i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Battery-assisted low-cost hydrogen production

from solar energy: Rational target setting for future
technology systems

Yasunori Kikuchi a,b,c,**, Takayuki Ichikawa d, Masakazu Sugiyama e,

Michihisa Koyama a,d,f,*
a
Global Research Center for Environmental and Energy Based on Nanomaterials Science, National Institute for
Materials Science, 1-1 Namiki, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-0044 Japan
b
Presidential Endowed Chair for “Platinum Society”, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo
113-8656, Japan
c
Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, The University of Tokyo Institutes for Advanced Study, 7-3-1
Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8654, Japan
d
Graduate School of Engineering, Hiroshima University, 1-4-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima 739-8527, Japan
e
Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo
153-8904 Japan
f
Center for Energy and Environmental Science, Shinshu University, 4-17-1 Wakasato, Nagano, Nagano 380-8553,
Japan

article info abstract

Article history: The massive implementation of renewable energy requires sophisticated assessments
Received 16 July 2018 considering the combination of feasible technology options. In this study, a techno-
Received in revised form economic analysis was conducted for hydrogen production from photovoltaic power gen-
13 November 2018 eration (PV) utilizing a battery-assisted electrolyzer. The installed capacity of each compo-
Accepted 16 November 2018 nent technology was optimized for the wide range of unit costs of electricity from the PV,
Available online 13 December 2018 battery, and proton-exchange membrane electrolyzer. Leveling of PV output by battery, the
necessary capacity of electrolyzer is suppressed and the operating ratio of electrolyzer in-
Keywords: creases. The battery-assist will result in a lower hydrogen production cost when the benefit
Techno-economic analysis associated with the smaller capacity and higher operation ratio of the electrolyzer exceeds
Technology roadmap the necessary investment for battery installation. The results from this study indicated the
Off-grid production cost of hydrogen as low as 17 to 27 JPY/Nm3 using a combination of technologies and the
Proton-exchange membrane achievement of ambitious individual cost targets for batteries, PV, and electrolyzers.
electrolyzer © 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

gaps between supply and demand. Reducing fossil resource

Introduction consumption has been strongly suggested under international
frameworks, including sustainable development goals (SDGs)
The massive implementation of intermittent renewable en- [1] and the Paris Agreement [2]. Although renewables are one
ergy systems requires the bridging of the temporal and spatial

* Corresponding author., 1-1 Namiki, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0044 Japan

