UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON

SOLAR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION USING

WATER ELECTROLYSIS
DESIGN STUDY OF A STAND-ALONE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
SYSTEM POWERED BY PHOTOVOLTAICS AND ASSISTED BY
BATTERIES WITH THE AIM OF ELECTROLYSER SUSTAINABLE
OPERATION

BY

IOANNIS D. SPYROU

AND SUPERVISED BY

Prof. T. MARKVART Dr. C. PONCE DE LE

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MSc in SUSTAINABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

ENGINEERING SCIENCES SCHOOL

SEPTEMBER 2010

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON
ABSTRACT
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES
Master of Science
SOLAR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION USING WATER ELECTROLYSIS
DESIGN STUDY OF A STAND-ALONE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION SYSTEM POWERED BY
PHOTOVOLTAICS AND ASSISTED BY BATTERIES WITH THE AIM OF ELECTROLYSER
SUSTAINABLE OPERATION
By Ioannis D. Spyrou

The study of a stand-alone electrolysis system powered by photovoltaics (PV) and

batteries is undertaken by the discussed project. Literature review in the area showed
concerns about the theoretical ability of electrolysers to operate in widely variable
power input. Hence, batteries incorporation was decided for stabilizing the power input
to electrolyser and eliminating the on-off switching of it. The energy simulation of
system operation is approached, developing a power management strategy with
respect to electrolyser limitations and assuming a constant daily fuel demand. In
addition, model developed is used for the techno-economic optimization of the system
resulting to optimal sized systems. Results showed that respect of electrolyser
constraints, best energy exploitation and demand satisfaction cannot be simultaneously
compromised due to their competitive nature. Consequently, optimal economic system,
of high reliability (99.5%), exported for a favorable area (Athens) is featured by 33%
energy rejection and 4.1% solar to hydrogen conversion efficiency. Also, parametric
studies investigated how system sizing is affected by variables as location, reliability and
fuel demand are. General trends for system sizing are highlighted. Moreover, optimal
economic system is found to have reasonable sizing for 80% reliability resulting only to
4% energy rejection. Finally, hydrogen production costs in high reliable systems, even
under future capital costs reduction, make the investment unattractive. Installation
subsidizing and full exploitation of system capabilities (energy production surplus,
oxygen production) are suggested for system economics improvement.

CONTENTS
CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................1
LISTOFFIGURES................................................................................................................4
LISTOFTABLES..................................................................................................................6
LISTOFABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................10
1.

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................11

2.

PROJECTFEATURES.................................................................................................13
2.1. GENERALDESCRIPTIONOFTHESYSTEM..........................................................13
2.2. AIMS&OBJECTIVESOFTHEPROJECT..............................................................14
2.3. THENOVELTYOFTHEPROJECT........................................................................15

3.

LITERATUREREVIEW...............................................................................................16
3.1. HYDROGENFUELSTATIONSSIMULATIONSTUDIES&ANAPPLICATION......16
3.2. DIRECTCOUPLINGOFPVANDELECTROLYSERMODELING&EXPERIMENTAL
RESULTS.......................................................................................................................20
3.3. THELIMITATIONSOFCOUPLINGPVANDELECTROLYSER...............................24
3.4. WAYSTOOVERCOMECOUPLINGLIMITATIONS..............................................26
3.5. SUMMARY........................................................................................................28

4.

MODELDESCRIPTION..............................................................................................30
4.1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................30
4.2. DATAINPUTSUBSYSTEMSMODELINGDESCRIPTION...................................32
4.2.1.

TECHNICAL................................................................................................32

4.2.1.1.

PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY......................................................................33

4.2.1.2.

HYDROGENFUELDEMAND................................................................35

4.2.1.3.

BATTERIES..........................................................................................36

4.2.1.4.

ELECTROLYSER...................................................................................41

4.2.1.5.

HYDROGENSTORAGETANK..............................................................43

4.2.2.

ECONOMICS..............................................................................................44
1

4.2.2.1.

PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY......................................................................45

4.2.2.2.

BATTERIES..........................................................................................46

4.2.2.3.

ELECTROLYSER...................................................................................46

4.2.2.4.

HYDROGENSTORAGETANK..............................................................48

4.2.2.5.

SYSTEM..............................................................................................49

4.3. POWERMANAGEMENTSTRATEGY..................................................................49
4.3.1.

ELECTROLYSEROPERATIONCONSTRAINTS..............................................52

4.3.2.

ENERGYPRODUCTIONMANAGEMENT.....................................................54

4.4. RESULTSOUTPUT.............................................................................................58
5.

RESULTS...................................................................................................................61
5.1. CASESTUDY......................................................................................................61
5.2. SINGLEOBJECTIVEOPTIMIZATION...................................................................66
5.3. PARAMETRICSTUDIES......................................................................................69
5.3.1.

LOCATION..................................................................................................69

5.3.2.

RELIABILTY.................................................................................................71

5.3.3.

NUMBEROFCARSREFUELED....................................................................74

5.3.4.

HYDROGENAUTONOMY...........................................................................75

5.3.5.

CAPITALCOSTREDUCTION.......................................................................77

5.4. DOUBLEOBJECTIVEOPTIMIZATION.................................................................79

6.

5.4.1.

ELECTROLYSERMINIMUMOPERATIONHOURSENERGYAUTONOMY..80

5.4.2.

ELECTROLYSERCYCLESENERGYAYTONOMY.........................................81

5.4.3.

PVELECTROLYSERCAPACITYFACTORS..................................................82

DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................84
6.1. OPERATION.......................................................................................................84
6.2. SIZING...............................................................................................................85
6.3. PERFORMANCE.................................................................................................88
6.4. HYDROGENPRODUCTIONCOST.......................................................................90

7.

CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................93

APPENDIX........................................................................................................................95

A. PVFUNCTION......................................................................................................95
B. BATTERIESFUNCTION.........................................................................................96
C.

ELECTROLYSERFUNCTION..................................................................................98

D. STORAGETANKFUNCTION.................................................................................99
E.

POWERMANAGEMENTSTRATEGYFUNCTION.................................................100

F.

ECONOMICSFUNCTION....................................................................................104

G. FUELDEMANDFUNCTION................................................................................105
H. SYSTEMFUNCTION............................................................................................106
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................114

LISTOFFIGURES
FIGURE1SIMPLIFIEDSOLARHYDROGENSYSTEMSCHEME.....................................................................13
FIGURE2SCHEMATICDIAGRAMOFTHEENERGYANDMATERIALSFLOWINHOMESOLARHYDROGEN
PRODUCTIONSYSTEM[17]........................................................................................................17

FIGURE3THELEVELIZEDSOLARHYDROGENCOSTVERSUSTHEAVERAGEYEARLYTOTALSOLARENERGYONTHE
HORIZONTALSURFACEFORFIXEDANDTRACKINGPANELSSYSTEMS[13]...........................................18

FIGURE4ACORRELATIONFORHYDROGENCOSTFORFIXEDANDSUNTRACKINGPANELS[12].....................19
FIGURE5CHARACTERISTICOFELECTROLYSERANDMAXIMUMPOWERPOINTSOFPVFOROPTIMAL
CONFIGURATIONOFPEMCELLSANDPVPANELS[18]..................................................................20

FIGURE6ELECTROLYZEREFFICIENCYVERSUSELECTROLYZERCELLTEMPERATUREFORARELATIVELYCONSTANT
CURRENT(125130A)MEASUREDOVERTHE14DAYSTUDYPERIOD[5].........................................21

FIGURE7AVERAGESOLARHYDROGENPRODUCTIONEFFICIENCYUSINGPVELECTROLYSERSYSTEMSWITHDC
DCCONVERTERSFOROPTIMIZATIONVERSUSDIRECTCONNECTION[15]...........................................22
FIGURE8MEASUREDSTACKVIANDEFFICIENCYINITIALLY(LEFT)ANDOVER5DATAPERIOD(RIGHT)FORA13
CELLSTACK[6].......................................................................................................................23

FIGURE9ELECTROLYSERCYCLESVSHYSTERESISANDSTATEOFCHARGEOFBATTERY[9]............................26
FIGURE10MODELOVERVIEW........................................................................................................31
FIGURE11FLOWCHARTOFBATTERIESSUBROUTINE...........................................................................37
FIGURE12ELECTROLYSERCOMPONENTCOSTSOBTAINEDFROM10MAJORSUPPLIERSINEUROPE[35].......47
FIGURE13PRICE/CAPACITYRELATIONSFORCOMMERCIALLYAVAILABLECOMPRESSEDSTORAGEOPTIONSFOR
HYDROGENINTHEMEDIUMTOLARGESCALERANGE[35]............................................................48

FIGURE14POWERMANAGEMENTSTRATEGYFLOWCHART..................................................................50
FIGURE15CONSUMPTIONSOURCESFORPVPOWERPRODUCTION(WINTERWEEK)................................62
FIGURE16ELECTROLYSERPOWERINGSOURCES(WINTERWEEK)...........................................................62
FIGURE17BATTERIESANDSTORAGETANKSTATUSVARIATION(WINTERWEEK).......................................63
FIGURE18CONSUMPTIONSOURCESFORPVPOWERPRODUCTION(SUMMERWEEK)...............................63
FIGURE19ELECTROLYSERPOWERINGSOURCES(SUMMERWEEK)..........................................................64
FIGURE20BATTERIESANDSTORAGETANKSTATUSVARIATION(SUMMERWEEK)......................................64
FIGURE21BATTERIESANDSTORAGETANKSTATUSVARIATION(ANNUAL)...............................................65
FIGURE22CONVERGENCEINSINGLEOBJECTIVEOPTIMIZATION............................................................67
FIGURE23CAPITAL(LEFT)/MAINTENANCE(RIGHT)COSTSHAREINTHEOPTIMUMSYSTEM.....................68
FIGURE24PRODUCTIONCOSTVARIATIONREGARDINGTHEANNUALSOLARENERGYDENSITY....................70
FIGURE25ELECTROLYSERCYCLESVSANNUALSOLARENERGYDENSITYINOPTIMALECONOMICSYSTEMS.....71
FIGURE26EFFECTOFSYSTEMRELIABILITYONSPECIFICPRODUCTIONCOSTOFOPTIMUMECONOMICSYSTEM72

FIGURE27RATIOOFPVTOELECTROLYSERINSTALLEDPOWERREQUIREDFORVARIOUSLEVELSOFRELIABILITY
............................................................................................................................................72
FIGURE28PERFORMANCEINDICATORSOFOPTIMUMECONOMICSYSTEMSWITHDIFFERENTRELIABILITY.....73
FIGURE29PV/ELECTROLYSERINSTALLEDPOWERINOPTIMALECONOMICSYSTEMSFORDIFFERENTFUEL
DEMAND(CARSREFUELED).......................................................................................................74

