in oxygen or air for re-

14 electrification), and establishes water electrolysis as a cornerstone technology for future carbon

15 abatements [4]. Among various technical options, water electro-dissociation based on polymer

16 electrolyte membrane (PEM) cells [5,6], operating in near-ambient temperature conditions, is

17 currently considered as very promising for operation with transient power sources. Potentially,

18 electrolytic hydrogen could find applications in the domestic, energy and transport sectors.

19 However, large (> 100 MW) water electrolysis plants will be needed to satisfy future market

20 requirements. Such plants will have to support severe operational constraints, both on the upstream

21 (specified by grid operators) and downstream (specified by hydrogen end-users) sides of the

22 process, including those related to storage and distribution options. The cost of electricity is a key

23 driver for the large scale implementation of such technologies because on large (> MW-scale) water

24 electrolysis plants, the electricity cost amounts up to ~80% of the hydrogen cost [7]. In this context,

25 the participation of water electrolysis plants to grid regulation procedures [8,9] can potentially

2
 1 provide the necessary additional revenues required to reduce the hydrogen production cost down to

2 suitable levels (~ 5 €/kgH2), in order to become cost-competitive with steam methane reforming.

3 Whereas most recent papers related to power grid management discuss issues related to the

4 use of PV [10], wind turbine [11], fuel cells [12], or combined technologies [13], the interest of

5 using large power stand-alone water electrolysers to provide grid balancing services is a more

6 recent topic which is currently under investigation among different groups. The purpose of this

7 research paper was to analyze power grid operational constraints, to design specific load profiles of

8 interest for power grid management, and then to use these protocols for the characterization and

9 qualification of laboratory and commercial PEM water electrolysis technologies. In the first section,

10 management constraints of European power grids are described and analyzed. Using a typical

11 regulation mechanism as an illustrative example, power specifications for primary and secondary

12 reserves management are specified. The economics of such management procedures is also

13 analyzed. In the second section, the technical characteristics of PEM water electrolysis plants are

14 summarized. Some test specifications required for the qualification of water electrolysers to both

15 primary and secondary power reserves are defined. A list of key performance indicators used to

16 characterize PEM water electrolysis plants operating under transient power conditions of interest,

17 are provided. Some key findings showing the ability of PEM water electrolysis stacks to satisfy the

18 most stringent grid constraints and to identify remaining technology limitations, are summarized

19 and discussed.

20

21 2. DESCRIPTION OF GRID REQUIREMENTS

22 2.1. Overview of grid management constraints

23 The synchronous grid of Continental Europe or Continental Synchronous Area (formerly

24 known as the UCTE grid i.e. the grid of the Union for the Coordination of Transmission of

25 Electricity) is the largest synchronous power grid in operation in the world. This is the

3
 1 interconnection of single phase-locked 50 Hz (main frequency) electricity grids that supply over

2 400 million customers in 24 different countries, including most of the European Union. The reliable

3 operation of such grid is obviously a complex and vital task. A large variety of stakeholders are

4 contributing to the regulation process, in order to ensure the best possible power service, a pre-

5 requisite to any economic activity. Transmission system operators (TSO) are entities entrusted to

6 transport energy through fixed infrastructures at local, regional, national or international levels. The

7 TSOs operating the UCTE grid are now part of the European Network of Transmission System

8 Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E), an association of various European TSOs [14]. The national

9 TSO in continental France is Réseau de Transport d’Électricité (RTE). The job of TSOs is therefore

10 to guarantee the equilibrium between the supply of, and the demand for, electrical power. For both

11 safety and economical reasons, equilibrium and reliability are critical issues. The lack of balance

12 between power generation and consumption can be the source of various critical problems such as

13 frequency fluctuations and interruptions of supply. Market actors incur their financial liability

14 whenever then fail to maintain a set of operational indicators within a range of legal specifications.

15 Besides the uptime of the supply on the grid, the instantaneous voltage and frequency

16 available any time and in any place on the grid, are the two main parameters that tell the quality of

17 delivered power. In particular, the 50 Hz frequency set point of AC power on the UCTE grid is the

18 main indicator used to assess that the grid is operating in a proper way. When a lack of balance

19 occurs between power generation and consumption (the balance of power imports and exports

20 among interrelated networks is also taken into account), there is a change of frequency on the grid:

21 the frequency tends to increase when more power than necessary is supplied to the grid and

22 conversely, the frequency tends to decrease when the demand overcome the supply. At any time, the

23 frequency should remain within the 49.5 – 50.5 Hz range. The situation can be illustrated by the