** Corresponding author., 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656 Japan
E-mail addresses: kikuchi@platinum.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Y. Kikuchi), KOYAMA.Michihisa@nims.go.jp (M. Koyama).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.11.119
0360-3199/© 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1452 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5
Nomenclature
AreaPV (m2) Required area for photovoltaic solar cell
Capbat (kWh) Installed capacity of battery represented
as the charged electricity
Capely (kW) Installed capacity of electrolyzer
represented as the maximum input of
power
CapPV (kW) Installed capacity of photovoltaic solar cell
represented as the output of power
opt
Capbat (kWh) Installed capacity of battery represented
as the output of power optimizing CostH2
opt
CapPV (kW) Installed capacity of photovoltaic solar cell
represented as the output of power
optimizing CostH2
CAPEXbat (JPY) Capital expenditure of battery
CAPEXely (JPY) Capital expenditure of electrolyzer
OPEXbat (JPY/y) Operating expense of battery
OPEXely (JPY/y) Operating expense of electrolyzer
UCostbat (JPY/kWh) Unit cost of installation of battery
UCostelec (JPY/kWh) Unit cost of generated power from
photovoltaic solar cell
UCostely (JPY/kW) Unit cost of installation of
electrolyzer
UCostH2 (JPY/Nm3) Unit cost of hydrogen production
UCostPV (JPY/kW) Unit cost of installation of
photovoltaic solar cell
Lbat (y) Lifetime of battery
Lely (y) Lifetime of electrolyzer
Powbat ðtÞ (kWh/h) Charged/discharged power in battery
at time t
Powely ðtÞ (kWh/h) Transmitted power to electrolyzer for
hydrogen production at time t
Powloss1 ðtÞ (kWh/h) Excess and lost power cut off by EMS
at time t
Powloss2 ðtÞ (kWh/h) Lost power based on charging-
discharging efficiency of battery
storage at time t
PowPV ðtÞ (kWh/h) Generated power from photovoltaic
solar panel at time t
ProdH (Nm3) Produced amount of hydrogen
Scaleely (Nm3/h) Production scale of electrolyzer
hbat (-) Roundtrip efficiency of battery
hely (-) Hydrogen conversion efficiency of electrolyzer
hPV (-) Power generation efficiency of photovoltaic
solar cell
4base (MJ/(m2$h)) Base solar irradiation
4ðtÞ (MJ/(m2$h)) Solar irradiation at time t
of the key resources for replacing fossil resources, their dis-
advantages, such as low energy densities, volatility in power
supply depending on weather and daytime conditions, and
immature infrastructure for grid connections requiring con-
trol systems for voltage and frequency, should be addressed
adequately for their practical use as the main sources of
electricity in future energy systems. Ambitious strategies have
been explored for dispatching such resources with existing
infrastructure as smart energy systems [3]. Among the various
renewable resources, photovoltaic power generation (PV) is
reported to have a large potential in Japan [4,5]. To enhance
the usability of PV, several approaches have been examined,
especially under the power-to-X concepts.
Power-to-gas and power-to-liquid can be key elements in a
future sustainable energy system coupling electricity, mobility,
heating, and chemical sectors [6]. Power-to-gas has become a
major technology for converting electricity into gas, especially
with hydrogen as the energy carrier [7], which is one of the most
important options for sustainable hydrogen production [8].
Various options with reaction mechanisms have been devel-
oped for hydrogen production systems [9e17] including ther-
mochemical hydrogen production [10,11]. Various process
chains have been examined for power-to-gas [18] utilizing
existing gas and electricity infrastructure [19] with various
scales of production of gas, e.g., hydrogen [20]. The combination
of power-to-gas technology with other industrial processes can
convert electricity into other products. Power-to-methane [21]
has also become an option in a region with specific installed
and planned capacities for wind energy and biogas plants [22]
connected with power grid and thermochemical methanation
process [23]. Coupled with catalytic CO2 reduction, power-to-
methanol technologies can be established [24]. Biomass-based
combined heat and power plants can be integrated with
power-to-gas technology [25]. The steel manufacturing process
could also utilize the hydrogen produced from power-to-gas
technologies [26]. The future role of power-to-gas technologies
includes the intensification of regional and local energy infra-
structure [27]. The process and system design of power-to-gas
technologies should be able to address local conditions, such
as existing energy grids, markets, and solar irradiation [28].
Comparative assessments for hydrogen production have
also been conducted from the energy, exergy, environmental,
and economic aspects [12,29e33]. Techno-economic assess-
ments of power-to-gas systems have been conducted for na-
tional energy grids in Germany [18], Spain [34], United
Kingdom [19], Belgium [35], and South Korea [36]. Hydrogen
derived from biomass and water electrolysis have been
compared on the technoeconomic aspects [37]. Various tech-
nology options have been examined for hydrogen production
from unutilized resources such as waste water [38]. Grid
supplemented photovoltaic electrolysis system is an option to
stabilize the power input to electrolyzer, which has an
advantage in the cost reduction of electrolysis [39]. A hybrid-
ization strategy for power-to-gas technologies with batteries
has also been reported [40] to explore conditions that reduce
the hydrogen production cost, though the design of a cost-
competitive system remains open. Integrated power systems
have been examined for fixed scales of PV panels, e.g., elec-
trolyzer and fuel cell package and battery-assisted power
supply [41]. The sizing algorithms for PV panel and fuel cell
were proposed for comparing the fixed or unconstrained
hydrogen tank [42]. The configurations of systems composed
by PV panels, electrolyzer, hydrogen storage, and fuel cells
were simulated, which depicted the further energy cost ana-
lyses considering the technology developments [43].
Technology development has been incentivized by sharing
development targets among stakeholders by technology
roadmapping. Recently, national organizations have
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5
published technology roadmaps with research targets for PV,
batteries, and electrolyzers to meet the international goals.
Ideally, the realization of such national targets should lead to
changing the implementation of renewable resources in
Japan. However, the target settings for individual technologies
have met with difficulties in advancing the implementation of
renewable resources. For example, the frequency fluctuation
associated with the grid connection of PV has necessitated the
power output suppression of PV in some regions in Japan,
which is recognized as a significant social issue. The Japanese
roadmap for PV projected the targets based on the levelized
cost of electricity (LCOE) only and did not address the grid
connection issue [44]. Therefore, the implementation of PV is
ambiguous even though the LCOE target is reached. Batteries
can be a solution for such issues; however, the technology
targets set for batteries for stationary purposes are relatively
obscure [45]. Some technology targets should be examined in
the context of systems combining multiple technologies
because the focused technology may not function as the
system component without adequate development and
incorporation of other technologies. Rational targets should
be set based on such system design and analysis.
In this study, the techno-economic performance of a
battery-assisted hydrogen production system is analyzed
considering technology development based on governmental
incentivization. The case study of off-grid hydrogen produc-
tion is explored for Japan, where almost all fossil resources are
imported. The renewable resource is set as the solar energy in
Nagano, one of the best locations for solar irradiation in Japan.
A proton-exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzer is suggested
as the hydrogen production technology. An advanced battery
is assumed to be connected for managing the balance of PV
and PEM electrolysis hydrogen production. Future techno-
economic performance in their individual technology road-
maps are systematically analyzed based on the minimization
of the unit cost of hydrogen.
Materials and methods
Battery-assisted hydrogen production
Fig. 1 schematically shows the system for battery-assisted
hydrogen production from solar cells. The solar irradiation at
Fig. 1 e Boundary of battery-assisted hydrogen production system.
1453
time t, 4ðtÞ, is converted into solar power at time t, PowPV ðtÞ,
through a PV. The generated PV power is transmitted to a PEM
electrolyzer through a DC/DC converter to adjust its voltage. If
the PowPV ðtÞ is larger than the capacity of the electrolyzer,
Capely , the generated power is stored in a battery by trans-
mitting Powbat ðtÞ. When the operating ratio of the PEM electro-
lyzer and the charging ratio of battery storage are both full, the
excess power is cut off by an energy management system (EMS)
and lost as Powloss1 ðtÞ. A part of the charged electricity in the
battery is lost due to the internal resistance during the roundtrip
of charging and discharging, and this power loss is denoted as
Powloss2 ðtÞ. This operation is managed by the EMS connected to
the DC/DC converter. The battery assists the stabilization of the
DC flow to PEM electrolyzer, Powely ðtÞ, by charging the excess
PowPV ðtÞ during daytime and discharging it during nighttime as
Powbat ðtÞ. It resulted in the temporally stabilized production of
hydrogen, ProdH . The time integral for generated power is
balanced with those of power consumed by the PEM electro-
lyzer and power losses at the EMS and battery as follows:
Z Z Z Z
PowPV ðtÞdt ¼ Powely ðtÞdt þ Powloss1 ðtÞdt þ Powloss2 ðtÞdt
(1)
Settings for techno-economic performance
The techno-economic parameters for technology options are
selected by referring to the target values found in the tech-
nology roadmaps or in the literature. This enables us to
examine if those targets separately set for individual tech-
nologies will lead to the feasibility of the battery-assisted
hydrogen production system as a whole. Table 1 summa-
rizes the parameter settings in this study. At first, the existing
technology roadmaps for electricity from PV, batteries, and
PEM electrolyzers are investigated. Based on the target values
in such roadmaps, the settings for evaluating the levelized
unit cost of hydrogen production, UCostH2 , are extracted or
assumed in this study. Note that the time of the target values
is defined as 2030.
Solar cell
The rated capacity of the PV, CapPV , is adopted as the variables
in the minimization of hydrogen production cost, UCostH2 .
The area required for the installation, AreaPV , is be calculated
1454 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5
Table 1 e Settings for techno-economic performance. The efficiencies of PV, batteries, and electrolyzers are assumed to be
constant in this study.
Technology Parameters
Photovoltaic solar panel UCostelec
CapPV
Battery storage UCostbat
Capbat
Lbat
hbat
PEM electrolyzer UCostely
Capely
Lely
Note: The power conversion efficiency of PV depends on conditions, such as the installed angle and direction and temperature. Battery
charging/discharging efficiency will degrade during its cycle operation. The part load operation will change the efficiency of the PEM electro-
lyzer. Although these conditional changes in performance can occur hourly in the actual installation, they were not considered in this study for
simplicity.
by Eq. (2), where 4base is the base irradiation and hPV is the
power conversion efficiency. The generated power, PowPV ðtÞ,
is be obtained in Eq.(3), where 4ðtÞ is the actual hourly irra-
diation in the target region. As shown in Eq. (3), a larger CapPV
induces wider gaps of power generation between daytime and
nighttime, which may affect the required capacity for battery
storage.
 11 000 JPY/kWhuse, for Lithium-ion and Lithium-metal batte-
CapPV 4base
AreaPV ¼
hPV
POWPV ðtÞ ¼ AreaPV $hPV $4ðtÞ
The cost of electricity from a PV is problematic because
diversified analyses have been conducted on the LCOE derived
from PV, UCostelec . The latest major roadmap for solar cells in
Japan is the NEDO PV Challenges [44]. According to their sys-
tematic review of solar cells, the LCOE derived from PV is
targeted at 14 JPY/kWh after the increase of module conver-
sion efficiency and the decrease in production cost. With
material and structural optimization, 7 JPY/kWh in 2030 is the
target. The US Department of Energy (USDOE) has launched an
initiative for the reduction in the LCOE, with targets of
0.03e0.05 USD/kWh, about 3e5 JPY/kWh, in 2030 [46], which
has become an international target [47]. Although UCostelec
can be broken down and correlated with CapPV , the actual cost
composition is region-specific and based on irradiation con-
dition, land, construction, wheeling charge, and trans-
portation costs. Therefore, UCostelec was set as 7, 5, and 3 JPY/
kWh as discrete variables in this study without explicitly
considering its dependence on CapPV . Therefore, the optimi-
zation results indicate the minimized CostH2 produced from
opt
the electricity with the UCostelec generated from CapPV . The
cost of the power converter is also included in the LCOE in the
extracted UCostelec .
Values
7 [44], 5, and 3 JPY/kWh assumed from USDOE [46] and IRENA [47]
Variables for the minimization of UCostH2 . s, where 4base ¼ 1 kW/m2 and
hPV was assumed as 0.15.
More than 5000 JPY/kWh [45]
Variables for the minimization of UCostH2
20 years [45]
Assumed as 0.9
CAPEXely
, where CAPEXely is based on Eq. (6) [55], the cases of which are
Capely
30 000 JPY/kW (2.47  105 kW), 50 000 JPY/kW (5.01  104 kW), and 100 000
JPY/kW (5.74  103 kW)
3:544
Scaleely , where hely was assumed as 0.826 [55] and 3.544 kWh/Nm3 is
hely
the electrolysis energy requirement calculated from the standard enthalpy
change at 298K.
10 years
Battery
Various materials have been adopted and examined for the
anode and cathode materials in batteries, which have mainly
been considered for application in electric vehicles [48]. The
costs for battery packs have fallen rapidly [49]. The milestone
cost for battery packs, UCostbat , has been recognized as 125
USD/kWhuse, i.e., 13 750 JPY/kWhuse, and 100 USD/kWhuse, i.e.,
ries, respectively [50]. Considering the estimation of UCostbat
(2)
and applying advanced materials in the anode and cathode, a
milestone for the selling price was set as 50 USD/kWhcharge, i.e.,
(3) 5500 JPY/kWhcharge in 2030 [48]. The latest major technology
roadmap for batteries in Japan gives the milestones as 20 000
JPY/kWh, 10 000 JPY/kWh, and 5000 JPY/kWh in 2020, 2030, and
after 2030, respectively [45]. Therefore, 5000 JPY/kWh can be
regarded as an ambitious target value for UCostbat .
Capbat is defined as a variable for minimizing UCostH2 . The
fluctuation of irradiation, 4ðtÞ, can be stabilized by a battery
for increasing the operation ratio of the electrolyzer. Although
the generated power could be utilized, the height of peaks in
irradiation sharply changes daily and seasonally and requires
significant battery capacity, Capbat . This results in the
decrease in the operating ratio of the battery. The optimal
balance of the capacities of the electrolyzer, Capely , battery,
Capbat , and PV, CapPV , should be scrutinized and can be
changed by the balance of their unit costs, UCostely , UCostbat ,
and UCostelec . Depending on cell chemistry, a high C-rate will
increase battery ageing and decrease its lifetime [51,52]. If
there is a constraint on the operable C-rate in battery
charging/discharging, the Capbat increases and reduces the C-
rate; otherwise, its lifetime can be shortened compared to the
expected life. Note that the lifetime of that battery is a con-
stant in this study at 20 years for simplicity, while the lifetime
will depend on the charging/discharging profiles. The scale
factor of the battery is not explicitly considered in this study.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5
Electrolyzer
Alkaline electrolyzers, PEM electrolyzers, and anion exchange
membrane electrolyzers are commercially available [52]. The
PEM electrolyzer techno-economic performance is expected
to improve from 1860 to 2320 EUR/kW in 2014 to 250e1270
EUR/kW in 2030 as the system investment cost, which in-
Z
 