FIGURE30OPTIMALPRODUCTIONCOSTVARIATIONWITHTHENUMBEROFCARSREFUELLEDBYSTATION....75
FIGURE31HOURSOFAUTONOMYREQUIREDBYBATTERIESVSDAYSOFAUTONOMYPROVIDEDBYSTORAGE
TANKINOPTIMALECONOMICSYSTEMS.......................................................................................76

FIGURE32OPTIMALPRODUCTIONCOSTFORDIFFERENTDAYSOFAUTONOMY(STORAGETANK)REQUIRED..77
FIGURE33OPTIMALHYDROGENPRODUCTIONCOSTFORDIFFERENTFUELDEMAND(CARSREFUELLED)UNDER
THREESCENARIOSOFPVANDELECTROLYSERCAPITALCOSTREDUCTION...........................................78

FIGURE34PERFORMANCEINDICATORSFOROPTIMALECONOMICSYSTEMSABLETOREFUEL2CARSUNDER
DIFFERENTCAPITALCOSTREDUCTIONSCENARIOS.........................................................................78

FIGURE35ENERGYAUTONOMYVSMINIMUMELECTROLYSEROPERATIONFOR99.5%RELIABLESYSTEM.....80
FIGURE36ENERGYAUTONOMYVSELECTROLYSERCYCLESFORA99.5%RELIABLESYSTEM.......................81
FIGURE37RELATIONSHIPBETWEENOPTIMALPVANDELECTROLYSERCAPACITYFACTORS.........................82

LISTOFTABLES
TABLE1MODELVARIABLES............................................................................................................33
TABLE2PVARRAYSUBROUTINESUMMARY&CONSTANTDATA......................................................34
TABLE3FUELDEMANDSUBROUTINESUMMARY&CONSTANTDATA................................................36
TABLE4BATTERIESSUBROUTINESUMMARY&CONSTANTDATA.......................................................38
TABLE5ELECTROLYSERSUBROUTINESUMMARY&CONSTANTDATA.................................................41
TABLE6STORAGETANKSUBROUTINESUMMARY&CONSTANTDATA................................................43
TABLE7ECONOMICSSUBROUTINESUMMARY&CONSTANTDATA...................................................44
TABLE8STRATEGYSUBROUTINESUMMARY&CONSTANTDATA......................................................51
TABLE9CASESTUDYSYSTEMPARAMETERS......................................................................................61
TABLE10CASESTUDYRESULTS......................................................................................................65
TABLE11SINGLEOBJECTIVEOPTIMIZATIONSPECIFICPRODUCTIONCOSTPARAMETERSVALUESRANGE......66
TABLE12SINGLEOBJECTIVEOPTIMIZATIONSPECIFICPRODUCTIONCOSTOPTIMUMSYSTEMPARAMETERS 67
TABLE13SINGLEOBJECTIVEOPTIMIZATIONSPECIFICPRODUCTIONCOSTOPTIMUMSYSTEMRESULTS........68
TABLE14PARAMETRICSTUDIESPARAMETERSANDCONSTRAINTDEFINITION.........................................69
TABLE15DOUBLEOBJECTIVEOPTIMIZATIONSPARAMETERSANDCONSTRAINTDEFINITION....................79

LISTOFABBREVIATIONS
Description

Units

Energyautonomy

hours

Hydrogenautonomy

days

EffectiveareaofPVpanels

m2

BatteryCapacity

kWh

Batteriescapitalcost

Electrolysercapitalcost

PVcapitalcost

Batteriesspecificcapitalcost

PVspecificcapitalcost

SystemCapitalcost

storagetankcapitalcost

ElectrolyserSpecificEnergyConsumption

kWh/Nm3

Electrolysercapacityfactor

PVcapacityfactor

HydrogenStorageTankcapacity

Nm3

Actualenergythatbatteryischargedordischargedwith

kWh

Symbol

Batterychargingcapability

kWh

Maximumenergythatcanbestoredinbattery

kWh

Batterydischargingcapability

kWh

Maximumenergythatbatterycanprovide

kWh

Energyavailable/requiredforcharging/discharging,

kWh

Energyrejectedbybattery

kWh

Energyavailable/demandedforcharging/discharging

kWh

Energyconsumedbyelectrolyser

kWh

Energyrejectedbyelectrolyser

kWh

Minimumcontinuouselectrolyseroperation

hours

ElectrolyserOnoffswitchingcycles

cycles

_
_

ElectrolysermaximumONOFFswitchingcycles

ElectrolyserMaximumoperationpoint

cycles
%

ElectrolyserMinimumoperationpoint

Energyproducedbyphotovoltaicpanels

kWh

TotalEnergyrejection

Averagedailyhydrogenfuelconsumptionpercar

kg

Dailyhydrogenfueldemand

Nm3

DailyUnsatisfiedfueldemand

Nm3

Batterieslifetime

years

Electrolyserlifetime

Years

PVlifetime

Years

StorageTanklifetime

Years

Maintenancecostforbatteries

Totalmaintenancecostfortheelectrolyser

MaintenancecostforthePVpanels

Batteriesspecificmaintenancecost

_
_

Electrolyserspecificmaintenancecost

PVspecificmaintenancecost

SystemMaintenancecost

Storagetankmaintenancecost

Storagetankspecificmaintenancecost

Powerconsumedbyelectrolyser

kW

Electrolyserinstalledpower

kW

Powerrejectedbyelectrolyser

kW

ElectrolyserMaximumoperationlimit

kW

ElectrolyserMinimumoperationlimit

kW

PVinstalledpeakpower

kW

PVpowerproduced

kW

Poweravailableforelectrolyserpowering

kW

Electrolysernominalproductionrate

Nm3/h

ElectrolyserHydrogenproduction

Nm3

HydrogenFlowtotank

Nm3

BatteryMaximumcharge/dischargerate

kW

BatteryMaximumstateofcharge

Batteryminimumstateofcharge

TankMaximumStateoffulfillment

TankMinimumStateoffulfillment

Hydrogenspecificproductioncost

/Nm3

Ambienttemperature

Celltemperature

Celltemperatureatareferenceambienttemperature

TankHydrogenvolumeavailableforrefueling

Nm3

TankVolumeavailableforstorage

Nm3

Solartohydrogenconversionefficiency

Efficiencyofthepowerconditioningdevices

BatteryChargingenergyefficiency

DegradationfactorofthePVarray

BatteryDischargingenergyefficiency

Solarcellefficiency

Solarcellefficiencyatnetradiation

WiringefficiencyofthePVsystem

Annualpayment

Temperaturecoefficientofthesolarcell

C1

BatteryDepthofDischarge

Globalsolarradiation

kWh/m2

Higherheatingvalue

kWh/Nm3

Numberofcarsrefueledbythestation

cars

Nominaloperatingcelltemperature

Reliability

StateofCharge,

Stateoffulfillment

Iteration

Systemlifetime

Years

Discountrate

Timestep

hour

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Iwouldliketothankmyfamilyandfriends,withouttheirsupport,studyingandliving
abroadwouldnotbefeasibleforme.SpecialthankstoProf.MarkvartandDr.Ponce
deLeonforthesupervisionofthethesis.

Wordscount:19,018

10

1. INTRODUCTION
Thecontinuingincreaseofthepriceofconventionalfuelsusedintransportsectorand
the global demand for reducing the resulted CO2 emissions, have set the gradual
replacement of the fossil fuels as urgent. Hydrogen can play significant role to this
transitionduetothefactthatitisconsideredasapotentiallycleanfuel.Nevertheless,
the method applied for the hydrogen production has influence on this feature [1].
Currently, about the 80% of the global hydrogen production comes from steam
methane reforming (SMR) of natural gas [2]. However, the natural gas demand and
pollutants emitted during the production via SMR do not contribute to a sustainable
nature of hydrogen. On the other hand, hydrogen can be produced with zero
emissionsbywaterelectrolysisincasethatofpoweringbyrenewableenergysources
[3].Tothisdirection,photovoltaics(PV)canbeservedasacandidatetechnologytobe
integratedinhydrogenproductionsystems[4].Atpresent,electrolysissystemsrelied
solely on PV have not applied widely due to the resulted high hydrogen specific
productioncostsandthelimitationsthatintermittentoperationofPVcause.

However,researchinteresthasbeenattractedbytheareaasbothtechnologies(PV,
electrolyser)areunderdevelopmentnotonlyintermsoftheirperformancebutalsoof
their investment costs. Reviewing the literature, the way of coupling PV and
electrolyser unit is the major concern of researches. The integration of power
regulation devices between the two technologies in conventional systems ensures
theircompatibilitybutresultstolowoverallsystemefficiencies[5].Toeliminatesuch
intermediate devices, several studies have approached the direct coupling of PV and
electrolyserexploitingtheirmodularnature.Besidestheirpromisingresults,notonly
system durability was not proved but also electrolyser performance showed
degradation after time extended experiment [6]. The variable nature of PV has
negativeimpacttoelectrolyserperformanceandresultstofrequentonoffswitching
and periods of low operating points. Not only alkaline but also proton exchange
membrane(PEM)electrolysers,arerecommendedtooperateattheirdesignpointfor
relatively long time periods, so to achieve the best possible values of efficiency and
prolong their operation without degradation and malfunctions[7,8,9]. To satisfy this
requirement,batteriesincorporationhasbeensuggestedinsystemswherehydrogen
11

is used as longterm storage means [9,10,11]. Conversely, special concern about

electrolysersteadyoperationwasnotnoticedinsimulationstudiesthatfacehydrogen
asafuel[12,13,14].

Thepresentthesishasasgeneralsubjectthestudyofastandaloneelectrolysissystem
powered by PV and which uses batteries as shortterm energy storage. In brief, this
projectproposesthebatteryincorporationinstandalonePVhydrogensystemsforthe
effectiveandreliableelectrolyseroperation.Tobemoreprecise,theenergysimulation
andtheoptimaldesignofanautonomoushydrogenrefuelingstationconstitutetwoof
the project aims. For this scope, a numerical code is developed able to simulate the
system operation in energy terms. Furthermore, the optimum sizing of the system
components is resulted by the code optimization having not only technical but also
economical objectives. Project focuses on the cooperation among the subsystems
developing a power management strategy with respect to electrolyser operation
requirements.Theinvestigationoftheeffectthatsuchconstraintshaveonthesystem
technoeconomicviabilityisalsoanissue.Inaddition,theconditions(location,system
size, capital cost reduction) under which the system will be economically viable are
studied.

Regardingthestructureofthethesis,sixmainchaptersfollowthisintroduction.Firstly,
project objectives and diversity are stated at the second chapter where the system
description also takes place. The third chapter is devoted to the review of the
literature concerning with autonomous PV electrolysis systems. Both simulation and
experimental studies are discussed. However, the electrolyser operation limitations
andthewaythattheyareconfrontedincompletesolarhydrogensystemsarepointed
out.Atthefourthchapter,thefeaturesofthemodeldevelopedarepresented.Data
input, model variables, power management strategy and potential output are the
groupsofmodelfeatures.Furthermore,theresultsobtainedbythemodelapplication
arepresentedatthefifthchapter.Simulationresultsincludeapresentationofacase
study and a series of optimizations with, either single or multi, technoeconomical
objectives. Then, results are discussed thoroughly at the sixth chapter. Finally, thesis
finalchapterstatestheconclusionsextractedfromthestudy.