24 mechanical analogy of Eq. (1) where the rotating speed is analog to the grid frequency, the motor

4
 1 torque is analog to the generation load, and the resistant torque is analog to the consumption

2 load, J being the inertia of the electrical system:

∙ = − ( )

5 To satisfy such operating requirements, the TSO has several options. In particular, he has at

6 his disposal a primary (PR) and a secondary (SR) power reserves, a list of pre-specified and pre-

7 qualified volume of power that can be supplied to/withdrawn from the grid within a strict dynamic

8 timeframe. The set of dynamic specifications applicable to both PR and SR in Germany are publicly

9 available [15]. Despite some differences (that should disappear in the near future due to the deeper

10 interconnection of European national grids), a similar set of specification is available in continental

11 France. From a practical viewpoint, both primary and secondary reserves are put at the disposal of

12 the TSO by producers and consumers via a prescription/market mechanism:

13 • the mechanism used to release the primary reserve is controlled by the instantaneous

14 frequency on the grid; it is activated by local speed regulators and made available within 30

15 seconds; its main role is to stop any frequency deviation; when fully activated, the frequency

16 drift is stopped but the difference between actual and nominal frequencies remains

17 unchanged and still needs correction.

18 • the purpose of the secondary reserve, which is activated after the primary reserve, is to set

19 the grid frequency back to the nominal value; it is made available within 5 minutes; in

20 France, it is activated using a specific command signal designed by RTE and updated every

21 5 seconds.

22

5
 1 The activation of the primary reserve is a continuous process and the activation of the secondary

2 reserve is a semi-continuous process. The technologies which are selected to contribute to this

3 regulation process must be able to continuously adapt their power. The same constraints apply to

4 those who inject power onto the grid (energy producers) and to those who take power from the grid

5 and contribute to the regulation (regulators). In the equations used to define the specifications, there

6 is only a difference of sign (a plus sign for producers and a minus sign for regulators). This

7 difference has no impact on the dynamics of the power flows. In the case of numerical regulation,

8 the sampling rate must be sufficiently high to stick to the specifications. In France and Germany,

9 primary and secondary contributing technologies must demonstrate their ability to operate in a

10 symmetrical way (power injection/withdrawal, at the same rate). There are some differences

11 between the two countries in terms of technical specifications for the secondary reserve. The most

12 stringent conditions imposed in France were used to design the power profiles of interest for the

13 qualification of PEM water electrolysers.

14

15 2.2. Power specifications for the primary reserve

16 The entity planning to become an operator on the primary reserve market and seeking the

17 qualification of its equipment (for example a water electrolysis plant operator) for a power amount

18 of PR kW, should demonstrate that its technology can change its baseline power P0 over the (P0-PR)

19 to (P0+PR) power range within a maximum of 30 seconds. The driver used to release the PR is the

20 grid frequency. The PR should be released proportionally to the frequency shift measured on the

21 grid, and the total PR amount should be released for a frequency shift of 200 mHz. The amount of

22 power released per frequency unit is given by Eq. (2):

23

( . )= /0.2 ( )

24

6
 1 Whenever there is a regulation PR power demand on the grid, the power should be released

2 according to a set of specifications (the situation is summarized in Figure 1 for a ramp-up regulation

3 process):

4 • 50% of the power must be released in less than 15 seconds.

5 • 100% of the power must be released in less than 30 seconds.

6 • The instantaneous fraction of the PR used for regulation should be maintained at

7 least 15 minutes to leave enough time to the TSO to engage the secondary and

8 tertiary reserves in order to bring the frequency value back to the nominal 50 Hz set

9 point.

10

11 From a practical viewpoint, the grid frequency is measured locally, close to the place where

12 the equipment used for regulation is connected to the grid, with an accuracy of 10 mHz. The

13 frequency shift threshold for the activation of the primary reserve is 10 mHz. The instantaneous

14 power response of the equipment should not exceed the expected theoretical response and should

15 not oscillate around the power set point once the target value is reached. It should be outlined here

16 that grid power regulation is a dynamic process: there is a continuous variation of the set point. A

17 template is used to control the dynamic response of the equipment. This template contains two

18 model curves that bracket the expected power response of the equipment. The first one is the

19 theoretical and instantaneous set point curve provided by the TSO; the second one is deduced from

20 the theoretical one by applying a first order filter with a time constant of 10 seconds. This is the

21 worst expected response of the qualified equipment. During operation, instantaneous power

22 provided by the equipment should remain at least 95% of the time somewhere between these two

23 limit curves. Let ∆P( ) be the instantaneous power difference between (i) P(t), the instantaneous set