UCostelec $ PowPV ðtÞdt þ CAPEXely Lely þ OPEXely þ ðCAPEXbat =Lbat þ OPEXbat Þ
UCostH2 ¼
ProdH
cludes the peripheral devices [52], assuming 130 JPY/EUR. The
lifetime has also been elongated from 20 000e60 000 h
(1500e3800 USD/kW) in 2015 to 80 000 h (830 USD/kW) in 2030
[53]. According to the latest major roadmap on hydrogen
strategy in Japan, the unit plant cost of the PEM electrolyzer,
UCostely , is targeted at 50 000 JPY/kW, i.e., about 385 EUR/kW
and 455 USD/kW [54]. Here, the unit cost of an electrolyzer is
considered under its scale factor [55].
Evaluation algorithm of hydrogen production cost
Major assumptions in evaluation
The ancillary facilities of for PV, batteries, and electrolyzers,
such as wiring cables, are implicitly considered in the cost
settings above. Independently, a PV power converter, battery
management system, and AC/DC converter are equipped in
the PV, battery, and electrolyzer, respectively. The set costs
above, UCostely , UCostbat , and UCostelec , are expected to be for
standalone installations and include such ancillary facilities,
some of which are not necessary in the battery-assisted
hydrogen production investigated in this study, in their cost
targets found in various roadmaps [44,45,56]. Although
battery-assisted hydrogen production requires a novel EMS for
optimizing the system operation, it is assumed that the cost for
the ancillary facilities, which is included in the independent
system but is not necessary in the battery-assisted hydrogen
production, can compensate for the additionally required cost
for the hybridization of the PV, battery storages, and PEM
electrolyzer. More specifically, the PV power converter, battery
management system, and AC/DC converter included in the
unit costs are assumed compensate for those of the DC/DC
converter and EMS shown in Fig. 1. The irradiation patterns,
4ðtÞ, can change the optimal points, the location of which is set
as Nagano-city in Japan in this study as shown in Fig. 2.
The quality and property of produced hydrogen were set for
conventional use as fuel gas. The purity of hydrogen produced
from a PEM electrolyzer is 99.9e99.9999% [52]. The pressure of
hydrogen can range from 3 MPa to 10 MPa [57]. It can be utilized
as the heat quantity adjuster for city gas and the pressure in
pipelines, which is from 0.3 to 1 MPa for medium pressure or
more than 1 MPa for high pressure city gas [58].
Flow chart
In the system shown in Fig. 1, the major design parameters of
facilities related with hydrogen production cost, UCostH2 , are
1455
set as the capacities of the PEM electrolyzer, Capely , battery
storage, Capbat , and PV solar panel, CapPV , with the conditions
as their unit costs, Costely , UCostbat , and UCostelec , respec-
tively. Fig. 3 shows the algorithm for minimizing hydrogen
production cost, UCostH2 , as shown in Eq. (4) for individual
settings of the abovementioned parameters.

(4)
The LCOE assumed from the PV, UCostelec , is set as shown
in Table 1, which is defined by the first part of the algorithm in
Fig. 3. The capital expenditure, CAPEXely , and the annual
operating expense, OPEXely , of the PEM electrolyzer are
defined next. In this study, the existing cost estimation func-
tions [55] are adopted to represent the scaling factors of the
electrolyzer as shown below:
 0:68
CAPEXely ¼ 4:3  106 $ Scaleely (5)
Z
hely
3:544
$ Powely ðtÞdt
OPEXely ¼ 0:075$CAPEXely þ 0:075$CAPEXely $
ADays$Scaleely
(6)
where the coefficients have the physical meaning as param-
eters of the PEM electrolyzer. The coefficient, 4:3  106 , and
power, 0.68, are obtained from the curve fitting of techno-
economic performance for four different scales of hydrogen
production, i.e., 300, 3000, 10 000, and 32 000 Nm3/h [55,56].
The coefficient, 0.075, used in (both terms in right hand side
of) Eq. (6) indicates the ratio of fixed and variable costs in
OPEXely . ADays is the total number of hours per year. The
second term in the right side of Eq. (6) is the OPEXely related
with operating ratio. The costs of battery were set as shown in
Eqs. (7) And (8). The unit cost of battery storage, UCostbat , is
assumed as more than 1000 JPY/kWh to include the target
value shown in Table 1. In this study, the OPEXbat is not
considered.
CAPEXbat ¼ Capbat $UCostbat (7)
OPEXbat ¼ 0 (8)
Based on these equations, the hydrogen production cost,
CapH2 , is minimized by adjusting CapPV and Capbat . The profile
of generated power, PPV ðtÞ, is obtained from Eqs. (2) And (3),
according to the hourly irradiation pattern, 4ðtÞ. If the elec-
trolyzer cannot consume all generated power from the PV
due to the limitation shown in Eq. (10), the remaining power
is stored in the battery (Eq. (9)). The transmission of power
to the battery is constrained by Eq. (11). The power that
cannot be consumed by the electrolyzer nor stored by the
battery, Powloss1 ðtÞ, is shown as Eq. (12). A part of the stored
power in battery is lost during the charging/discharging
cycle due to internal losses as shown in Eq. (13). The golden-
1456 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5

Fig. 2 e Irradiation in Nagano-city for solar photovoltaic power generation. The time begins at 0:00 1 January 2016, which
includes 8784 h due to the bissextile. The detailed graphs are shown in Fig. S1.

Powloss1 ðtÞ ¼PowPV ðtÞ  Powely ðtÞ  Powbat ðtÞ

(12)
ð0  Powloss1 ðtÞ; 0  Powbat ðtÞÞ

Powloss2 ðtÞ ¼ ð1  hbat Þ$jPowbat ðtÞj ðPowbat ðtÞ < 0Þ (13)

Results

Composition for optimal hydrogen production cost

The composition for optimal hydrogen production cost is

shown in Fig. 4 for Costbat and Fig. S2 for UCostely . The results
are divided in terms of the UCostelec and the C-rate upper
limit. The results show the large contribution of UCostelec to
the UCostH2 , which is calculated as 3:544
hely ¼ 4:292 kWh=Nm3 ,
with UCostelec . More than half of UCostH2 is a result of the
UCostelec when it equals 7 JPY/kWh. The costs for
R
Powloss1 ðtÞdt are minimized in all cases by adjusting the
R
CapPV considering Capely . The costs for Powloss1 ðtÞdt are not
null in all cases, meaning that a part of generated power,
PowPV ðtÞ, should be discarded in order to increase the profit-
Fig. 3 e Flow chart of evaluation algorithm for hydrogen
ability from hydrogen production. If CapPV is decreased or
production cost.
Capbat is increased to recover all generated power as Powely ðtÞ
and Powbat ðtÞ, respectively, the operating ratio of PEM elec-
trolysis and the battery decreases, which results in an in-
section search [59] was employed to obtain the sets of crease in the total hydrogen production costs due to the
opt increase in the capital recovery.
adjustable parameters, Capbat ðUCostelec ; UCostbat ; UCostely Þ
opt
With the constraint in charge/discharge rate as shown in
and CapPV ðUCostelec ; UCostbat ; UCostely Þ to minimize UCostH2
Fig. 4 (a, c, e), one can see that the battery will not be installed
for the sets of ðUCostelec ; UCostbat ; UCostely Þ, individually.
when it is more expensive than ca. 1.6  104 JPY/kWh. Without
the battery, the CostH2 is determined by the balance between
Powbat ðtÞ ¼PowPV ðtÞ  Powely ðtÞ
(9) CapPV and Capely and appears as a constant in the figure. As
ð0  Powbat ðtÞ; equationsð10Þandð11ÞÞ
the battery cost becomes cheaper, the battery is introduced to
reduce the hydrogen production cost. When no constraint is
0  Powely ðtÞ  Capely (10)
applied to the charge/discharge of the battery, the battery is
installed for all the ranges investigated as shown in Fig. 4 (b, d,
Zk
f). With the reduction of UCostbat , the installed battery ca-
0 Powbat ðtÞdt  Capbat ð0  k  ADaysÞ (11)
pacity increases, resulting in an increase in the capital
0
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5 1457