12

2. PROJECTFEATURES
2.1. GENERALDESCRIPTIONOFTHESYSTEM

Figure1Simplifiedsolarhydrogensystemscheme

Asmentionedintheintroduction,thestudyofasystem(Figure1)capabletoproduce
hydrogen fuel via water electrolysis powered by PV is the general subject of the
project. In addition, leadacid batteries, as shortterm energy storage system, are
included in the system having an assistive role in the powering of the electrolyser
maintaining its operation stable. Even though that such a system is noted as
conventional in the literature [8,15], the fact that electrolysers face performance
degradation under intermittent operation makes the presence of storage devices in
standalone systems required [7,16]. In addition, hydrogen storage tanks are also a
part of the system as the distribution of the fuel produced is not supposed to be
instant. Oxygen is also produced by electrolyser but its exploitation is not subject of
thepresentstudy.

Tonoticethateventhoughthatthemaincomponentsofthesystemarepresentedin
Figure1asblackboxes,suchasystemismuchmorecomplex.However,thepresent

projectfacesthesubsystemsasboxessimulatingthecooperationoftheminenergy
termsanddoesntfocusoninternaloperationofthem.
13


The described system can be proposed as a small hydrogen refueling station able to
coverthedemandofsomehydrogenfueledvehicles.Suchdistributedstationsthatcan
be installed also in every home or neighborhood may have greater specific capital
costs but provide domestic independency. Hence, variation of the fuel purchase, as
petrolisfeaturedby,isavoidedbecausethecustomerisalsotheproduceratthesame
time. To this direction the project also deals with the investigation of how
economically viable is the application of a small system at present and in the future
undertheexpectedtechnologiescostreduction.

2.2. AIMS&OBJECTIVESOFTHEPROJECT

The general aim of the project is the energy simulation and the technoeconomic
optimizationofastandaloneelectrolysissystempoweredbyPVandbatteries.Forthis
scope, a numerical code will be developed which using short time step and having
solar radiation data series and fuel demand as inputs will be able to export techno
economic magnitudes for the specific dimensioned system evaluation. Significant
attentionisgoingtobepaidonthepowermanagementstrategythatsystemshould
followforbestperformanceandeconomicalresultswithrespecttotherequirementof
electrolyser for steady operation. The satisfaction of subsystems operational
requirementsineconomicallyviablesystemsservesanaimandwillbeinvestigatedby
theoptimizationofthenumericalcode.Finally,thesensitivityofthesystemfeatures
tofuturepossibleimprovementsincostandperformancecanbestudied.

Concerningtheobjectivesthatcanbeachievedbythecompletionoftheproject,they
arestatedbelow:

The detailed literature review of studies and applications concerned with PV

drivenelectrolysis.

Thedevelopmentofamodelabletosimulatethesystemoperationinenergy
termsandtobeusedfortechnoeconomicaloptimizationofit.
14

The determination of the size and the economic features of an optimal

designed small refueling station able to cover the demand of a specified
numberofhydrogenfueledvehicles.

The development of a power control strategy for the effective and reliable
operationoftheelectrolyser.

The investigation of the effect of several parameters (system autonomy,

location, minimum electrolyser continuous operation, reliability, demand,
capitalcostdecrease)thathaveonsystemsizing.

2.3. THENOVELTYOFTHEPROJECT

Followingtheconclusionsoftheliteraturereview,thegeneralfieldswheretheproject
issupposedtoprovideanalternativeapproachofstudyare:

Theenergysimulationofastandalonesolarhydrogensystem,whichseemsto
be more applicable at present in contrast to innovative but not durable yet
directlycoupledsystems.

The use of battery as shortterm energy storage to ensure the stability of

electrolyseroperation.

Theinvestigationofthereliabilityoffuelingstationwithspecifiedfueldemand.

Theinvolvementofpowermanagementstrategyinthemodelingofthesystem
aimingtotheelectrolysersustainableoperationandtheenergyproducedbest
exploitation.

The use of numerical methods for the technoeconomical optimization which

consequentlyresultstosystemsizing.

Mostoftheabovestatementsareverycommoninotherresearchareas,buthavent
beenincludedindesignstudiesforautonomoussolarhydrogenfuelstations.

15

3. LITERATUREREVIEW
Atthischapter,adiscussionaboutstudiesrelatedtotheprojecttopictakesplace.At
first,somedesignstudieshavebeentakenintoaccount[12,13,14,17].However,itwas
obviousthatthemostrecentresearchpublicationsapproachexperimentallythedirect
couplingofPVwithelectrolyser[5,6,18,15,19].However,theperformancedegradation
oftheelectrolysersundervariableoperatingconditionsisanissue,astheirdurability
hasnotbeenprovedyet[7].Thegeneralabsenceofexperimentalresultsregardingthe
performanceoftheelectrolyserthroughalongtimeperiodisnoticeable[6].Forthis
scope,thewaysthatpowerinputtotheelectrolyserisconditionedinlargersystems
(completehydrogencyclefuelcellintegrated)usedforelectricityproductionarealso
presented[7,9,10,11].

3.1. HYDROGENFUELSTATIONSSIMULATIONSTUDIES&AN
APPLICATION

A few simulation studies were pointed in the literature developing models for the
technoeconomical evaluation of complete solar hydrogen systems. All the systems
simulated were consisted of PV coupled with electrolyser via power conditioning
devices, while in some of them batteries used for the auxiliary systems powering
[12,13,14,17].

Tobeginwith,theperformanceofahomesolarhydrogenproductioninstallationwas
studied by Hollmuller et al [17]. The system is mainly consisted of PV panels, an
alkaline electrolyser, batteries used only for powering auxiliary devices and storage
tanks(Figure 2).Also,systemisconnectedtothegridforelectrolyserregulation.The
controlunitpermitsdifferentoperationmodesconcerningthecooperationamongPV,
batteries and grid to be applied manually. After measurements taken for 3 days,
features of each subsystem were extracted. Electrolyser operating temperature took
about 1h and 15 min after the first startup of the day to be stabilized. It should be
pointedthatduringthemeasurementsperiod,electrolyserswitchedoffandrecovered
inaveryshorttimeduetostrongcurrentvariations,butthereisnomentionaboutthe
16

effect of it to the electrolyser performance. The model (not described) developed

showed agreement with the measures and resulted to an overall efficiency of 3.6%.
Finally, authors recommended the replacement of the manual with an automatic
control unit and the increase of hydrogen storage for improving the system
performance.

Figure2Schematicdiagramoftheenergyandmaterialsflowinhomesolarhydrogen
productionsystem[17].

Moreover,astudyhasbeenconducteddevelopingamodelfortheoptimizationofthe
performance of large scale PV electrolyser systems [13]. The paper provides details
concerning the modeling of the system while the procedure for the system cost
estimation is also described. To comment, however, that the cost for the means of
hydrogen storage seems not to be taken into account. PV and electrolyser are
assumedtobeconnectedthroughMaximumPowerPointTracker(MPPT)andDC/DC
17

converters and the optimization of their operation is accomplished by pointing the

maximum power point that corresponds to a solar radiation value. The case study is
presented for 13 locations of four different climates and latitudes. Also, assuming
features of commercial PV panels, electrolysers and MPPT converter, model was
appliedforbothfixedandsuntrackingpanels.Resultsshowedthattheoverallthermal
efficiency of the system is about 10.33% fixed panels and 10.85% for sun tracking
panels. In addition, for 1 $/Wp future PV system cost the hydrogen production for
favorable locations is resulted about 44.5 $/GJ hydrogen. Also, it was shown that
hydrogenproductioncostcorrelateswellwiththeannualtotalsolarenergyreceived
bythepanels(Figure3).Finally,itwasconcludedthatincasethatPVcostreducedto1
$/Wp,suchaninstallationwouldbecompetitiveinareasofgreaterthan8GJ/m2year
totalsolarenergyreceived.

Figure3Thelevelizedsolarhydrogencostversustheaverageyearlytotalsolarenergyonthe
horizontalsurfaceforfixedandtrackingpanelssystems[13].

Thesameauthor,asfollowtothepreviouspublication,developedasimplifiedmodel
for a PVelectrolyser system. Concerning the numerical code developed, it was
consistedbyfourpartsofcalculationsaboutthesolarradiationreceived,theelectric
energy produced by PV, the hydrogen produced by electrolyser and the system
economics. It was resulted to correlations between couples of magnitudes such as
annualelectricalenergyproductionannualsolarradiation,hydrogenenergyannual
solarradiation,hydrogenproductioncostratioofPVpanelsandelectrolysercostto
18

annualsolarradiation(Figure4)etc[12].Moreover,itwasprovedthatelectrolysersize
increasesalmostproportionallywiththeannualtotalradiationreceived. Studyalso
focusedespeciallyonthecostofhydrogenproductionconductingtwocasestudiesfor
presentandfuturecostconditions.Resultsshowedthattheoverallsystemefficiency
variesfrom9.34%to8.64%whileaconclusionwasthatfurthercapitalcostreduction
isneededforviabilityofthesystem.

Figure4Acorrelationforhydrogencostforfixedandsuntrackingpanels[12].

Ontheotherhand,J.M.Vidueiraetal.presentedtheenergysimulationforacomplete
solarhydrogenproductionsystemabletorefueltwofuelcellbuses[14].Tonoticethat
abatterysystemisincluded,however,justforthepoweringofotherthanelectrolyser
devices. The sizing of the system was based on reasonable sequence of assumptions
whileaneconomicassessmentwasalsoconducted.Asimulationofthesystemcarried
outanditwasreachedtothefactthatthesizingwassuccessfulasthereliabilityofthe
system took values at the expected range. Electrolyser was allowed to operate in a
widerangeofpowerinput.Furthermore,differentalternativesofsystemdesignsuch
astheconnectionofPVtothegridwereinvestigated.Eventhoughthatthecalculation
of the total system cost is not described, it was found that the hydrogen production
costforanautonomousstationarysystemis1.06/Nm3.Thestudyconcludedthatat
that time (2003) in order the investment to be even more attractive, government
subsidies, performance improvement and cost reduction of the technologies are
required.

19

To sum up, simulation studies dealing exclusively with hydrogen production systems
powered by PV are very limited and not recent. Also, sizing methods based on
numerical optimizations of the system were not noticed. To point out, that special
considerations about the electrolyser operation have not been taken during the
modelsdevelopment.Finally,concernsaboutthereliabilityofthesystemwerefound
inonlyonestudy[14],buttheeffectthathasonthesizingandperformancefeatures
ofthesystemwasnotinvestigated.