24 point power specified by the TSO (the Heaviside step in red on Figure 1), and (ii) P0, the constant

7
 1 baseline power of the equipment operated by the entity. ∆P( ) is a function of PR and of the

2 instantaneous grid frequency f(t):

∆P( ) = P( ) - P0 = f( ) -50 . /0.2 (")

5 A “real-life” example is provided on Figure 2, where the situation that prevails for a 1 MW

6 baseline system qualified for a 200 kW PR (primary reserve) power is highlighted. The plot extends

7 over 30 minutes of time only to better show the fluctuations. The black dotted line (Y-axis on the right

8 side of the plot) shows the instantaneous grid frequency that fluctuates (in this example between ± 50

9 mHz) due to grid activity. The two-curve template (Y-axis on the left side of the plot) is defined by the

10 green (instantaneous theoretical set point) and red (instantaneous degraded set point still acceptable by

11 the TSO) curves. In order to contribute to the regulation of the grid frequency, the PEM water

12 electrolysis plant must follow the template and spend at least 95% of the time somewhere between the

13 green and red lines otherwise penalties may apply. Controls are made on a periodical basis, either

14 remotely or onsite.

15

16 2.3. Power specifications for the secondary reserve

17 The entity who plans to become an operator on the market of the secondary reserve and seek

18 the qualification of its equipment (for example a water electrolysis plant) for a power amount of SR

19 kW, should demonstrate that its technology can change its baseline power P0 according to Equation

20 (4):

21

∆P( ) = P( ) -P0 = SR .·N(t) (%)

22

8
 1 where ∆P(t) has the same meaning as for primary reserve regulation; N(t) is the instantaneous value

2 of the command signal provided by the TSO; SR is the total amount of power qualified by the entity

3 for secondary reserve regulation. Depending on whether power is injected onto (or taken from) the

4 grid, N(t) = ±1. Its sign also depends on whether this is a ramp-up or a ramp-down of power.

5 There are two main categories of ramps : soft ramps (SR available within 800 s) and emergency

6 ramps (SR available within 133 s). The total amount of power used for SR activities should become

7 available for N = 1 (respectively -1). From the dynamic viewpoint, the expected power response of

8 the equipment should satisfy Equation (5) at any time :

*
P(t) - P ∗ (t) ≤ ) + ·SR·. Teq (,)

10

11 where dN/dt is the first time derivative of the command signal N(t) and Teq = 20s is a time constant

12 that expresses the maximum time delay acceptable by the TSO. At any time during the regulation

13 process, the transient power response P ∗ (t) of the equipment should remains within 20 seconds of

14 the power set point P(t) and there should be no scillations around the set point value. Whenever the

15 command signal is lost, it might be reinitialized and dN/dt might take very large values. To avoid

16 problems, the maximum value of dN/dt (met during emergency power ramps) is set to ±2/133

17 seconds. For SR applications, the equipment should be designed in such a way that the power

18 qualified for regulation should be maintained indefinitely (in practice, until a new set point is

19 provided by the TSO). As for the primary reserve, a two-curve template is used as a guideline to

20 control the dynamic response of the equipment. P*(t) should remain at least 95% of the time

21 somewhere between these two curves. Figure 3 shows two examples of power regulation constraints

22 for the secondary reserve (power ramps up and down). The two power profiles apply to soft (within

23 800 s) and emergency (within 133 s) power requests. For the ramp-up, the power set point (black

9
 1 line) is given by Pc = (Pmax-SR)+(N x SR). The test starts with N = -1 (Pc= Pmax-2.SR) and ends with

2 N = +1 (Pc = Pmax). Conversely, for the ramp-down, the power set point (black line) is given by Pc =

3 (Pmin+SR)+(N x SR). The test starts with N = +1 (Pc= Pmax+2.SR = Pmax) and ends with N = -1 (Pc =

4 Pmin). The blue lines show the power limits between which the power of the equipment contributing

5 to the regulation process should remain at any time. The first limits (Pc + εv for ramps-up and Pc - εv

6 for ramps-down) are defined by εv which is the measurement uncertainty of the active power (the

7 maximum value of εv is set to 5% of SR). The second limits (Ptol - εv for ramps-up and Ptol + εv for

8 ramps-down) are defined by Ptol = Pc /(1+ Teq. p). This is a tolerated set point obtained by the

9 Laplace transformation (p is the Laplace operator) of Pc, using the time constant Teq = 20 s. These

10 two limits are the worst expected responses of the equipment qualified for the secondary reserve

11 regulation. In Figure 3, tb is the time at which the secondary reserve is made fully available on the

12 grid and T is the ramp duration + 100 seconds.