(a) 7 JPY/kWh; |C-rate| ≤ 0.1 (b) 7 JPY/kWh

(c) 5 JPY/kWh; |C-rate| ≤ 0.1 (d) 5 JPY/kWh

(e) 3 JPY/kWh; |C-rate| ≤ 0.1 (f) 3 JPY/kWh

CAPEXely
Fig. 4 e Cost breakdown of optimized CostH2 for Costbat with Capely as 50 000 JPY/kW, i.e., 5.01 £ 104 kW for Capely .

expenditure for the battery. Increased battery capacity con- loss associated with charging/discharging of the battery,
tributes to the improvement in the operation ratio of the increase.
electrolyzer, reducing its capital expenditure. When the bat-
tery becomes sufficiently cheap, the installed capacity does Capacities of the battery and PV at the optimal point of
not increase further, and the capital expenditure of the bat- hydrogen production cost
tery decreases in proportion to its unit cost. The costs for
R
Powloss1 ðtÞdt are reduced by the hybridizing battery in all opt
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show the profiles of Capbat =Capely and
R
cases in Fig. 4, although the costs for Powloss2 ðtÞdt, i.e., the opt
CapPV =Capely , respectively, for UCostbat for three cases of
1458 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5

CAPEX
Fig. 5 e Profiles of Capopt 4 5 4
bat =Capely for Costbat for the three cases of Capely : 3.00 £ 10 JPY/kW (2.47 £ 10 kW), 5.00 £ 10 JPY/
ely

4 5 3 CAPEXely
kW (5.01 £ 10 kW), and 1.00 £ 10 JPY/kW (5.74 £ 10 kW). The calculation for the three cases of Capely has the range
limitation: 2.00 £ 104 JPY/kWh for the 3.00 £ 104 JPY/kW and 5.00 £ 104 JPY/kW cases and 4.00 £ 104 JPY/kWh for 1.00 £ 105
JPY/kW.

CAPEXely The threshold point must be the point where the hybridi-
Capely : 3.00  104 JPY/kW (2.47  105 kW), 5.00  104 JPY/kW
zation of the battery effectively reduces UCostH2 as shown in
(5.01  104 kW), and 1.00  105 JPY/kW (5.74  103 kW). The
Figs. 5 and 6 The higher UCostely induces higher incentives for
calculated C-rate for 54 patterns is shown in Fig. S4. By tracing
installing batteries to increase the operation ratio of the
the profiles shown in Figs. 5 and 6 from the highest to lowest
electrolyzer shown in Fig. S3, that is, the amount of produced
UCostbat , the system conditions change as observed by major
hydrogen, ProdH and decrease the costs for the electrolyzer in
inflection points. At the UCostbat of 1.00  105 JPY/kWh, no
opt UCostH2 . A small battery installation needs a relatively higher
battery storage was installed in all cases. The CapPV relative to
C-rate to adjust the intermittent power from the PV. This
the capacity of the electrolyzer is obtained to increase the
provides the threshold point for the cases with C-rate con-
amount of produced hydrogen, ProdH , by decreasing the
R straints needing a lower UCostbat than those without the C-
Powloss1 ðtÞdt. When the cost of the battery is too expensive to rate constraint. The inflection points of UCostbat for the
be installed, the capacity ratio of PV and electrolyzer does not UCostely cases without the C-rate constraint were about
change.
2.50  104, 3.30  104, and 6.50  104 JPY/kWh for 3.00  104,
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5 1459

CAPEX
Fig. 6 e Profiles of Capopt 4 5 4
PV =Capely for Costbat for the three cases of Capely : 3.00 £ 10 JPY/kW (2.47 £ 10 kW), 5.00 £ 10 JPY/
ely

4 5 3 CAPEXely
kW (5.01 £ 10 kW), and 1.00 £ 10 JPY/kW (5.74 £ 10 kW). The calculation for the three cases of Capely has the range
limitation: 2.00 £ 104 JPY/kWh for the 3.00 £ 104 JPY/kW and 5.00 £ 104 JPY/kW cases and 4.00 £ 104 JPY/kWh for 1.00 £ 105
JPY/kW.

5.00  104, and 1.00  105 JPY/kW, respectively, while they
were about 1.00  104, 1.60  104, and 3.20  104 JPY/kWh for
the cases with the C-rate limit. At the same time, the relative
capacity of the PV also increases as shown in Fig. 6. This is
because the excess PowPV ðtÞ during the daytime is provided to
the battery to use during the nighttime. Through this mech-
anism, the optimized UCostH2 is reduced as shown in Fig. 4.
At the inflection zones circled in Figs. 5 and 6, the slope
opt opt
factors of Capbat and CapPV were considerably changed to
reach pseudo-plateau regions. In these zones, the maximum
absolute value of discharging C-rate reached a constant for
opt
the entire year according to Fig. S4. This indicates that CapPV =
Capely is sufficient for supplying power to the electrolyzer
most of the day through the battery installed. The inflection
zones correspond to the extremal points of battery capital
opt
expenditure in Fig. 4. However, for Capbat =Capely , the values
opt
increase. Fig. 5(a) shows an exponential increase in Capbat
along with the reduction in Costbat under the inflection zones,
while Fig. 5(b) shows mild increase along with the reduction of
1460 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5