3.2. DIRECT COUPLING OF PV AND ELECTROLYSER

MODELING&EXPERIMENTALRESULTS.

TheconceptofdirectcouplingofanelectrolyserandPVhasbeendiscussedbymany
authors recently [5,6,18,15,19,20,21]. Such an approach is proposed for the
elimination of electronic devices. These devices are used for the conditioning of the
power sent to the electrolyser butthey are responsible for energy losses. Also, their
installation adds to the system capital cost. Experimental studies have showed that
directcouplingofsolarcellsandelectrolysercellsappropriatelydesignedisachievable
anddrivestoanincreasedoverallconversionefficiency.However,suchstudieslackof
timeextendedexperimentalresultssotoprovethedurabilityofthesystem.

Figure5CharacteristicofelectrolyserandMaximumpowerpointsofPVforoptimal
configurationofPEMcellsandPVpanels[18].

20

PaulandAndrewsinvestigatedthepossibilityofdirectlycouplingbetweenaPVarray
andproton exchangemembrane(PEM)electrolyser[18].Studyingthecharacteristics
ofcommercialdevicesofthetwotechnologiesandseveralcombinations,theyended
uptoanoptimalconfigurationofseriesparallelconnectionnotonlyofPVpanelsbut
alsoPEMcells.Theresultwas,asshownin Figure5,theasmuchaspossiblematching
of their IV characteristics in order to achieve the almost maximum power transfer.
Couplingtheoptimalcombination,someinitialexperimentsshowedthata95%ofthe
theoretical maximum energy transfer can be achieved. Contrary to MPPT electronic
devices that have typical losses of about 10%, direct coupling seems to be superior.
Also, such an approach advances due to the fact that thecosts of converterscanbe
avoidedsotoresulttoloweroverallcapitalcost.Authorsnoticethatexperimentslast
for a short period so these findings cannot be confirmed by the study. Finally, they
state their prospect to investigate in a future work whether the configuration that
resultstomaximumpowertransferisalsotheoptimalineconomicterms.

Figure6Electrolyzerefficiencyversuselectrolyzercelltemperatureforarelativelyconstant
current(125130A)measuredoverthe14daystudyperiod[5].

SignificantevolutionontheareaispointedbyateamofGeneralMotorsR&Dcenter
who have published recently a series of experimental and modeling studies
approaching the direct connection in the system [5,15,19]. The first time study
conducted presented the results from the operation of a PVelectrolysis system [5].
Even though electrolyser and PV were directly connected, electrolyser was also
21

powered by the grid and batteries. An average daily solar to hydrogen energy
efficiencyof8.5%over14daystestingwasachieved.Specialnoticewasshownatthe
effect that electrolyser temperature has on the electrolyser temperature. It was
pointed that operating at high temperature close to the designed value, drove to
currentandconsequentlytoelectrolyserefficiencyincrease(Figure6).Suchafactadds
an advantage of constant electrolyser operation. However, wide variability of the
electrolyser operation due to changing weather conditions didnt result to serious
performancedegradationduringthese14daysoftesting.Authorsclaimedthatfurther
experimental results under longer testing period and wider range of operating
conditionsareneededfordurabilityconfirmation.

Figure7AveragesolarhydrogenproductionefficiencyusingPVelectrolysersystemswithDC
DCconvertersforoptimizationversusdirectconnection[15].

Then,GibsonandKellycomparedadirectlycoupledsystemwithasystemthatusesa
DC/DC converter for matching the PV voltage to electrolyser voltage [15]. Several
combinations of configurations and different models of panels were tested and
resulted to maximum efficiencies of 12.4% and 10.6% for the direct and indirect
couplingrespectively(Figure7).Regardingthedirectcoupling,successoftheapproach
is relied on the selection of PV modules which should match with the electrolyser
operating voltage and have a good electric efficiency. Authors of this study dont
mentionthetimeofexperiment.Moreover,itcannotbeprovedbytheanalysisthat
most efficient systems have less cost than systems with DC/DC converters of lower
averageefficiency.

22

Furthermore, in a more recent work a model developed for the prediction of the
efficiency of both systems [19]. Modeling results showed high level of accuracy
comparingtoexperimentalmeasurements.Itwaspointedoutthatconnectionthrough
DC/DCconvertermadethesystemcapabletoproducehydrogenduringcloudyperiods
when direct coupled system stop to operate. Hence, a PVelectrolysis system that
allows both direct and indirect coupling depending on the weather conditions by
including adjustable DC/DC converters and switches is suggested as the best option
[19].

Clarkeetal.alsostudiedtheapproachofdirectcouplingofelectrolyserandPVarray,
demonstratingtimeextendedexperimentsunderstronglyvariableconditions[6].The
mainconclusionofthepaper,whichissimultaneouslyanissuethatwasnottakeninto
account by the previous studies, was that the performance of the electrolyser stack
degradedafterthefirstfivedaysoftheveryearlystagesoftheexperiment(Figure8).
The widely variable power inputs as well as the inappropriate stack design were
thoughttobeoneofthepossiblecausesforthisrapiddegradation.

Figure8MeasuredstackVIandefficiencyinitially(left)andover5dataperiod(right)fora13
cellstack[6]

The overall system efficiency found to be around 4.7%, largely differing to similar,
previously discussed, studies [5,18,15]. However, emphasis is given to the fact that
resultsobtainedafteralongtestingperiod(1519h)whenthesystemperformedsafely
andsatisfactorily.

23

Inaddition,Arriagaetalapproachedthedirectcouplingofacommercialelectrolyser
withanappropriateconfigurationofPVpanels[20].Thecomparisonbetweencurrent
voltage characteristics showed that efficient energy transfer can be conducted
between600800W/m2ofradiation,whichistypicalvalueforMexico.Asitisreviewed
in other study [6], the specific research lacks of quantitative results about energy
transferandalsotestingperiodisnotmentioned.

Moreover, a model based on experimental results has been developed for the
predictionoftheperformanceofdirectcoupledsolarhydrogensystem[21].However,
theoverallefficiencyachievedwasabout5.15.4%dependingontheirradiancelevel
as the system configuration was not optimized. Authors, finally, noticed that model
canbealsoappliedwithgoodaccuracyfordifferentsizedsystems.

Asaconclusiontothisgroupofstudies,itcanbesaidthatapartfromthepromising
resulted values of efficiency direct coupled solar hydrogen systems not only havent
proved their durability but also electrolyser performance shows degradation over
variable operation. On the other hand, DC/DC converters provide the capability of
solartohydrogenconversionduringunfavorableconditions.Also,therearedoubtsif
the appropriate configuration of the PV array and the electrolyser stack required for
thedirectcouplingcorrespondtolowercapitalcosts.

3.3. THELIMITATIONSOFCOUPLINGPVANDELECTROLYSER

Besides the recent research efforts to connect directly the PV array and the
electrolyserstack,thereareseveralissuesconcerningtheelectrolyseroperationunder
intermittentpowerinputandlowloads.

Currently,twotypesofwaterelectrolysersareavailableinthemarket,thealkalineand
the proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysers [22]. Alkaline electrolysers are
proposedforlargeunits,havinglowerenergyconsumptionandcapitalcostthanPEM
[22,23].Also,anoperationrequirementthatalkalinetypehasisthelimitedacceptable
range of power input which is about 2550% of the rated capacity [7]. On the other
24

hand,commercialPEMelectrolysersaresuitableforsmallinstallationspromotingthe
capability to operate at a very wide range of power loads [8,22]. However, their
durability has not been proved yet [7], while some concerns about the variable
operationhavebeennotedintheliteratureandpresentedbrieflybelow:

Atverylowloadstherateofhydrogenandoxygenproductionmaybelower
thantherateneededtopermeatethroughtheelectrolyteandmixwitheach
other [8]. Such a situation can drive to hazardous conditions inside the
electrolyser. Hence, electrolyser must be set out of order when energy
transferfromPVbecomeslowerthanaspecifiedlimit.

Duetointermittentoperation,electrolysermayoperatemostofthetimeat
a lower temperature than nominal, a fact that results in a lower efficiency
[8]. As a consequence, power input is preferable to be either constant or
variable at a narrow range for a continuous operation time period so
nominaltemperatureandhighestpossiblevaluesofefficiencytobeachieved
byelectrolyser.

Frequentonoffswitchingshouldbeavoidedasthecommercialelectrolysers
arefeaturedbyamaximumofcycles,afterwhichperformancedegrades[9].
Also,afteranelectrolysershutdown,ittakesabout3060minutestobeable
tostartupagain[7].Electrolyserstartupshouldbefollowedbyaseriesof
requirementswhichensureitsoperationtobemaintainedforatimeperiod
andasuddenstopnottobecaused.Duetovariablenatureofsolarenergy,
gridassistanceorashorttermmeansofenergystoragewouldberequired
for powering the electrolyser in case of insufficient energy production by
PV[8]. Minimization of electrolyser cycles should be an issue for solar
hydrogensystems.

InacouplingthroughDC/DCconverter,maximumefficiencyoftheconverter
canbeachievedinaverynarrowrangeofpowernearitsdesignpoint[8].As
a result, the power sent to the electrolyser should be leveled by means of
energy storage at the designed range of DC/DC converter for the power
losseselimination.

25

Overall,itcanbeconcludedthatindependentlytotheelectrolysertypeandthenature
of coupling, power input should vary in narrow limits near the design point of the
electrolyser,somaximumvaluesofefficiencytobeachievableforthelongestperiod
possible and malfunctions to be avoided. From that point of view, standalone solar
hydrogen systems can be reliable only in case that shortterm energy storage, like
batteries, is included to cover the deficit of power available comparing to almost
constant power demand. Finally, electrolyser onoff switching can be eliminated as
power availability would not be relied only on an unpredictable and intermittent
energysource.

3.4. WAYSTOOVERCOMECOUPLINGLIMITATIONS

Asanalyzedintheprevioussection,anasstableaspossibleandneartothenominal
operation is desired for the electrolyser. Such a condition cannot be satisfied by the
exclusivepoweringbyPVduetotheirvariabilityofenergyproduction.Asolutionisto
combine PV with input from the grid [8]. Electrolyser operation at design point,
increase of electrolyser capacity factor, and economics improvement would be the
advantagesofthisapproach.However,whengridisnotavailableandtheobjectiveof
the approach is to produce totally zero emissions hydrogen, a short term energy
storagesystem,asbatteriesare,wouldbeanalternativeoption.

Figure9ElectrolysercyclesvsHysteresisandstateofchargeofbattery[9]

26


TheincorporationofabatterywasapproachedinHarIprojectwheretheperformance
of a system renewablehydrogen system was studied [9]. The postponement of
alkalineelectrolyser(34kW)performancedegradationduetorapidvariationofenergy
production by wind turbines was the reason for batteries installation. Advance
batteries were used to capture peaks and troughs of energy production. In this
application, electrolyser operation is determined by the battery state of charge.
Electrolyser can operate when the charge of battery is between an upper and lower
level (hysteresis). System simulation resulted that the largest the hysteresis the less
electrolyser cycles noticed (Figure 9). Optimization showed that electrolyser cycles
wereminimizedusingstateofchargecontrol.