13

14 2.4. The economics of power grid services

15 The existing regulation framework was set by successive Energy packages issued in the

16 European legislation. A distinction is made between the operational and the financial responsibility

17 of the different actors, in order to ensure a continuously balanced operation of the European

18 electrical system (“load frequency control”). Grid actors, both electricity producers and commercial

19 companies selling electricity to a portfolio of end-consumers (as well as electro-intensive

20 companies purchasing electricity by themselves through bilateral contracts or orders passed on the

21 gross market, i.e. the European Energy Exchange) are financially responsible for the balance of

22 their portfolio, at anytime. This means that the energy amount consumed by their end-clients (or

23 sold to third parties) has to be equal, at anytime, to the amount of energy there are generating or

24 buying from third parties. If this is not the case, TSOs are charging the concerned misbalances with

10
 1 significant fees. This is a situation illustrating the financial responsibility of each grid user for

2 balancing their operational/commercial activities.

3 From a technical viewpoint, a perfect balance between energy consumption and supply is

4 scarcely reached since the electrical system and the processes that rule the commercial activities are

5 constantly affected by various perturbations. Indeed, plant outages, the behavior of transmission

6 lines as well as errors made while forecasting expected energy consumption or generation,

7 especially when renewable energy sources such as PV, wind or hydro are used, make the entire

8 system unpredictable. At the same time, TSOs, as grid operators, have the responsibility to ensure

9 anytime the physical balance of energy flows between production (+ import) and consumption (+

10 export). In order to achieve this critical objective, TSOs can mobilize several types of downward

11 and upward reserves ready to activate anytime, at different rates, as discussed before. The

12 procurement of reserves over variable periods of time occurs typically through call of tenders or

13 auction with different periodicity and contractual duration (TSOs are not allowed to operate

14 production means by themselves, despite some exceptions found in some Eastern Europe countries).

15 Both producers and consumers (assuming they can offer a critical power capacity) can put capacity

16 at the disposal of the concerned TSO, and get remunerated for this when awarded. Two different

17 kinds of remuneration exist (sometime simultaneously) for the same reserve product. One (in

18 €/MW/h) is based on the availability of the capacity offered (this is called capacity payment). The

19 other (in €/MWh) is based on the amount of energy effectively activated upwards or even

20 downwards (this is called energy payment) during regulation. It should be outlined here that the

21 corresponding energy amounts involved in these regulation processes are small compared to those

22 considered on the European Energy Exchange (EEX) market. Producers can sale their production

23 above market prices and consumers can access cheaper electricity. The main issue is that the

24 operation rate is low: operational expenditures (Opex) of electro-intensive equipments are reduced

25 but the return on investment is much longer than in conventional business.

11
 1 When a consumer participates to these reserves (demand side management), these two types

2 of remuneration can both or separately contribute to reduce significantly the overall costs related to

3 electricity purchase. Thus, for electro-intensive processes such as water electrolysis, these reserve

4 markets represent a great opportunity for reducing the OPEX part of the hydrogen generation costs.

5 Some examples of the current remuneration observed on the German auction platform for reserve

6 products can be found in Ref. [16]. Figure 4 illustrates the capacity payments (expressed in

7 €/MW/h) observed for French reserve products during fiscal year 2017. The remuneration for the

8 SR is constant (flat rate) because this service is not yet open to market due to different technical

9 requirements and practices among European countries.

10

11 3. The PEM water electrolysis plant

12 3.1. Overview of PEM water electrolysis plants

13 Depending on its size and hydrogen production capacity, a commercial PEM water

14 electrolysis system is either placed in a transportable container, or directly installed on the hall of a

15 plant, usually on industrial sites. Most commercial PEM water electrolysers are designed for

16 operation under stationary power conditions. The objective of this research work was to determine

17 the potential of the technology as a whole (electrolysis stack and balance of plant or BoP) to address

18 markets in transient power operating conditions, and whether it is appropriate or not to provide grid

19 services. Figure 5 provides a schematic overview of a conventional PEM water electrolysis plant [16].

20 The core component is the electrochemical reactor, the electrolysis stack of cells itself which,

21 depending on the production capacity of the module, can contain up to several hundred individual

22 cells connected in series in a filter press configuration. Each cell has usually a surface area in the

23 1,000-1,500 cm2 range, but efforts are currently made to develop much larger cells, at the square

24 meter scale. During operation, each cell requires an operating voltage in the 1.8 – 2.0 Volt range,

25 corresponding to a current density of 1-3 A.cm-2. The necessary operating DC power source is

12
 1 provided by a power conditioning unit containing an AC/AC transformer and an AC/DC rectifier.