opt of batteries and PV, which means that its techno-economic

Costbat . In contrast, CapPV =Capely does not increase, but is
constant or decreasing along with the reduction in Costbat
under the inflection zones as shown in Fig. 6. This is because
the excess PPV ðtÞ stored in the battery cannot be transmitted to
the electrolyzer in a day due to the sufficient CapPV and Capbat
for Capely . The additional increase of excess PowPV ðtÞ cannot
effectively be utilized without sufficient Capbat . The increase
opt opt
of Capbat without the increase of CapPV recovers the loss of
excess PowPV ðtÞ and increases the operation ratio of the elec-
trolyzer as shown in Fig. S3.
The C-rate limit decreases the UCostbat threshold of
effective hybridization of the battery storage due to the in-
crease in the required Capbat . The optimized UCostH2 with the
C-rate upper limit is greater than that without the C-rate
limitation. This means that the limitation should be removed
in order to reduce the optimized UCostH2 . The evaluated C-
rate required for the cases without the C-rate constraint was
around 0.4 to 1.0 as shown in Fig. S4. While the C-rate for
charging traced the irradiation shown in Fig. 2 to store the
electricity not transmitted to electrolyzer, the C-rate for dis-
charging has a constant maximum in absolute value terms
due to the capacity of the electrolyzer. According to Fig. S4, the
profiles of the C-rate are changed by the settings of UCostelec ,
UCostbat , and UCostely . UCostbat has a relationship with the
applicable Capbat , which means that the required C-rate in-
crease results in a higher UCostbat because the smaller Capbat
is applicable. In addition, Costely has a strong relationship
with the incentives for the hybridizing battery. When UCostely
is sufficiently low and UCostbat is high, the battery should not
be hybridized to reduce UCostH2 . This is why no battery was
hybridized for the higher UCostbat at lower UCostely .
Discussion
Interpretation of obtained result
Because the technologies considered in this work are devel-
oping and emerging technologies, the techno-economic pa-
rameters may or may not go beyond the settings used in this
study. This is especially the case for the PEM electrolyzer, as
experience with it in the energy market is much less than that
performance can improve much further through large-scale
CAPEXely
production and installation. The utilized Capely and OPEXely
can be divided into the plant cost, i.e., electrolyte cell with
peripheral devices, bedding, construction, fixed asset tax,
damage insurance, maintenance, payroll, interest cost, and
administration cost [55]. Among these items, the electrolyte
cell has a large potential for improving its techno-economic
performance. The parameters for the electrolyte cell in this
study were as follows: 8.00  105 JPY/m2 for the electrolyte cell,
1.705 V for electrolysis, and 2.5 A/cm2 current density, giving
an input power of 42.625 kW/m2 [56]. This can be converted
into 1.88  104 JPY/kW to be included in the unit price of a PEM
CAPEXely
electrolyzer Capely , 5  104 JPY/kW. Because the estimation
[29] is conducted early in this century, we may expect much
technological advancement. One of the state-of-the-art cost
estimations for a polymer electrolyte fuel cell reports the
conditions as follows: 15 USD/kW at 0.75 W/cm2, i.e., at
7.5 kW/m2 [60] with a fuel cell operating voltage of 0.659 V at
1.14A/cm2. If we assume that the reverse operation of the
same cell with the electrolysis operation voltage of 1.705 V at
2.5 A/cm2 is possible, this corresponds to 2.64 USD/kW for the
cost of an electrolysis cell. Setting 110 JPY/USD, this is
2.90  102 JPY/kW at 42.625 kW/m2. Even if we assume that the
configuration and cost of the balance of electrolyzer plants are
the same, the unit price of an electrolyzer could become
3.15  104 JPY/kW from 5.00  104 JPY/kW. Assuming this
highly advanced PEM electrolyzer technology level, the
abovementioned optimization of UCostH2 was conducted for
the condition of UCostbat and UCostelec equaling 5.00  103 JPY/
kWh and 2 JPY/kWh, respectively. The electricity cost was set
to the lowest cost recorded of 0.02 USD/kWh [47]. Note that the
minimum LCOE for the PV was the record from Saudi Arabia,
i.e., from 6.69736 to 12.62521 Halalas/kWh [61], which is
1.95470e3.684808 JPY/kWh at 0.291861 JPY/Halalas.
Table 2 shows the results for the settings assuming an
advanced electrolyzer technology compared with the base
settings shown in the previous sections. The UCostH2 is under
20 JPY/Nm3 for both cases of C-rate limitation. The reduction
in UCostelec leads to the reduction in electricity and lost or cut-
off electricity (loss 1 and loss 2), which becomes two thirds of
the base setting. The developed electrolyte cell can provide

CAPEXely
Table 2 e Results of base settings and advanced technology settings for. .
Capely
Parameters w/o C-rate limitation jC-ratej  0.1
Base setting Advanced electrolyzer Base setting Advanced electrolyzer
setting setting
UCostH2 [JPY/Nm3] 25.27 17.42 26.39 18.43
Electricity 12.89 8.58 12.89 8.58
Lost electricity (loss 1) 0.62 0.42 0.64 0.41
Storage 2.64 2.53 3.74 3.29
Lost electricity (loss 2) 0.80 0.63 1.00 0.89
Electrolysis plant 3.71 2.34 3.59 2.34
Electrolysis operation 4.62 2.91 4.53 2.91
Operating ratio of electrolysis 0.66 0.66 0.68 0.66
opt
Capbat [kWh] 7.12  105 6.84  105 1.04  106 8.91  105
opt
CapPV [kW] 2.13  105 2.16  105 2.24  105 2.22  105
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5 1461