The effect that power management strategy has on the performance of standalone
systemswhererenewableenergysourcesincorporatewithelectrolyser,fuelcellsand
batteries to cover the demand of a load, has been investigated [10,11]. Ipsakis et al
developed and compared the effect of three different power control strategies. The
reduction in accumulator cycles and the avoidance of frequent electrolyser startups
were objectives of the study [11]. The effect of minimum allowable battery state of
charge on the system performance was one of the parameters. Focusing on the
electrolyser battery cooperation, it was ended up that when the solar radiation is
insufficient, battery should assist the electrolyser powering so to operate at its
minimumanddeteritfromsuddenstops.Strategieswhereelectrolyserwaspowered
solely by renewable energy sources could not guarantee the smooth operation of
electrolyser besides the highest hydrogen production resulted. Authors recommend
thebatteryassistancetotheelectrolyserpoweringforinstallationsinareasofnothigh
solarpotentialasaviableoption.

Ulleberg developed a model for the simulation of a complete PVH2 system which is
verifiedbytheoperationofPHOEBUSplantinGermany[10].Theaimofthepaperisto
investigatethedemonstrationtheofpowercontrolstrategiesinsuchsystems.Tothis
direction, the comparison between electrolyser operation under constant and not
widely variable conditions was conducted. System simulation showed that variable
operation of the electrolyser advances over fixed mode due to the fact that better
27

systemperformance,lesselectrolyserstartups,moreruntimefortheelectrolyserand
reduction in battery use resulted. However, it must be commented that it was not
describedhowsteadyoperationofelectrolyserwasapproached.Also,duetothefact
that system objective is to provide electricity to a load, electrolyser operation is
thoughtto beseasonal.Asaresult,electrolyserundergoesonlyfavorableconditions
during the summer. Author suggests, finally, that a technoeconomic optimization of
thesystemtakingintoaccountbothsystemdesignandcontrolstrategyisnecessary.

Toconcludethat,powermanagementstrategiesfortheelectrolyseroperationbased
on the battery state of charge has been noticed in the literature. In these studies,
systems are much more complex, using hydrogen as longterm storage and not as a
product. The area of solar hydrogen production systems lacks of involving control
strategyinthedesignofthesystem.However,conclusionsandideasaboutthepower
management strategy can be used as reference and fitted in a solar hydrogen
productionscheme.

3.5. SUMMARY

Theanalysisofthestudiesthattookplaceintheprevioussectionscanbesummarized
atthefollowing:

Systems with direct coupling of PV and electrolyser, besides the high

maximumefficienciesachieved,havenotproventheirdurabilityyet.

Stronglyvariablepowerinputtotheelectrolyser,evenviaDC/DCconverters,
resultstolowerefficiencyandelectrolyserperformancedegradation.

For standalone complete solar hydrogen systems (PVelectrolyserfuel cell

load) the cooperation of a battery with PV panels is suggested for the
electrolyserpowerinputstabilizing.

Power management strategy regarding the relation between electrolyser

andbatteryisofsignificantimportanceduringthedesignofsuchcomplete
systems.
28

Design studies about solarhydrogen production systems used as

automotivesrefuelingstationsareverylimitedandnotsorecent.

None of the crossed studies investigated how reliability of the system

influencesthesystemsizingandperformanceindicators.

System sizing based on numerical technoeconomic optimizations has not

beennoticedintheliterature.

Power control strategy is not included in studies related to design of solar

hydrogensystems.

Asitcanbenoticedlater,literaturereviewconclusionsdirectthemethodologyandthe
objectivesofthepresentdissertation.

29

4. MODELDESCRIPTION
4.1. INTRODUCTION

The present chapter is devoted to the description of the model developed for the
energysimulationofastandaloneelectrolysissystempoweredbyphotovoltaicsand
assistedbybatteries.CodedevelopmentconductedusingMatlabsoftwareaswellas
theoptimizationofitthattookplaceapplyingtheMatlabOptimizationToolbox(MOT).
Ingeneral,modelapproachestheoperationofaspecificsizedsysteminenergyterms
while an economic evaluation of it can also be exported using empirical economic
data.Figure10presentsgeneralflowchartofthecodewhichreflectsthemethodology
themodeldevelopedwith.

Themodelisconsistedby3mainparts.Atthefirstpart,thedatarequiredforthecode
run are stated. Hence, both variables and constant data for the system components
mustbeprovided.Subsystems(PV,batteries,electrolyserandhydrogenstoragetank)
size and other system features such as number of automotives refueled, minimum
daily electrolyser operation are considered as model variables. The values of these
parameters are defined by the user manually. Regarding the constant data, some
typical values were assumed for magnitudes needed for the modeling of each
component.Furthermore,numericalcodealsohasasinputasolardatatimeseriesof
1hourtimestepwhichisusedforthecalculationofhourlyPVenergyproductionby
thespecificsizedpanels.PVenergyproductionandotherhourlyvariablemagnitudes
suchasthebatterystateofchargeandhydrogenstoragetankstateoffulfillmentare
usedforpowermanagementstrategyimplementation.Atthesecondpart,thesystem
operation strategy, the heart of the model, is developed. The power control is of
significant importance for the system operation as it should be able to choose the
most efficient route to exploit the energy produced by the PV panels, confronting
simultaneously with the electrolyser operation limitations that mentioned at the
literature review. Applying the strategy for each time step, respective operation
magnitudesareresultedforeachsystemcomponent.

30

START

MODEL OVERVIEW
FLOW CHART

PARAMETERS, CONSTANT DATA

INPUT

i=1

CUMULATIVE & TIMESTEP MAGNITUDES

INITIALIZATION

READ WEATHER DATA

TIME SERIES

CALL PV ARRAY FUNCTION

PV ENERGY PRODUCTION
ESTIMATION

CALL HYDROGEN STORAGE

TANK FUNCTION
TANK STATUS ESTIMATION

YES

HOUR OF
THE DAY=9

CALL FUEL DEMAND

FUNCTION
FUEL DEMAND ESTIMATION

NO

CALL STRATEGY FUNCTION

PV ENERGY PRODUCTION
EXPLOITATION - COMPONENTS
STATUS UPDATE TIME STEP
MAGNITUDES CALCULATION

CALL HYDROGEN STORAGE

TANK FUNCTION
TANK STATUS, COVERED
DEMAND ESTIMATION

CUMULATIVE MAGNITUDES
CALCULATION

YES
i=i+1

i<8760
NO
CALL ECONOMICS FUNCTION
SYSTEM CAPITAL & MAINTENANCE
COSTS ESTIMATION

EVALUATION MAGNITUDES
CALCULATION

END

Figure10Modeloverview

31

Finally, after repetitions that correspond to 1 year period (8760 h), summarized
magnitudesandperformanceindicators,suchastheannualhydrogenproductionand
the annual unexploited energy (energy rejection from now on), are estimated and
can be used for specificdimensioned (according to variable parameters) system
evaluation. In addition, assuming no precise but average specific capital and
operationalcostsforeverydevice,systemcostcanbeestimatedbasedeitheronthe
variable parameters or the summarized performance magnitudes. As a result,
economic evaluation of the system can be also implemented, calculating the specific
hydrogenproductioncost.

However, the detailed analysis of the code is carried out at the following three
sections. At first, technical analysis of the modeling for each system component and
the assumptions made are presented. To notice, that each components model is
developed at a separate programming function (subroutine) and is interconnected
with the others through the operation strategy function. In addition, the empirical
equationsusedforthesystemcostestimationbythemodelthatareincludedinthe
economicsfunctionarestated.Then,adiscussionforthepowermanagementstrategy
developed and used in the model takes place. The flow chart that reflects the
recommended operation strategy is given while the exported timestep magnitudes
are also defined. At the last section, the definitions of cumulative magnitudes and
resulted indicators (technical and economic) which are used for the specific sized
systemevaluationareprovided.

4.2. DATAINPUTSUBSYSTEMSMODELINGDESCRIPTION
4.2.1. TECHNICAL

Priortotheanalysisofthemodelingforeachsystemcomponentandthepresentation
oftheconstantdataincludedintherespectiveMatlabfunctions,modelvariableshave
to be defined. The magnitudes, which values should be entered by the user and the
systemperformanceisreliedon,canbefoundinTable1.Inaddition,modelvariables
areusedasinputinsubsystemsandpowermanagementstrategyfunctions.Theeffect
32

of each of the variables to the system performance is investigated through the

parametricoptimizationstudies.
Table1ModelVariables
No

Description

Abbreviation

PVinstalledpeakpower

BatteryCapacity

Electrolyserinstalledpower

TankCapacity

Minimumcontinuouselectrolyseroperation

Numberofcarsrefueledbythestation

Location

Units
kW

kWh

kW

Nm3

Solardatatimeseries

Hours
Cars

Then, the subroutines (functions) developed, for the modeling of each part of the
system,areanalyzed.Also,tonoticethatsystemcomponentsmodelingispurelybased
on data reported in the literature. The interconnection among the subroutines is
accomplishedbythepowermanagementstrategy.Anymagnitudepresentedbelow,is
expressedinunitswhichhavebeenstatedinthelistofabbreviations.Onlyifspecific
referenceexists,unitsofmagnitudesdonotfollowthelistprovided.

4.2.1.1.

PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY

Photovoltaicarrayconstitutestheprimaryenergysourceforthestandalonesystem.
The present subroutine has the capability to estimate the energy produced by
photovoltaicpanels,

,inaspecificiteration, .Theinstantambienttemperature,

,theinstantglobalsolarradiation,

,andthePVinstalledpeakpower,

mustbeprovidedasinputs(Table2).

Concerningtheinstantmagnitudes,

and

,thatarerequired,datatimeseries

of1hourtimestepfordifferentlocationsareused.Inthisproject,weatherdatatime
series were extracted from the METEONORM software. The locations chosen the
installation of such a system to be investigated for Athens (Greece), Frankfurt
(Germany) and Tokyo (Japan) applying the corresponding data time series. Also, the

33

solarradiationseriesisdecidedtobeforpanelinclinationequaltothelatitudeofthe
locationforbestannualsolarenergyreceived[24].

Ontheotherhand,thePVinstalledpeakpower,

,isoneofthemodelvariables
,byeq.1,assumingthat1

andisrelatedwiththeeffectiveareaofthePVpanels,
m2ofareacorrespondsto100WpofPV[25].

10

(1)

Table2PVarraysubroutineSummary&ConstantData
Functionname: PVarray
Input:

AmbientTemperature,
Globalsolarradiation,
PVinstalledpeakpower,

Output:

PVenergyproduction,

PVenergyproduction,

ConstantData
Description

Abbreviation

Nominaloperatingcelltemperature

Value

Units

48

Solarcellefficiencyatnetradiation

14

Temperaturecoefficientofthesolarcell

0.005

C1

Celltemperatureatareferenceambienttemperature

25

DegradationfactorofthePVarray

9599

Efficiencyofthepowerconditioningdevices

95

WiringefficiencyofthePVsystem

95

In order to calculate the hourly PV energy production,

cell temperature,

, the estimation of the

, and the solar cell efficiency,

, should take place

previously.