2 Water purification (milli-Q® grade water, corresponding to a residual conductivity of 0.1-1.0 µS.cm-1,

3 is required) is achieved onsite using several water treatment units including UV treatment, total

4 organic carbon abatement and osmosis. Purified water is pumped through the hydraulic circuit placed

5 on the anode side of the reactor (left side of the stack on Figure 5) and water conductivity is

6 continuously monitored since various deleterious corrosion processes tend to degrade the efficiency of

7 the electrolysis module during operation. Power consumption required for water pumping is counted

8 in the energy balance and usually amounts to only a few percent of the entire plant consumption. The

9 liquid water/ gaseous biphasic mixtures are gravimetrically separated in separators. On the cathodic

10 circuit (right side of the stack on Figure 5), gaseous hydrogen is collected; traces of oxygen are

11 removed and the gas is dried. Electro-osmotic water transferred from the anode compartment down to

12 the cathode compartment (as a result of the transport of hydrated protons) is usually recycled to the

13 water reservoir or to the anodic loop for cost reasons.

14

15 3.2. Test specifications for the qualification of water electrolysers

16 Power profiles available in the literature usually consider power changes over the entire (0%

17 to 100%) power scale. The main innovative contribution of this research work was to specify test

18 protocols closer to real operating conditions (those shown on Figure 2), that would translate into

19 electrical load profiles the main grid constraints described in the previous sections, and would take

20 into account the necessity to operate the unit with a power base-load for economical reasons. This was

21 done for both primary and secondary reserves (Figures 6 and 7 respectively). Both power profiles

22 contain a succession of ramp-up and down and intermediate stationary power plateaus of fixed

23 duration, in accordance to the specifications discussed above. The basic idea behind such design is

24 that the PEM water electrolysis plant as a whole should operate around a pivotal nominal power (the

13
 1 power base-load), which is approximately 50% of the maximal power. In addition to this power base-

2 load, the system should also be able to provide grid services in response to grid requirements, using

3 the set of ramp-up/ramp-down and stationary power plateaus of interest. The time constants of these

4 different steps are dictated by the grid requirements and the type of reserve of interest, as discussed

5 above.

7 4. Selected test results

8 4.1. Efficiency

9 The efficiency of the PEM water electrolysis plant as a whole is mainly dictated by the

10 efficiency of the PEM water electrolysis stack. The efficiency of the PEM water electrolysis stack is

11 mainly dictated by operating current density and operating temperature. At the laboratory scale,

12 most setups are using a temperature regulation unit that can set the test temperature to any value of

13 interest, independently of the operating current density. On larger commercial systems, electrolysis

14 stacks are usually operated in exothermic mode and there is only a need to extract the excess heat

15 produced at nominal operating conditions: the maximum temperature is set to the nominal value and

16 there is no temperature regulation unit as such, only a heat extraction unit used to prevent

17 overheating. This is because most commercial PEM water electrolysis stacks are operated at

18 constant current density and temperature. But grid services require continuous power changes.

19 Hence, the stack temperature is not constant and this situation impacts the energy consumption (and

20 efficiency) of the water splitting reaction. A typical example is provided in Figure 8. The PEM stack

21 is operated galvanostatically and non-isothermally. The driving parameter used during the

22 experiment is the operating current density supplied to the stack (up to ≈ 2 A.cm-2). The initial

23 temperature of water is sub-nominal (≈ 48°C). When current is turned on to the set point within

24 seconds, the stack temperature gradually increases due to internal irreversible dissipations (curve d).

25 Operation in galvanostatic mode leads to a stack voltage overshoot and, as a result, to a power

14
 1 overshoot (curve c) that take ≈10 min to stabilize in that case (overshoots gradually decrease as the

2 stack temperature reaches a stationary temperature value of ≈ 57°C). As a result, there is an over-

3 consumption of specific energy of approximately 5 kWh.kgH2-1 (curve a) and a loss of efficiency of

4 approximately 5 % (curve b). Such behavior is directly related to the changing temperature during

5 the test, a situation affecting both membrane conductivity and charge transfer kinetics. Power

6 regulation instead of current regulation and strategies to buffer heat (and favor isothermal operation)

7 still need to be implemented on large commercial PEM water electrolysis stacks in view of power

8 grid services to avoid unnecessary efficiency losses.