savings in the costs for the electrolyzer and its operation. The The inflection zones clarified by the optimization in this
change in the balances of UCostelec , UCostbat , and UCostely study should be referred to as a rationale for the target in
moved the optimal point of Capbat and CapPV , which results in technology roadmaps. Battery-assist has been recognized as
opt opt
the reduction in Capbat . Regarding CapPV , it is increased by the the factor for increasing hydrogen production cost according
reduction in UCostelec , which means that lost electricity can be to previous research on the hybridization of power-to-gas
opt with batteries [40]. In that work, the UCostely and UCostbat
offset by the reduced UCostbat and Capbat . In both cases of C-
were set as 550 to 949 EUR/kW and 240 to 1000 EUR/kWh,
rate limitation, the optimized UCostH2 could be reduced by ca.
respectively. The lower values were set referring to future
7 JPY/Nm3.
development targets in 2030 [66]. The battery is set for the
The results in Table 2 were compared with the previous
minimum load requirement of the electrolyzer without
studies in literature. Because various system components
connection to the power grid, resulting in an increase in
have been considered in the reported results, the comparison
hydrogen production cost for the case of 71 500 and 117 000
should be carefully conducted to adjust the premises of set-
JPY/kW for UCostely [40]. This is because the cost of the battery
tings. The results of systems with the same components, i.e.,
is not low enough to be installed. Here, we optimize the sys-
PV, battery, and electrolyzer, were extracted from a literature
tem assuming the same unit cost of 550 and 900 EUR/kW and
[40], where UCostH2 are 13.2 JPY/Nm3 for no-battery case, and
determine that ca. 60 and 120 EUR/kWh, respectively, are the
ranged from 49.0 to 59.2 JPY/Nm3 in 2030 assuming 10.78 MJ/
threshold unit costs of the battery to be installed. Apparently,
Nm3 as heat quantity. First of all, the battery assistance has no
the UCostbat target for 2030 used in the preceding study are not
effect to decrease UCostH2 in Ref. [40]. This is partly because
sufficiently low to support the economic feasibility of the
the relative ratios of capacities of component systems were
battery-assist hydrogen production; therefore, the battery
not optimized. The optimization of installation capacity ratios
cost target of 60e120 EUR/kWh should be shared among stake-
enhances the value of battery assistance. The lowest value in
holders and one should note that such targets depend on the
the reference is less than that in this work. This is because
cost target of the PV and electrolyzer.
UCostelec in the reference was set as zero. If UCostelec was set
Systems optimizations for hydrogen production should be
as zero in Table 2, the modified lowest UCostH2 could become
conducted for process design or operation. The optimization in
8.84 JPY/Nm3. Due to the optimization of installed capacity
this study revealed the inflection in the process to be designed
ratios and battery assistance, the modified lowest UCostH2 in
based on the values of battery assistance for hydrogen produc-
this work is less than that in the literature.
tion with the variables of capacities of PV, battery, and elec-
trolysis considering changes in their CAPEXs by technology
Characteristics in this evaluation
development. We can find previous studies on power-to-gas
technologies analyzing the performances of hybridization of
Optimization for system design
different technologies. For example, the maximum power
The combination of PV and electrolysis with batteries has
points (MPP) were simulated for hydrogen production by
numerous opportunities for optimization of system design.
different number of series and parallel cells of PEM electrolyzer
Their balance is significantly sensitive to hydrogen production
[62], and power generation by battery-assisted PV considering
cost due to the changes in operation ratio of the electrolysis
dynamic changes of PV output by every second [63] or applying
plant. Optimization can generate edging alternatives, which
fuzzy-logic modeling [64]. These optimizations in process op-
are the alternatives related to the Pareto solutions of
opt opt erations are based on fixed capacities and CAPEX of devices,
Capbat =Capely and CapPV =Capely ; by screening the possibilities
rather than the dynamic simulation of power management [65],
of the combinations. The optimization of UCostH2 by adjusting although the power management in this study was defined as
Capbat and CapPV clarifies the optimized installation capacities the algorithm represented in the equations in Section Evaluation
of battery-assisted electrolyzers utilizing the electricity from algorithm of hydrogen production cost. Optimizations of both
the PV at the set of UCostelec , UCostbat , and UCostely . UCostelec the design and operation of systems should be addressed for
has a relationship with the utilization ratio of generated obtaining optimal hydrogen production under the conditions on
electricity by the PV. When UCostelec and UCostbat are suffi- the renewable resources as primary energy sources, which de-
ciently high and low, respectively, the utilization ratio of pends on the technology levels of renewable resource utiliza-
generated electricity approaches 100% to avoid discarding tion. Such optimization, however, may require heavy
electricity. However, the results shown in Fig. 4 demonstrate computational costs if one intends to obtain rigorous solutions.
that the optimal settings are not always for 100% use of The results in this study mean the preliminary sets of capacities
generated electricity. In Fig. 5, the values around the lowest and CAPEXs near to optimal, which can become the initial values
UCostbat sharply increase, which means that the required for integrated optimization of process design and operation.
relative capacity of the battery is considerably large to recover
all of the generated electricity. This is because the vertical axis
Limitation of modeling
gives the capacity of the battery at the optimal point. The
The evaluation results are limited in their numerical accuracy
relative battery capacity in Fig. 5 increases as UCostbat de-
originating from the assumption and premises in the adopted
creases. Through optimization of the adjustable parameters,
data and models. One of the major premises in the data is that
i.e., Capbat and CapPV and with changes in UCostelec , UCostbat ,
hourly data for irradiation are defined as the minimum unit of
and UCostely , the rationale for the targets in technology
data shown in Fig. 2. To represent the actual behavior for bat-
development can be examined. tery storage and the electrolyzer, the data should be obtained
1462 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5
with much shorter time interval, such as a second. Such
detailed data are not available for irradiation and PV. The use of
such data will be useful in identifying the actual battery cycle
characteristics and may influence the C-rate requirement of
the battery. The required C-rate will change the electrode
design; i.e. dense packing of the electrode for high capacity but
low C-rate and loose packing for low-capacity and high C-rate.
Note that the latter may result in higher capital expenditure for
the battery. At the same time, Pely ðtÞ can be stabilized via bat-
tery storage for such actual fluctuations because battery stor-
age can adjust the voltage profiles of Pely ðtÞ. These conditions
are not included in the simulations evaluated in this study.
The lifetimes of the battery and electrolyzer are defined
since their operating ratios have no relationship with the
lifetimes. However, the actual lifetimes should take into ac-
count their usage. For batteries, the C-rate should be adjusted
to the design range to avoid electrode degradation [67].
Although the actual lifetime is often defined as cycle times,
the full charging/discharging is not always found during
actual use. As for the electrolyzer, the operational conditions,
such as operating ratio and start-up/shut-down frequency,
become the factors for lifetime [68]. The estimation of lifetime
under certain conditions of use should be conducted for
analyzing the practical expenditures, otherwise the analysis
cannot represent the actual situation even if detailed data
with short time intervals could become available.
The optimization of UCostH2 by adjusting Capbat and CapPV
in this study is classified as a nonlinear and multiple solutions
problem. If rigorous solutions should be obtained, applied
optimization methods could be changed to another algorithm.
In this study, the golden-section search [59] was employed for
simplification. Although multiple solutions can be found, the
optimized UCostH2 is not changed much because the effects of
changes in Capbat and CapPV are physically understood as
explained in Section Results and are monotonic. However, the
optimized UCostH2 can become less than the current values by
applying rigorous optimization methods for nonlinear and
multiple solution problems.
Limitation of evaluation indicators
In addition to economic aspects of hydrogen production, so-
cial and environmental aspects should be also examined. The
social acceptance of hydrogen and other energy technologies
is one of the most important concerns for social imple-
mentation and has been assessed through various ap-
proaches [69] including analyses on, for example,
transportation in Spain [70] and fuel cell vehicles in London
[71]. The environmental impacts are also one of most impor-
tant concerns in massive implementation of hydrogen pro-
duction. As for the key impact categories induced by battery,
abiotic depletion, acidification, and human toxicity have
higher potential environmental impacts than global warming
[72], which were confirmed for various types of batteries [73].
PV cell production is also associated with various environ-
mental impacts as analyzed in and retrieved from ecoinvent
[74], the largest life-cycle inventory database in the world.
Fig. S5 and Fig. S6 show the results of cradle-to-gate life cycle
assessment on Li-ion battery in ecoinvent, and two types of
PV cell productions represented by other impact assessment
methods. Although the results are different due to the dif-
ferences in the settings and scopes of impact assessment
methods [75], not only climate change caused by global
warming, but also other environmental impacts should be
taken into account for battery and PV cells as a part of
chemical risk management [76].
Rational target settings for future technology systems
A technology roadmap is a map illustrating the future direc-
tion of technological development for advancing technologies
and fostering understanding among stakeholders. By articu-
lating technological development and plans, research and