Thesolarcelltemperatureaffectssignificantlythecellefficiencyandisgivenbyeq.2:

34

(2)

where,

,isthenominaloperatingcelltemperature[24].

ThevalueassumedinthepresentstudyfortheNominalOperatingCellTemperature,
,aswellasforotherconstantmagnitudesareprovidedinTable2[24,26].

Then, the solar cell efficiency,

, is expressed as a function of cell temperature,

,byeq.3:

where,

(3)

,thesolarcellefficiencyatnetradiation, ,temperaturecoefficientofthe

solarcelland ,thecelltemperatureatareferenceambienttemperature[26].

Hence,thePVenergyproductionforthespecifictimestepiscalculatedbyeq.4,taking
into account also the degradation factor of the PV array,

, the efficiency of the

powerconditioningdevices, ,andthewiringefficiencyofthePVsystem,

[26].

(4)

Due to the fact that solar panel efficiency decreases in low irradiances, degradation
factor,

, is assumed to vary linearly regarding the instant solar radiation,

between95100%forthelowestandhighestradiationrespectively.

Finally,thepowerproduced,

incasethetimestepis ,isgivenbyeq.5.

/ (5)

4.2.1.2.

HYDROGENFUELDEMAND

A simplified consideration about the hydrogen fuel demand is reflected in this

function.Itcalculatestheamountofhydrogenfuel,

,thatstationshouldprovidein

dailybasis.Theinputrequiredisthenumberofcarsrefueledbythestation, ,which
issystemvariable.
35


Assumingatypicalvalue(Table3)forthedailyfuelconsumptionbyahydrogenfueled
car,

, close to assumptions made in other studies [12,25], the daily hydrogen fuel

demand,FD ,inunitsofNm3(1kgofH2isequalto11.891Nm3)isgivenbyeq.6.

11.891 (6)

Table3FueldemandsubroutineSummary&ConstantData
Functionname: FuelDemand
Input:

Numberofcarsrefueledbythestation,

Output:

Dailyhydrogenfueldemand,

ConstantData
Description

Abbreviation

Averagedailyhydrogenfuelconsumptionpercar

Value

Units

Kg/daycar

Fortheoperationstrategysimplification,fueldemand(carsrefueling)issupposedto
comeuponlyonceperdayandlateatnight(9pm)whenelectrolyserisswitchedoff.

4.2.1.3.

BATTERIES

BatteriesasshorttermenergystorageeitherabsorbtheexcessofPVenergyoutputor
powertheelectrolyserlevelingtheenergycomingfromPV.Hence,ineverycomputing
timestep, the battery state of charge and the charging/discharging capability should
be estimated. The function for the batteries modeling requires as input the current
stateofcharge,

1 ,thebatterycapacity,

,thedepthofdischarge,

andtheenergyavailable/requiredforcharging/discharging,

.Table4provides

asummaryforthespecificsubroutine.Dueto complexityofthissubroutine,itsflow
chartispresentedinFigure11.Thereafter,thesequenceofcalculationsandstrategyin
thefunctionarealsodescribed.

36


Figure11Flowchartofbatteriessubroutine

Inthisstudy,batteryisapproachedasblackboxinenergyterms,assumingabattery
capacity and the limits that state of charge can vary. The minimum state of charge,
,isdefinedbyeq.7.

(6)
37


Table4BatteriessubroutineSummary&ConstantData
Functionname: Batteries
Inputs:

Currentstateofcharge,

Batterycapacity,
Depthofdischarge,

Energyavailable/requiredforcharging/discharging,
Output:

NewStateofCharge,

Energy/Powerabsorbed/providedbythebattery,
Energy/Powercharged/discharged,

Energy/Powerrejected,

ConstantData
Description

Abbreviation

Value

Units

Chargingenergyefficiency

85

Dischargingenergyefficiency

85

Maximumcharge/dischargerate

/10

Maximumallowablestateofcharge

DepthofDischarge

kW

100

60

Depthofdischargeforleadacidbatteriesisdirectlyrelatedwiththeirlifecycle[27].
However,duetothefactthatdepthofdischarge,

,issetat60%inthissimulation

approach, it was assumed that battery life cycle ranges at about 5 years, which is a
typicaltimeperiodforreplacement[24].

Battery operation is also dependent on the maximum charge/discharge rate,

.Eventhoughthatsucharateisindicativeofthecurrentatwhichbatteriesare
charged/discharged[24],duringthecodedevelopmentitwasconsideredasthepower
of charging/discharging in kW, assuming an almost constant work voltage. Hence, a
maximum of 10 hours for charging/discharging was set (eq.7), following literature
recommendations[24].

/10(7)

38

In addition, another important property for battery operation is its capacity,

Generally, battery capacity is measured in Ah, is not fixed and varies regarding
conditions such as battery end voltage, discharge rate and temperature [24,28].
However, the nature of the study does not require detailed modeling of the battery
and its capacity is considered as fixed in units of kWh. The constant work voltage is
also assumed here. To repeat that total battery capacity,

, is a model variable

(table1).

Ineverycomputingtimestep,thecharginganddischargingcapability,
_

and

respectively, taking into account the state of charge and the

correspondingmaximumrateareestimatedapplyingtheeq.8,9.

(8)

(9)

Consequently,themaximumenergythatcanbeprovidedtoelectrolyser,
orcanbestored,

,atthespecifictimesteparegivenbyeq.10,11including

thelossesobservedduringcharginganddischarging.

(10)

(11)

Regardingthecharging,

,andthedischarging,

efficiencywhichareincludedin

eq.10,11, typical values have been assumed (Table 4). To be more precise, it is
accepted that the roundtrip energy efficiency for a leadacid battery is about 70%
[29,30].Hence,acharginganddischargingefficiencyof85%each(0.85 0.85
thatassumedinthisstudyseemsreasonable.

39

0.72)

As mentioned, subroutine requires as input the energy available/demanded for

charging/discharging in a unique magnitude,

. In case of discharging, the

magnitudeappearsnegative.Otherwise,energyavailableexistsforbatterycharging.

Soif,

0,batterydischargingisrequired.However,theamountofenergythat

batterycanprovideinthistimestephasalreadybeenestimatedineq.10.Thebattery
is discharged only if the stored energy,
demand,

, is sufficient to cover the total

.Asaresult,thenetenergyprovidedbythebattery

is:

0,

_
_

(12)

On the other hand, when,

0, energy surplus exists and is available for

storing. Having the charging potential,

can be exploited by the battery,

, estimated, the energy that finally

, is resulted to be the minimum of them

(eq.13).

(13)

Insuchcase,theenergyrejectedbythebatteryiscalculatedbyeq.14.

(14)

It is obvious that sign separation is maintained also for the energy provided or
absorbed,

, which is negative or positive, respectively. Nevertheless, the

actual energy that battery is charged or discharged with,

including the battery

lossesisgivenbyeq.15.

40

(15)


Inanycase,thenewstateofcharge,

,isestimatedapplyingeq.16.

(16)

Finally, the corresponding to energy, power timestep magnitudes are defined in

generalineq.17.

/ (17)

4.2.1.4.

ELECTROLYSER

Asitwasdescribedforbatteries,electrolyserunitappearsalsoasa blockboxinthe
systemmodel.Electrolyserfunctioncalculatesthehydrogenproductioninthespecific
timesteprequiringthepoweravailable,
,

,andtheinstalledpowerofelectrolyser,

asinput(Table5).

Table5ElectrolysersubroutineSummary&ConstantData
Functionname: Electrolyser
Inputs:

Installedpower,
Output:

Poweravailable,
,

Hydrogenproduction,

Power/Energyconsumed,
Power/Energyrejected,

/
_

ConstantData
Description

Abbreviation

SpecificEnergyConsumption

Value

Units

kWh/Nm3

Minimumoperationpoint

95

Maximumoperationpoint

100

The literature review that presented in the first chapter ended up that electrolyser,
independently to the type it is, should operate at a very narrow range close to its
41

, and the maximum,

design point. As a consequence, the minimum,

,operationpointsdefinethepoweringlimitsofelectrolyser(eq.18).

(18)

,shouldvarybetweentheselimits.Hence,incasethat

Then,thepowerconsumed,
theavailablepower,

,isgreaterthanthemaximumlimit,anamountofpoweris

rejected and the electrolyser operates at its design point. On the other hand,
electrolyserissetoutoforderwhentheavailablepowerisnotsufficient.Inbriefthe
powerconsumedbytheelectrolyser,

,isdefinedineverytimestepas(eq.19):

0,
,

(19)

Moreover,thepowerrejected,

,isestimatedbyeq.20.

(20)

Similarly to previous subroutine, respective energy magnitudes can be obtained

applyingreverselytheeq.17.

Settingtheminimumoperationpointclosetothedesigned(table5),itcanbeassumed
thatthespecificenergyconsumption,

,(orelectrolyserefficiency)isconstant.Ithas

been shown that operation in low loads results to higher than nominal values of
energy consumption [31]. It is accepted that commercial PEM electrolysers are
featuredbyspecificenergyconsumptionof4.56kWh/Nm3[8].

Inthisstudy,itisassumedthataPEMelectrolyserischosenasithasthecapabilityof
high pressure and purity hydrogen production and eliminates the demand for
hydrogencompressorsandpurificationunitsbeforestoringintanks[1,8].Also,small

42

PEMelectrolyserunitsare,currently,availableinthemarketandseemsuitablefora
smallhydrogenrefuelingstation.

Finally,thehydrogenproductioninthetimestep, ,canbecalculatedbyeq.21.

(21)

4.2.1.5.

HYDROGENSTORAGETANK

Ignoringanyintermediatetreatmentofthehydrogenproducedbeforeitsstorageand
any losses that may appear during the hydrogen input or output, the subroutine for
storage tank estimates the updated state of fulfillment,
for storing,

, and refueling,

, and the capabilities

(Table 6). In addition, tank capacity,

1 ,andthe

whichismodelvariable,stateoffulfillmentatprevioustimestep,
hydrogenflow,

,eitherasdemand(negative)orstorage(positive),arerequired

asinput.

Table6StorageTanksubroutineSummary&ConstantData
Functionname: StorageTank
Inputs:

TankCapacity,
HydrogenFlow,
Output:

CurrentStateoffulfillment,

NewStateoffulfillment,

Volumeavailableforstorage,

Hydrogenvolumeavailableforrefueling,

ConstantData
Description

Abbreviation

Value

Units

MinimumStateoffulfillment

10

MaximumStateoffulfillment

100

Ineverytimestep,thenewstateoffulfillment,

43

,isgivenbyeq.22.