10 4.2. Flexibility and power stability

11 Flexibility is a term making reference to the possibility to operate the PEM water electrolysis

12 plant at different power values. Again, flexibility capabilities of the entire system are mainly

13 dictated by stack capabilities, and to a lesser extent by balance-of-plant (BoP) capabilities (at least

14 when the BoP is adequately designed). Figure 9 shows the result of a typical flexibility test. The

15 data were collected during operation under current-controlled (galvanostatic) conditions, a choice

16 usually dictated by down-stream hydrogen-consumption requirements. The observed power

17 overshoot can be corrected by using power-controlled DC power sources. Results show that during

18 operation, the electrolysis unit can stand idle as long as necessary and then jump to either nominal

19 or maximal current (or power) density and back within seconds. These results show that PEM water

20 electrolysis stacks have the necessary flexibility required to provide electrical services to power

21 grids. PEM stacks and plants can be designed for operation over the entire 0-100% power range.

22 From the economical viewpoint however, there is no real interest to maintain the system in idle

23 state. As discussed above, the current trend in the industry is to develop systems that can combine a

24 power base-load operation (at nominal power condition) to a grid service capability, on top of the

25 base-load, up to a maximum power value. Such upper limit is dictated by the cell design but also by

15
 1 the temperature of the environment for cooling purposes. When the water electrolysis unit is

2 operated in such a way, remuneration can be obtain from both hydrogen production and grid

3 services.

4 Power fluctuation on power plateaus is another issue of interest for grid services. Specifications

5 may vary from one grid to another but qualification for grid services usually requires percent-range

6 power stability. The electrolysis stack is the main power dissipation contributor of the PEM water

7 electrolysis plant, and the main contributor to the power consumption signature. The problem is that

8 during operation, the stack impedance (which is a function of operating parameters, mainly current

9 density and temperature), can fluctuate. As a result, there are power fluctuations that need careful

10 optimization to remain within specifications. Figure 10 shows the situation measured on a 20-cell

11 stack at both nominal and maximum operating current density. There is a ≈ ± 2% power fluctuation

12 over the mean power value on the power plateau. There is a number of factors that contribute to

13 such situation (e.g. turbulences due to gas production within the cells, pressure changes and variable

14 heat transfer characteristics) but it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss these issues in detail.

15

16 4.3. Reactivity

17 Reactivity is a term making reference to the time it takes to the PEM water electrolysis

18 stack/plant to change its power set point. Again, the reactivity is mainly dictated by the water

19 electrolysis stack, and to a lesser extent by the balance-of-plant. Figure 11 shows the situation for

20 both primary (Figure 11-a) and secondary (Figure 11-b) reserves. In both cases, data were obtained

21 during a ‘hot start’ experiment, i.e. when the stack temperature is kept constant at nominal operating

22 value before turning power on/off. For the primary reserve test (Figure 11-a), the constraint imposed

23 during the test was to switch power density from 100 % down to 75% of nominal power density

24 within less than 30 seconds, applying a linear power transient. For the secondary reserve test

25 (Figure 11-b), the constraint was to switch power density on from initial (0%) to final (100%) set

16
 1 points in less than 2 min and backwards (soft and emergency ramps), again using a linear power

2 sweep. The two curves of Figure 10 show that both constraints are adequately satisfied. This is a

3 general characteristic of PEM water electrolysis technology (the same situation prevails on large,

4 MW-scale, PEM water electrolysis plants), showing that the technology is suitable for operation on

5 both power reserves. Such characteristics are due to the use of a thin proton-exchange membrane as

6 polymer electrolyte and cell separator instead of a liquid electrolyte, a unique feature of PEM water

7 electrolysis cells.

9 4.4. KPI of PEM water electrolysers for grid services

10 A SWOT analysis of PEM water electrolysis technology has been performed. A set of key

11 performance indicators (KPIs) has been designed to measure the level of development of PEM

12 water electrolysers, to measure the impact of operation with transient power sources (for grid

13 services) on the performances, and to facilitate the comparison of commercial products available on

14 the market. This is an extension of the list of indicators provided by the European Commission in its

15 2014-2020 annual work program [17]. Main results are summarized on the polar plot of Figure 12.

16 The reference case used for comparison is intended to measure mean water electrolysis

17 performances (KPIs are arbitrarily set to 5 on a 0-10 scale, corresponding values are compiled in

18 Table 1). This is a measure of the state-of-art in 2015, for systems (mainly alkaline ones) operating

19 under stationary power conditions. A first group of KPIs is used to describe operating conditions.