development can be accelerated by enabling a concentration
of effort toward technological options selected in the roadmap
[77]. In this study, the target values for techno-economic
performance of electricity from PV, battery storage, and elec-
trolysis were acquired from their roadmaps articulated by
NEDO of Japan [44,45,56] and the US DOE [46]. NEDO and DOE
are some of the largest organizations promoting research and
development and deployment of industrial, energy, and
environmental technologies into society. The roadmaps from
such organizations have the potential to direct technology
development toward their target settings and change the
technology readiness levels. The roadmaps for the three
technologies are articulated separately, in addition to road-
maps for hydrogen production. While these roadmaps
implicitly refer to the other roadmaps, they separately set
targets that do not guarantee the feasibility of the systems
integrating each technology. The results from this study give
an example of determining research targets rationally.
Specifically, the target values of UCostH2 are found to be 30
JPY/Nm3 [78,79] or 20 JPY/Nm3 [80]. The results in this study
show the possibility of achieving the target values of UCostH2
through the combination of technologies along with the in-
dividual technology development from the roadmaps for
batteries, PV, and electrolyzers. Batteries have the potential
to support the reduction in UCostH2 by increasing the oper-
ating ratio of electrolyzers. The thresholds of UCostbat to
reduce UCostH2 are 1.00  104 to 6.50  104 JPY/kWh associ-
ated with UCostely . This indicates that greater development
of electrolyzer technologies leads to lower Capbat to assist in
hydrogen production. In other words, batteries can assist the
reduction in UCostH2 even if electrolyzers cannot develop
according to its technology roadmap. As shown in Fig. 4, the
dominant component of UCostH2 is the electricity for elec-
trolysis, which means that the sensitivity of an electrolyzer
to battery assistance is low. The C-rate required for battery-
assisted hydrogen production is ranges widely depending
on Capbat , which are obtained through the optimization of
UCostH2 with CapPV . We note that the C-rate for assisting
hydrogen production in this study is much less than that for
electric vehicles, i.e., 2.14 calculated from the battery road-
map of Japan [45]. Due to the significant demand for batteries
for vehicles, the technology development of batteries has
been directed for such usage. If this is shifted to assistance
for hydrogen production, the required C-rate should be
addressed by investigating irradiation patterns and the
optimal CapPV .
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5
Conclusion
A techno-economic analysis was conducted for off-grid
hydrogen production from PV utilizing battery-assisted elec-
trolyzers. A key finding is that battery assistance can contribute
to lower-cost hydrogen production when a reasonably cheap
battery cost is realized as well as when an appropriate system
is configured. The ratios of installed capacities of the PV, bat-
tery, and electrolyzer determine whether the battery should be
implemented. The realization of the future cost targets in the
individual technology roadmaps of PV, electrolyzers, and bat-
teries support cost-competitive hydrogen production in future
energy markets. The battery-assisted hydrogen production
from PV can become a solution for utilizing renewable energy
in distributed systems free from the grid-connection re-
strictions to avoid an extreme instability induced by the
intermittency of the installed PV outputs. The requirement for
the C-rate range of batteries is also one of findings of this study.
The C-rate of batteries for electric vehicle requires a rapid
response for the changes in driving mode as well as the con-
sumer need for quick charging. In contrast, the cycle rate for
charging and discharging in battery-assisted hydrogen pro-
duction are determined by solar irradiation and hydrogen
production at the electrolyzer. In this case, the C-rate require-
ment for the batteries are found to be much slower than that
for electric vehicles, while most of battery roadmaps aim to
achieve higher C-rates for electric vehicle application. The C-
rate for batteries clarified in this study can be a rational target
of research and development for battery applications in
hydrogen production from PV. This study can be an example of
rationally setting research and development targets for future
advanced technology supported by simulation-based analysis.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Mr. Narihisa Sako for his support in the
calculation of hydrogen production costs. Part of this study
was financially supported by MEXT Program for Integrated
Materials Development and JSPS KAKENHI [16H06126 (Young
Scientists A)]. Activities of the Presidential Endowed Chair for
“Platinum Society” in the University of Tokyo are supported by
the KAITEKI Institute Incorporated, Mitsui Fudosan Corpora-
tion, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., ORIX Corporation, Sekisui
House, Ltd., and the East Japan Railway Company.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.11.119.
references
[1] United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. 2015. http://
www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-
development-goals/.
1463
[2] United Nations The Paris Agreement. 2016. 14 April 2017,
http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php.
[3] Kikuchi Y. Simulation-Based Approaches for Design of Smart
Energy System: A Review Applying Bibliometric Analysis. J
Chem Eng Jpn 2017;50(6):385e96. https://doi.org/10.1252/
jcej.16we374.
[4] Koyama M, Kimura S, Kikuchi Y, Nakagaki T, Itaoka K.
Present Status and Points of Discussion for Future Energy
Systems in Japan from the Aspects of Technology Options. J
Chem Eng Jpn 2014;47(7):499e513.
[5] Ministry of Environment, Japan. Investigating the possibility
of implementing decentralized energy such as renewable
energy. 2014. https://www.env.go.jp/earth/report/h27-01/
H26_RE_top.pdf.
[6] Buttler A, Spliethoff H. Current status of water electrolysis
for energy storage, grid balancing and sector coupling via
power-to-gas and power-to-liquids: A review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2018;82(3):2440e54.
[7] Go€ tz M, Lefebvre J, Mo
€ rs F, Koch AM, Graf F, Bajohr S,
Reimert R, Kolb T. Renewable Power-to-Gas: A technological
and economic review. Renew Energy 2016;85:1371e90.
[8] Dincer I, Zamfirescu C. Sustainable hydrogen production
options and the role of IAHE. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37:16266e86.
[9] Dincer I, Ratlamwala TAH. Development of novel renewable
energy based hydrogen production systems: A comparative
study. Energy Convers Manag 2013;72:77e87.
[10] Al-Zareer M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Development and
assessment of a new solar heliostat field based system using
a thermochemical water decomposition cycle integrated
with hydrogen compression. Sol Energy 2017;151:186e201.
[11] Licht S, Chitayat O, Bergmann H, Dick A, Ayub H, Ghosh S.
Efficient STEP (solar thermal electrochemical photo)
production of hydrogen e an economic assessment. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:10867e82.
[12] Sayyaadi H, Boroujeni MS. Conceptual design, process
integration, and optimization of a solar CuCl
thermochemical hydrogen production plant. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2017;42(5):2771e89.
[13] Ozcan H, Dincer I. Energy and exergy analyses of a solar
based hydrogen production and compression system. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(33):21414e28.
[14] Cilogulları M, Erden M, Karakilcik M, Dincer I. Investigation
of hydrogen production performance of a Photovoltaic and
Thermal System. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:2547e52.
[15] AlZahrani AA, Dincer I. Design and analysis of a solar tower
based integrated system using high temperature electrolyzer
for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41(19):8042e56.
[16] Demir ME, Dincer I, Development of a hybrid solar thermal
system with TEG and PEM electrolyzer for hydrogen and
power production, Int J Hydrogen Energy, 42(51):
30044e30056.
[17] Nafchi FM, Baniasadi E, Afshari E, Javani N. Performance
assessment of a solar hydrogen and electricity production
plant using high temperature PEM electrolyzer and energy
storage. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(11):5820e31.
[18] Schiebahn S, Grube T, Robinius M, Tietze V, Kumar B,
Stolten D. Power to gas: Technological overview, systems
analysis and economic assessment for a case study in
Germany. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(12):4285e94.
[19] Qadrdan M, Abeysekera M, Chaudry M, Wu JZ, Jenkins N.
Role of power-to-gas in an integrated gas and electricity
system in Great Britain. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2015;40(17):5763e75.
[20] Go€ kçek M. Hydrogen generation from small-scale wind-
powered electrolysis system in different power matching
modes. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:10050e9.
1464 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5
[21] Ghaib K, Ben-Fares FZ. Power-to-Methane: A state-of-the-art
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:433e46.
[22] Zoss T, Dace E, Blumberga D. Modeling a power-to-
renewable methane system for an assessment of power grid
balancing options in the Baltic States' region. Appl Energy
2016;170:278e85.
[23] Parra D, Zhang X, Bauer C, Patel MK. An integrated techno-
economic and life cycle environmental assessment of
power-to-gas systems. Appl Energy 2017;193:440e54.
[24] Rivera-Tinoco R, Farran M, Bouallou C, Aupretre F,
Valentin S, Millet P, Ngameni JR. Investigation of power-to-
methanol processes coupling electrolytic hydrogen
production and catalytic CO2 reduction. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2016;41(8):4546e59.
[25] Tsupari E, Karki J, Vakkilainen E. Economic feasibility of
power-to-gas integrated with biomass fired CHP plant. J
Energ Stor 2016;5:62e9.
[26] Otto A, Robinius M, Grube T, Schiebahn S, Praktiknjo A,
Stolten D. Power-to-Steel: Reducing CO2 through the
Integration of Renewable Energy and Hydrogen into the
German Steel Industry. Energies 2017;10(4):451.
[27] McKenna RC, Bchini Q, Weinand JM, Michaelis J, Konig S,
Koppel W, Fichtner W. The future role of Power-to-Gas in the
energy transition: Regional and local techno-economic
analyses in Baden-Wurttemberg. Appl Energy
2018;212:386e400.
[28] Posso F, Sa nchez J, Espinoza JL, Siguencia J. Preliminary
estimation of electrolytic hydrogen production potential
from renewable energies in Ecuador. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41:2326e44.