(22)

Thereafter,theavailabilityofthestoragetankforfurtherstorage,
_

,andrefueling,

,isestimatedbyeq.23,24respectively.

(23)

(24)

Where,

the minimum and maximum allowable tank state of

fulfillment.TheassumptionsmadefortheselimitsareprovidedinTable6.

4.2.2. ECONOMICS

Model also includes a rough estimation of the system total capital and maintenance
costs. A subroutine is developed that takes into account the size of each system
component and applying empirical relationships for their investment cost results to
thetotalsystemcapitalcost(Table7).Regardingthesystemoperationcosts,asmall
percentage of every components capital cost is defined. However, batteries and
electrolyser unit lifetime is limited. The replacement of them is either linked to
operation features (electrolyser) or scheduled over a specific time period (batteries).
Replacementcostsareincludedintheoperationcosts.Then,theequationsappliedfor
each subsystems cost estimation are given. Table 7 provides also the constant data
usedduringsubroutinesimplementation.

Table7EconomicssubroutineSummary&ConstantData
Functionname: Economics
Inputs:

PVinstalledpower,

Batteriescapacity,
Electrolyserpower,

HydrogenStoragetankcapacity,

44

Output:

SystemCapitalcost,

SystemMaintenancecost,
ConstantData
Description

Abbreviation

Value

Units

Years

PVlifetime

20

Years

StorageTanklifetime

20

Years

20

years

3000

Cycles

4000

/kWp

Batterieslifetime

Systemlifetime

ElectrolysermaximumONOFFswitchingcycles

PVspecificcapitalcost

_
_

Batteriesspecificcapitalcost

70

/kWh

Batteriesregularmaintenancecost(%ofcapitalcost)

Electrolysermaintenancecost(%ofcapitalcost)

PVmaintenancecost(%ofcapitalcost)

0.5

Storagetankmaintenancecost(%ofcapitalcost)

4.2.2.1.

PHOTOVOLTAICARRAY

PVcostsshowsignificantdecreaseduringthelasttwodecades,of20%reductionwith
everydoubleofproduction[24,32].Currently,atypicalspecificcost,
powerplantisabout4.7/Wp[32].Inthisstudy,thePVcapitalcost,

,foraPV
isassumed

tobegivenbyeq.25(so4/Wp).

(25)

In addition, the maintenance cost for the PV panels,

percentage,

, is taken as a

,ofitstotalcapitalcost(eq.26).

(26)

Finally, to notice that PV lifetime,

, varies between 2025 years. Hence,

replacement costs are not taken into account setting the system lifetime, , at 20
years.
45


4.2.2.2.

BATTERIES

According to Linden and Thomas, leadacid batteries specific capital cost,

, is

about$100/kWh[30].ConvertingtoBritishpounds,totalcapitalcostforthebatteries
subsystem,

,isestimatedbyeq.27.

(27)

Moreover, the limited lifetime of batteries appears to be an issue for system

maintenancecosts.Eventhoughthatbatterydepthofdischarge,

,hasinfluence

onthemaximumcyclespermittedandconsequentlyitslifetime[24,27],inthepresent
study a constant lifetime,

, of 5 years is assumed. Such an approach has been

also followed by other design study [33]. The cost for replacement is considered to
split into equal installments through the total system lifetime, . Hence, taking into
account the cost of 3 replacements through the 20 years of system lifetime and the
regular maintenance costs,

, (1% of capital cost [29]), the total maintenance

costforbatteriesisgivenbyeq.28.

(28)

4.2.2.3.

ELECTROLYSER

Electrolyser capital cost is often assumed to vary linearly with the installed power,
havingaspecificcapitalcostof$1000/kW[34].However,aresearchonthemarketof
Europe showed a correlation between electrolyser specific capital cost and its
production capacity (Figure 12) [35]. The majority of the electrolysers in the sample
taken were alkaline due to immature status at the time of study conduction.
Nevertheless,itisassumedthatPEMelectrolysersspecificcostshowssimilarvariance
regardingtheproductionrate,

,whichisdefinedineq.29inthisstudy.

46

(29)

Figure12Electrolysercomponentcostsobtainedfrom10majorsuppliersinEurope[35]

Hence,anempiricalequationwasexportedthatestimatestheelectrolysercapitalcost,
,basedonthemaximumproductionrate,

(eq.30).

64,547

(30)

Literaturereviewshowedthattheamountofcycles(onoffswitching)thatelectrolyser
undergoes has negative impact on the electrolyser performance. As noted in HARI
project [36], manufacturers often recommend a maximum of cycles after which
performancedegrades.Inthisstudy,takingintoaccountthecyclesperformedthrough
asimulationof1year(8760h),

,andsettinganupperlimit,

when the electrolyser must be replaced, the electrolyser lifetime,

, is estimated

(eq.31).

(31)

Similarly to batteries, the total maintenance cost for the electrolyser,

calculated by eq.32, including the regular maintenance specific cost,
capitalcost[34]).
47

, is
, (2% of

(32)

4.2.2.4.

HYDROGENSTORAGETANK

Asmentionedinthedescriptionofelectrolysermodeling,itisassumedthathydrogen
isbeingproducedathighpressureingasform.Asaresult,conventionalsteeltanksfor
pressurizedhydrogengasshouldbeusedasmeansofstorage.Asurveyinthemarket
of compressed hydrogen storage tanks resulted to Figure 13 [35]. It was shown that
specific storage price correlates well with the storage capacity. The equation for the
fittingcurveofthedatacollectedwasexportedandusedfortheestimationofstorage
tankcapitalcost,

Figure13Price/capacityrelationsforcommerciallyavailablecompressedstorageoptionsfor
hydrogeninthemediumtolargescalerange[35]

, is given as function of its

Hence, the capital cost of hydrogen storage tank,

capacity,

,byeq.33.

222.25
48

(33)


While,themaintenancecosts,

,arealsodefinedasapercentage,

,of

the capital cost (eq.34). A percentage of 0.5% was assumed for the modeling of a
similar system [35]. Finally, replacement costs are ignored as storage tanks lifetime
exceedsthestudiedsystemlifetime.

(34)

4.2.2.5.

SYSTEM

Concluding the subroutine for system economics, the total system capital cost,
,isestimatedasthesumofthesubsystemscapitalcostandaddinga5%for
otherunpredictablecosts(eq.35).

1.05

(35)

Similarly,systemmaintenancecost,

,isgivenbyeq.36.

1.05

(36)

4.3. POWERMANAGEMENTSTRATEGY

The, as efficient as possible, utilization of the PV energy production is a common

objective of most of power management strategies developed for standalone
systems.Ontheotherhand,systemoperationconstraintshavealsotobetakeninto
account. At a PVelectrolysis standalone system, special constraints concerning the
electrolyseroperationwerenoticedintheliterature.Thestrategydevelopedattempts
toincorporatesuchrequirementsinsystemsimulation.Thereafter,strategyfunction
isdescribed,stating,firstly,therequirementsneededtobesatisfiedforelectrolyser

49

POWER MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY
FLOW CHART

START

EPV(i), PPV(i), VAVAIL(i), VH2_ST(i), CEL,

SOC(i), PEL_MAX, PEL_MIN, CBAT, CTANK,
t, DoD, SOF(i), ELH_MIN , ELST

NO

YES
ELECTROLYSER
REQUIREMENTS

EBAT_TH(i)=EPV(i)-t*PEL_MIN
ESUR(i)=0

NO
PPV(i)>PEL_MIN

YES
CALL BATTERY
FUNCTION
(DISCHARGE)

EBAT_TH(i)=EPV(i)

NO

EBAT_NET(i)<0
YES
PAVAIL(i)=min(PEL_MAX, (VAVAIL(i)*CEL)/t, PPV(i))

PAVAIL(i)=PPV(i)+PBAT_NET(i)
ESUR(i)=EPV(i)-PAVAIL(i)*t

CALL BATTERY
FUNCTION
(CHARGE)

CALL ELECTROLYSER
FUNCTION

QTANK(i)=QH2(i)

CALL STORAGE TANK

FUNCTION

NO
END

ESUR(i)>0

YES
EBAT_TH(i)=ESUR(i)

Figure14Powermanagementstrategyflowchart

50

operation.Then,theinterconnectionofsubsystemsmodels(functions)underdifferent
operationcasesispresented.Powermanagementstrategydevelopedforthespecific
standalonesystemisreflectedinFigure14.

InputsrequiredforstrategyfunctionimplementationareprovidedinTable8.Most
ofthemarealsoinputsforfunctionsthatarecalledduringstrategyimplementation.In
addition, timestep status of batteries and storage tank is needed to check whether
therequirementsforelectrolyseroperationaresatisfied.Duetothefactthatstrategy
function just defines the way of operation followed in every timestep, its output
coincides with the output of functions called. Equations 6 and 18 that presented in
othersubroutinesarealsoappliedhere.

Table8StrategysubroutineSummary&ConstantData
Functionname: Strategy
Inputs:

PVenergyproduction,

PVpowerproduction,

Volumeavailableforstorage,
BatteryStateofcharge,
Electrolyserpower,

Batterycapacity,
Tankcapacity,

Timestep,
BatteryDepthofDischarge,
Tankstateoffulfillment,

Minimumpermittedelectrolyserhoursofoperationperday,
Output:

Storagetank,Batteries,Electrolyserfunctionsoutput
ConstantData
Description

Abbreviation

SpecificEnergyConsumption

Value

Units

kWh/Nm3

Minimumoperationpoint

95

Maximumoperationpoint

100

85

100

Dischargingenergyefficiency

Maximumallowablestateofcharge

51

4.3.1. ELECTROLYSEROPERATIONCONSTRAINTS

The requirements which must be satisfied in order electrolyser operation to be

allowed are mentioned below. As a result, electrolyser operates (however in case of
sufficientavailableenergy)atatimestep, ,when:

Ithasnotbeenpoweredpreviouslyinthespecificdayand,

o Power produced by PV,

nominalelectrolyserpower,

, is at least greater than the 60% of

(eq.37).

0.6

37

Such a requirement ensures that electrolyser starts to be powered

under good conditions of irradiance, so PV to be the main powering
source.Asitwillbenoticedbelow,aminimumofguaranteedoperation
hours for electrolyser is required. Hence, the role of batteries is
maintained as the possibility of adequate values of irradiance at the
followingtimestepsisincreased.Asaresult,batteriesarenotforcedto
power the electrolyser and undergo situations of deep discharging,
when the primary energy source is insufficient for a long time period.
Concerning the percentage required, it is the lowest limit, under the
values of efficiency assumed, after which the batteries losses for
powering the electrolyser at its maxima are resulted greater than
storingtheenergycomingfromPV.

o Batteries state of charge,

, guarantees that electrolyser can be

powered, at least, at its maxima for a defined minimum of hours,

_

,evenifthePVenergyproductionatthefollowingtimestepsis

zero(eq.38).
52

(38)

Satisfying eq. 38, it is ensured that electrolyser would not face

unexpected shut downs. Regarding the minimum operation hours,
_

,itsvalueshouldbesettakingintoaccountthatanelectrolyser

needs about 1 hour to reach its nominal operation temperature and

workatmaximumefficiency[8].

o Potentialhydrogenproductionresultedbyelectrolyseroperationatits
maxima,

, for a minimum of hours,

availablevolume,

, is less than tank

,ensuringitsstorage(eq.39).