20 This is mainly the T, P, j range (T: temperature, P: pressure, j: current density) of operation. The

21 KPIs of the second group are used to measure the level of advancement of the technologies, in

22 terms of production capacity, engineering, and manufacturing capabilities. This is mainly the active

23 area of individual cells (that shows the ability of the manufacturers to design large cells) and the

24 stack power (that shows the capability of the manufacturers to design large systems needed by the

25 market). The KPIs of the third group are specifically those used to assess the ability of the

17
 1 technology to provide grid services. In the frame of the energy transition, power grids are calling for

2 electrical systems that are flexible (i.e., which can change their power set point between minimum

3 and maximum values), and that are reactive (i.e., which can quickly change power set point). The

4 KPIs of the last group are used to measure various performance levels and to visualize the impact of

5 transient operating conditions.

6 The power profiles of Figures 6 and 7 have been used as test specifications for the

7 qualification of different laboratory and commercial PEM water electrolysis stacks and plants (i.e.

8 electrolysis stacks + balance of plant or BoP) in view of grid services. All test results are

9 summarized in Figure 12. Despite the difficulty associated with the construction and use of

10 quantitative scales that could be unanimously recognised by the water electrolysis community, the

11 polar plot provides a quick overview of main strengths and limitations of PEM technology for such

12 applications. KPI values of PEM water electrolysis technology were found mostly above average,

13 except for the temperature of operation (a limitation due to the thermal stability of the polymer

14 electrolyte) and the safety of operation (gas cross permeation issues across the polymer electrolyte

15 at low current density).

16

17 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

18 Hydrogen of electrolytic grade obtained by water electrolysis is potentially a game-changing

19 energy vector. In the future, it is expected that water electrolysis plants will contribute to the large-

20 scale storage of transient renewable energy sources, but also to power grid regulation. In this

21 research paper, power grid operational constraints have been analyzed, specific power profiles of

22 interest for power grid management have been designed and these profiles have been used to test

23 and qualify polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) water electrolysers. In the first section,

24 management constraints of European power grids have been described and analyzed, with a special

25 focus on the power profiles of interest for primary and secondary reserves management. The

18
 1 economics of power grid management has also been discussed. Some test protocols required for the

2 qualification of water electrolysers to both primary and secondary reserves have been designed and

3 are presented. They have been used to test PEM water electrolysis stacks and plants of different

4 sizes. Main test results have been summarized. In particular, the impact of grid service operation on

5 the efficiency, flexibility and reactivity of PEM water electrolysis stacks is reported and discussed.

6 A list of key performance indicators has been used to assess the ability of PEM water electrolysis

7 plants to operate in transient power conditions of interest. Key findings were that PEM water

8 electrolysis stacks/plants show the necessary flexibility and reactivity to address the markets of

9 primary and secondary power reserves. However, there are two main critical issues that are limiting

10 the performances of existing technology and will require further developments: (i) the need for

11 operation in isothermal conditions in order to reduce efficiency losses and degraded power

12 responses; (ii) the need to reduce power fluctuations down to the appropriate level on power

13 plateaus. Based on these results, it is recommended to technology manufacturers to take these

14 aspects into consideration in order to further customize PEM water electrolysers and make the

15 technology ready for grid balancing applications. The financial support of funding agencies is

16 required to facilitate such developments. Limitations of commercial water electrolysers to comply

17 with grid requirements should be taken into account by these agencies and existing roadmaps

18 should be updated to facilitate the large scale deployment of the technology.

19

20 Acknowledgement

21 The support of the French Research Institute on Energy Transition, Paris-Saclay Efficacité

22 Energétique (PS2E), in the frame of the FlexiPEM project, is acknowledged. Financial support from

23 the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR 11 EMMA 048-01, ANR-RF-2015-01) and the

24 French ADEME (Ademe 1694C006) is also acknowledged.

25

19
 1 FIGURE CAPTIONS

2 Figure 1. Schematic diagram showing the technical response of an equipment operating for the

3 primary reserve in France (source RTE): (─) power set point; (----) minimum expected response.

5 Figure 2. Plots showing the main power requirements as a function of grid frequency.

7 Figure 3. Schematic diagram showing the power requirements for operation on the secondary

8 reserve in France.

10 Figure 4. Capacity remuneration for primary, secondary and tertiary reserve in France (year 2017).

11

12 Figure 5. Schematic diagram showing the main modules of a PEM water electrolysis plant.

13

14 Figure 6. Specific power profiles designed for primary reserve qualification.

15

16 Figure 7. Specific power profiles designed for secondary reserve qualification.

17

18 Figure 8. Results of a galvanostatic on/off test using a 20-cells PEM water electrolysis stack (a)

19 energy consumption; (b) water splitting efficiency; (c) power density; (d) water temperature.

20

21 Figure 9. Current density versus time plot measured on a 20-cells PEM water electrolysis stack

22 showing flexibility.