[29] Joshi AS, Dincer I, Reddy BV. Solar hydrogen production: A
comparative performance assessment. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2011;36(17):11246e57.
[30] Dincer I, Acar C. Review and evaluation of hydrogen
production methods for better sustainability. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2015;40:11094e111.
[31] Joshi AS, Dincer I, Reddy BV. Exergetic assessment of solar
hydrogen production methods. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2010;35(10):4901e6.
[32] Kalogirou SA, Karellas S, Braimakis K, Stanciu C, Badescu V.
Exergy analysis of solar thermal collectors and processes.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 2016;56:106e37.
[33] Joshi AS, Dincer I, Reddy BV. Effects of various parameters on
energy and exergy efficiencies of a solar thermal hydrogen
production system. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41(19):7997e8007.
[34] Gutierrez-Martı́n F, Ochoa-Mendoza A, Rodrı́guez-Anto  n LM.
Pre-investigation of water electrolysis for flexible energy
storage at large scales: the case of the Spanish power system.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(15):5544e51.
[35] Van Dael M, Kreps S, Virag A, Kessels K, Remans K,
Thomas D, De Wilde F. Techno-economic assessment of a
microbial power-to-gas plant - Case study in Belgium. Appl
Energy 2018;215:416e25.
[36] Lee B, Chae H, Choi NH, Moon C, Moon S, Lim H. Economic
evaluation with sensitivity and profitability analysis for
hydrogen production from water electrolysis in Korea. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:6462e71.
[37] Yao J, Kraussler M, Benedikt F, Hofbauer H. Techno-
economic assessment of hydrogen production based on dual
fluidized bed biomass steam gasification, biogas steam
reforming, and alkaline water electrolysis processes. Energy
Convers Manag 2017;145:278e92.
[38] Han X, Qu Y, Dong Y, Zhao J, Jia L, Yu Y, Zhang P, Li D, Ren N,
Feng Y. Microbial electrolysis cell powered by an aluminum-
air battery for hydrogen generation, in-situ coagulant
production and wastewater treatment. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:7764e72.
[39] Shaner MR, Atwater HA, Lewis NS, McFarland EW. A
comparative technoeconomic analysis of renewable
hydrogen production using solar energy. Energy Environ Sci
2016;9:2354e71.
[40] Gillessen B, Heinrichs HU, Stenzel P, Linssen J. Hybridization
strategies of power-to-gas systems and battery storage using
renewable energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:13555e67.
[41] Belmonte N, Girgenti V, Florian P, Peano C, Luetto C, Rizzi P,
Baricco M. A comparison of energy storage from renewable
sources through batteries and fuel cells: A case study in
Turin, Italy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:21427e38.
[42] Shabani B, Andrews J, Watkins S. Energy and cost analysis of
a solar-hydrogen combined heat and power system for
remote power supply using a computer simulation. Sol
Energy 2010;84:144e55.
[43] Lagorse J, Simo ~ es MG, Miraoui A, Costerg P. Energy cost
analysis of a solar-hydrogen hybrid energy system for stand-
alone applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:2871e9.
[44] NEDO (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development
Organization). NEDO PV Challenges: Strategy in solar cell
development. 2014. Available from, http://www.nedo.go.jp/
content/100573590.pdf [in Japanese only].
[45] NEDO (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development
Organization). Battery RM2013: Roadmap of technology
development on secondary battery. 2013. Available from:
http://www.nedo.go.jp/content/100535728.pdf [in Japanese
only].
[46] USDOE (US Department of Energy). The SunShot Initiative's
2030 Goal. 2016. Available from: https://www.energy.gov/
sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/SunShot%202030%20Fact%
20Sheet-12_16.pdf.
[47] IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). Renewable
Power Generation Costs in 2017. 2018. Available from:
https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/
Publication/2018/Jan/IRENA_2017_Power_Costs_2018.pdf.
[48] Berckmans G, Messagie M, Smekens J, Omar N,
Vanhaverbeke L, Mierlo JV. Cost Projection of State of the Art
Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles Up to 2030.
Energies 2017;10:1314e33.
[49] Nykvist B, Nilsson M. Rapidly falling costs of battery packs
for electric vehicles. Nat Clim Change 2015;5:329e32.
[50] Vehicle Technologies Office, USDOE (US Department of
Energy). Overview of the DOE VTO Advanced Battery R&D
Program. Available from: https://www.energy.gov/sites/
prod/files/2016/06/f32/es000_howell_2016_o_web.pdf.
[51] Samsung SDI. Smart battery systems for energy storage. 2016.
20.09.2016]; Available from: http://www.samsungsdi.com/
upload/ess_brochure/Samsung%20SDI%20brochure_EN.pdf.
[52] Leclanche. Graphite/NMC industrial storage. Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, Study on development of water
electrolysis in the EU; 2016. 20.09.2016]. Available from:
http://www.leclanche.com/technology-products/products/
graphitenmc-racks/. http://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/
default/files/FCHJUElectrolysisStudy_FullReport%20(ID%
20199214).pdf. 2014. Available from.
[53] International Energy Agency. Technology Roadmap:
Hydrogen and fuel cells. 2015. Available from: https://www.
iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
TechnologyRoadmapHydrogenandFuelCells.pdf.
[54] CO2 free hydrogen working group. 2017. Available from:
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2016/03/20170307003/
20170307003.html [in Japanese only].
[55] Asaoka Y, Uotani M. Feasibility study on hydrogen
production with off-peak electricity. -Evaluation of the
effects of availability and electric power transmission. CRIEPI
report No. T02039. 2003.
[56] NEDO (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development
Organization). Reports of World Energy Network (WE-NET)
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 4 5 1 e1 4 6 5
projects. 2003. Available from: https://www.enaa.or.jp/WE-
NET/report/report_j.html [in Japanese only].
[57] Parra D, Patel MK. Techno-economic implications of the
electrolyser technology and size for power-to-gas systems.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(6):3748e61.
[58] The Japan Gas Association. Supply of city gas in Japan
(original title in Japanese). 2017. http://www.gas.or.jp/
gastodokumade/kyokyu/.
[59] Kiefer J. Sequential minimax search for a maximum. Proc
Am Math Soc 1953;4(3):502e6. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2032161, JSTOR 2032161, MR 0055639.
[60] USDOE. DOE hydrogen and fuel cells program record. 2016.
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/16020_fuel_cell_
system_cost_2016.pdf.
[61] Renewable Energy Project Development Office. Saudi Arabia
Opens Bids for First Utility e Scale 300 MW Solar PV Project.
2017. https://www.powersaudiarabia.com.sa/web/attach/
news/PRESS-RELEASE-Sakaka-Bid-Opening.pdf.
[62] Sayedin F, Maroufmashat A, Sattari S, Elkamel A,
Fowler Michael. Optimization of Photovoltaic Electrolyzer
Hybrid systems; taking into account the effect of climate
conditions. Energy Convers Manag 2016;118:438e49.
[63] Meskani A, Haddi A, Becherif M. Modeling and simulation of
a hybrid energy source based on solar energy and battery. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:13702e7.
[64] Lekhchine S, Bahi T, Abadlia I, Bouzeria H. PV-battery energy
storage system operating of asynchronous motor driven by
using fuzzy sliding mode control. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:8756e64.
[65] Cano MH, Kelouwani S, Agbossou K, Dube  Y. Power
management system for off-grid hydrogen production based
on uncertainty. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:7260e72.
[66] Bertuccioli L, Chan A, Hart D, Lehner F, Madden B, Standen E.
Development ofwater electrolysis intheEuropeanUnion.
2014. https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/study%
20electrolyser_0-Logos_0_0.pdf.
[67] Kim S, Wee J, Peters K, Shadow Huang HY. Multiphysics
coupling in lithium-ion batteries with reconstructed porous
microstructures. J Phys Chem C 2018;122(10):5280e90.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b12388.
[68] Feng Q, Yuan XZ, Liu G, Wei B, Zhang Z, Li H, Wang H. A
review of proton exchange membrane water electrolysis on
degradation mechanisms and mitigation strategies. J Power
Sources 2017;366(31):33e55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2017.09.006.
1465
[69] Gaede J, Rowlands IH. Visualizing social acceptance research
A bibliometric review of the social acceptance literature for
energy technology and fuels. Energ Res Soc Sci
2018;40:142e58.
[70] Iribarren D, Martı́n-Gamboa M, Manzano J, Dufour J.
Assessing the social acceptance of hydrogen for
transportation in Spain: An unintentional focus on target
population for a potential hydrogen economy. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2016;41:5203e8.
[71] Mourato S, Saynor B, Hart D. Greening London's black cabs:
a study of driver's preferences for fuel cell taxis. Energy Pol
2004;32:685e95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)
00335-X.
[72] Peters JF, Baumann M, Zimmermann B, Braun J, Weil M. The
environmental impact of Li-Ion batteries and the role of key
parameters e A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;67:491e506.
[73] Peters JF, Weil M. Providing a common base for life cycle
assessments of Li-Ion batteries. J Clean Prod 2018;171:704e13.
[74] ecoinvent, ecoinvent v3.3. 2016. https://www.ecoinvent.org/.
[75] Bare JC, Gloria TP. Critical Analysis of the Mathematical
Relationships and Comprehensiveness of Life Cycle Impact
Assessment Approaches. Environ Sci Technol
2006;40:1104e13.
[76] Kikuchi Y, Hirao M. Risk Classification and Identification for
Chemicals Management in Process Design. J Chem Eng Jpn
2013;46(7):488e500.
[77] Kato Y, Koyama M, Fukushima Y, Nakagaki T. Energy
Technology Roadmaps of Japan; Future Energy Systems
Based on Feasible Technologies Beyond 2030. Tokyo:
Springer; 2016. ISBN13: 9784431559498.
[78] Center for Research and Development Strategy, Japan
Science and Technology Agency. Strategic Proposal:
Fundamental Technology of Energy Carriers for
Transportation, Storage and Utilization of Renewable Energy.
2012. CRDS-FY2012-SP-08, https://www.jst.go.jp/crds/pdf/
2012/SP/CRDS-FY2012-SP-08.pdf.
[79] The Institute of Applied Energy, Japan. A report on research
of scenario to implement hydrogen energy wihout carbon
dioxide emission. 2017. http://www.iae.or.jp/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/ap-fy2017_r3.pdf.
[80] Council of Ministers on renewable energy and hydrogen in
the Cabinet Office. Japan. Basic strategy on hydrogen energy.
2017. https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/saisei_energy/pdf/
hydrogen_basic_strategy.pdf.