23

24 Figure 10. DC power fluctuations measured on a 20-cells PEM water electrolysis stack operated at

25 (a) nominal and (b) max power conditions.

20
 1

2 Figure 11. Power density versus time plots showing the reactivity of a 20-cells PEM water

3 electrolysis stack for (a) primary and (b) secondary reserve operation.

5 Figure 12: KPIs of PEM water electrolysis technology. (--) reference case (stationary, 2015); (−)

6 test results from this work (transient PEM, 2017).

9 REFERENCES

10 [1] J. Michalski, U. Bünger, F. Crotogino, S. Donadei, G. S. Schneider, T. Pregger, K. K. Cao, D.

11 Heide, , Hydrogen generation by electrolysis and storage in salt caverns: Potentials, economics and

12 sytems aspects with regard to the German energy transition, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 42(19) (2017)

13 13427-13443.

14 [2] O. Akizu, L. Urkidi, G. Bueno, R. Lago, Tracing the emerging, energy transition in the Global

15 North and the Global South, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 42(28) (2017) 18046-18063.

16 [3] A. Scipioni, A. Manzardo, J. Ren, Hydrogen Economy, Supply Chain, Life Cycle Analysis and

17 Energy Transition for Sustainability, Academic Press (2017).

18 [4] S. Weidner, M. Faltenbacher, I. François, D. Thomas, Feasibility study of large scale hydrogen

19 power-to-gas applications and cost of the systems evolving with scaling up in Germany, Belgium

20 and Iceland, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 43(33) (2018) 15625-15638.

21 [5] Hydrogen Production by Water Electrolysis, A. Godula-Jopek, D. Stolten Editors, Wiley-VCH,

22 (2015).

23 [6] M. Carmo, D.L. Fritz, J. Mergel, D. Stolten, A Comprehensive Review on PEM Water

24 Electrolysis, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 38 (2016) 4901-4934.

21
 1 [7] S.M. Saba, M. Müller, M. Robinius, D. Stolten, The investment cost of electrolysis- A

2 comparison of cost studies over the past 30 years, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 38 (2018) 1209-1223.

3 [8] B. Guinot, F. Montignac, B. Champel, D. Vannucci, Profitability of an electrolysis based

4 hydrogen production plant providing grid balancing services, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 40(29)

5 (2015) 8778-8787.

6 [9] S. Bennoua, A. Le Duigou, M. –M. Quéméré, S. Dautremont, Role of hydrogen in resolving grid

7 issues, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 40(23) (2015) 7231-7245.

8 [10] H. Özbay, S. Öncü, M. Kesler, SMC-DPC based active and reactive power control of gried-

9 tied three phase inverter for PV systems, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 42(28) (2017) 17713-17722.

10 [11] R. Fang, R. Shang, Y. Wang, X. Guo, Identification of vulnerable lines in power grids with

11 wind power integration based on a weighted entropy analysis method, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,

12 42(31) (2017) 20269-20276.

13 [12] M.I. Mosaad, H.S. Ramadan, Power quality enhancement of grid-connected fuel cell using

14 evolutionary computing techniques, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 43(25) (2018) 11568-11582.

15 [13] I. Cervantes, M. Hernandez-Nochebuena, U. Cano-Castillo, I. Araujo-Vargas, A graphical

16 approach to optimal power management for uncertain OFF-Grid PV-FC-electrolyzer-battery

17 hybrid systems, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 43(42) (2018) 19336-19351.

18 [14] https://www.entsoe.eu/. Accessed on September 18, 2018.

19 [15] https://www.regelleistung.net/ext/. Accessed on September 18, 2018.

20 [16] T. Smolinka, PEM water Electrolysis for hydrogen production: Principles and Applications.

21 Edited by D. Bessarabov, H. Wand, H. Li, N. Zhao, Boca Raton, CRC Press (2015).

22 [17] Multi-Annual Work Program 2014-2020, ID 4221004, Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint

23 Undertaking, European Commission (2013).

24

22
Table 1. Reference case of Figure 12.
j range (A.cm–2) 0-1
T range (°C) 20 - 80
P range (bar) 0 - 35
Cell active area (cm2) 1,000
Power range (MW) 0-1
Flexibility stationary at different j values
Reactivity (0 → nominal power) < minutes
Efficiency (kWhkgH2–1) < 60
Capex (€/kW @ 1 MW-scale) 1,500
Durability (% performance loss/year) < 5%
H2 purity at delivery (xN). 4
Safety (% H2 in O2) < 25 % of the inferior limit of explosivity
(ILE)