(39)

1 , but the minimum of

It was powered at the previous timestep,

operation hours has not been covered. In such a case, it should continue to
operate independentlyto the amount of PV energy production. Batteries and
storagetankavailabilityhasbeenguaranteedbytheinitial,atthespecificday,
electrolyserpowering.

1 , has already operated the

It was powered at the previous time step,

minimumofhourssetand,

o PV power production,
electrolyserpower,

, is greater than the 10% of nominal

(eq.40).

0.1

40

Such a constraint results to electrolyser shutdown during the night,

whenPVenergyproducediszero.Operatingtheelectrolyserduringthe
53

dayincreasesthesystemefficiencyasPVenergyproductionisdirectly
exploitedandnotthroughbatteries.

o Tank availability ensures the maximum potential hydrogen production

tobestored(eq.41).

(41)

It has not performed a cycle during the current day. It was decided that
electrolyserwouldnotundertakemorethanonecycleperday,sotoeliminate
the frequent onoff switching which shortens its lifetime and results to
performancedegradation[7].

Toconclude,electrolyserisswitchedononlyduringtheday,atatimewhenPVenergy
issufficientandtheavailabilityofbatteriesandstoragetankguaranteesaminimumof
operationhours.Then,itstopstooperatewhenthePVenergyproductiondropsclose
tozero(atnight).Tonotice,electrolyseralsogetsswitchedoffincaseofinsufficient
stored energy in batteries (mentioned at the following section). In addition, tank
availability is checked in every timestep in order total hydrogen production to be
stored. Otherwise, electrolyser is set out of order. Finally, only one onoff switching
cycleperdayisaccepted.

4.3.2. ENERGYPRODUCTIONMANAGEMENT

Besides the operation constraints set previously, the management of energy

productionshouldbealsostructured.Thestrategydeveloped,asshowninFigure14,
checks, as first priority, whether the requirements for electrolyser operation are
satisfied.Thereafter,differentoperationcasesarepresenteddependingontheenergy
productionavailabilityandthecurrentbatteryandtankstatus.

54

Two main cases are described regarding whether the electrolyser constraints are
covered.ThedescriptionwhichtakesplacebelowisreflectedinFigure14.

Incasethatelectrolyserisnotallowedtooperateduetothefactthatsomeof
the constraints described in the previous section are not satisfied, all the PV
energyproduction,

,isprovidedforbatteriescharging(eq.42).

(42)

Hence, function used for batteries modeling is called having as input eq.42.
Then, depending on the battery state of charge and total capacity, available
energy is either completely or partial stored, or even totally rejected (see
batteriessubroutine).

On the other hand, if all the requirements are covered, electrolyser has the
potentialtooperate.However,theavailabilityofenergyproductionresultsthe
casesbelow.

o If,

,electrolyserhasthepotentialtobepoweredbyPV

at least at its minima, as the power production is adequate. However,

the power available (used for electrolyser function as input),
definedastheminimumofthemaximumoperationlimit,
theenergyproduction,

, is
,and

(eq.43).

(43)

It is obvious electrolyser operates at the maximum possible point

regardingitslimitsandtheenergyavailable.Then,electrolyserfunction
iscalledtoresultthecorrespondinghydrogenproduction,

.Asitis

verifiedbyelectrolyserconstraints(eq.41)thatevenmaximumpossible
hydrogen production in the specific timestep can be stored in tank,
55

eq.44 is used as input when subroutine for hydrogen storage tank is

called.Callingstoragetankfunction,tankstatusisupdatedforthenext
timestep.

(44)

Nevertheless, energy surplus,

, exists and should be stored in

batteryandusedincaseofenergydeficit.Theamountofenergysurplus
isgivenbyeq.45.

(45)

Thereafter,batteryfunctioniscalledhavingtheinputdefinedbyeq.46.

(46)

However, energy storage depends on battery status (state of charge,

capacityandchargingrate)andapartofthesurplusmayberejected.

o If,

, PV cannot be the sole powering source for

electrolyserasthepowerproducedisnotsufficient,eventooperateat
minimum point. As the hydrogen production is systems first priority,
the energy deficit resulted should be covered by batteries and power
theelectrolyser.Batteriesfunctioniscalledhavingasinputtheamount
ofenergydemanded,

,whichisestimatedbyeq.47.

(47)

Nevertheless,atthispointtwocases,regardingthebatteriescapability
tocoverthedemand,exist.
56

If,

0, batteries are being discharged in order to

provide the energy deficit needed to power the electrolyser at

its minima. Hence, the available power for the electrolyser is
givenbyeq.48,whichistheinputforelectrolysersubroutine.

(48)

Asaresult,electrolyseroperateshavingtheminimumhydrogen
production rate. It is chosen batteries to provide the minimum
requiredamountofenergysoeithertostartortomaintainthe
electrolyser operation. Moreover, batteries discharging is
devotedforsatisfyingtheelectrolyserconstraintsandnotspent
formaximizingtheproductionrate.However,tonoticethatthe
electrolyseroperationlimitsatthisstudyarealmostthesameso
analysisabovehasnotagreatimpacthere.

Then, hydrogen production is stored to the tank. Eq. 44 is also

appliedherebeforecallingthestoragetanksubroutine.

If,

0,batteriesstoredenergyisinsufficienttocover

the total demand. Consequently, electrolyser cannot be

powered. However, PV energy production exists and should be
used for batteries charging. Such a situation coincides with the
first case when electrolyser requirements are not satisfied.
Similarly, eq. 42 defines the potential battery charge while an
amount of energy may be rejected if battery state of charge
reachesthemaximum.

As a conclusion, power management strategy provides priority to electrolyser

constraints satisfaction. On the other hand, optimum energy produced exploitation
underthespecificconditionsisalsoapproached.
57

4.4. RESULTSOUTPUT

At the final stage of the numerical code, a group of magnitudes are calculated and
usedforsystemevaluation.Suchperformanceindicatorsarealsogoingtoconstitute
the objectives for system optimization. The definition of these evaluators is given by
eq.4954.

DuetointermittentnatureofPVandothersystemcomponentsavailability,itisalmost
impossible to exploit the total energy production. Hence, the percentage of energy
rejection,

,definedastheratioofannualenergyrejectionbybatteriestoannual

PV energy production (eq. 49). To notice that, energy rejection by electrolyser is

resulted as zero due to power management structure where the inequality,
_

,isalwaystrue.Thefraction,

,shouldbetheminimumpossiblemeaning

thatsystemhastheappropriatesizingintermsofperformance.

(49)

Inaddition,capacityfactorsareoftenusedfordeterminingsystemcomponentsusage
rate. In this study, capacity factorsfor PV,

, and electrolyser,

, are given by

eq.50,51.

PV capacity factor,

, is defined as the fraction of annual PV energy production

exploited(eitherstoredinbatteriesorconsumedbyelectrolyser)toenergyproduced
if PV worked at peak power for the whole year (eq.50). The resulted value of this
evaluator is indicative of locations level of annual irradiance and PV size adequacy.
DuetoPVnature,valuesof25%andlowerareexpected.

_
,

58

8760(50)


, is equal to the ratio of annual

On the other hand, electrolyser capacity factor,

energyconsumptiontothepotentialconsumptionincaseitwasworkingcontinuously
forayearatnominalpower(eq.51).Amaximizedelectrolysercapacityfactorshould
beanobjectiveduringsystemssizing.

8760(51)

Inaddition,theefficiencyofsolartohydrogenconversion,

,isalsoused.Itis

calculated by eq.52 as the ratio of the equivalent energy to annual hydrogen

production totheannualsolarenergyreceivedbythePV effectivearea,
study, Higher Heating Value,

.Inthis

, of hydrogen is used for the conversion. The

maximization of the system efficiency will be an issue, although lower values

comparingtodirectcoupledsystemsareexpectedtoberesulted.

(52)

Furthermore, the reliability of the system, , is also estimated. Regarding the tank
availability,dailyfueldemand,

,iscoveredeithertotallyorpartially.Hence,system

reliabilityisdefinedastheratiooftheannualsatisfiedfueldemandtotheannualfuel
demand (eq.53). The effect of system demanded reliability on system sizing is
investigated.Itissupposedthatincreasedreliabilityresultstooversizedsystems.

(53)

Where

,isthedailyfueldemandcoveredbystoredhydrogenintank.

Also, the number of electrolyser cycles is counted. As mentioned in electrolyser

constraints, only one onoff switching per day is permitted. Besides the special
59

attentiongivenduringthestrategydevelopment,electrolysercycleseliminationwillbe
anissuefortheoptimizationstudies.

The economic evaluation is performed through hydrogen specific production cost,

, estimation. In methodology followed [37], total capital cost is divided into
equalannualpaymentswhicharerelatedtotheirpresentworth(eq.54).Theresulted
payment, ,definesaregularincometorecoverthesystemcapitalcost[37].Hence,
includingsystemmaintenancecost,specificproductioncost,

,isgivenbyeq.55.

(54)

(55)

Where,r,thediscountrateassumedtobe10%forthisstudy.

Finally,thedefinitionofautonomythatbatteriesandstoragetankprovidetakesplace
as both magnitudes are used either for system evaluation or parameters
determination.Firstly,systemenergyautonomy,
activebatterycapacity,

,iscalculatedastheratioofthe

,toelectrolyserinstalledpower(eq.56).System

energyautonomydeterminesthetimethatelectrolysercanbeexclusivelypoweredby
batteries.

(56)

While, system hydrogen autonomy,

capacity,

,todailyfueldemand,

, is estimated by eq.57 as the ratio of tank

.

(57)

Hydrogen autonomy reflects the max time that tank can guarantee cars refueling if
systemhasbeensetoutoforder.
60

5. RESULTS

Theapplicationofthemodeldescribedtakesplaceatthischapter.Atfirst,acasestudy
forareasonablesizedsystemispresented.Then,anoptimumsystemofminimumcost
andhighreliabilityisresultedusingtheMOT.Inaddition,theeffectthatsomeofthe
systemparametershaveonthesizingofminimumcostsystemsisinvestigatedthrough
various parametric studies. Finally, double objective optimization studies are
conductedapproachingtherelationshipbetweenevaluationindicatorsand/orsystem
parameters.

5.1. CASESTUDY

Thesimulationofasystem,thesizingofwhichisreliedonreasonableassumptions,is
presented here. System sizing and values of other parameters chosen for this case
studyareprovidedinTable9.

Table9CaseStudySystemparameters
No

Description

Abbreviation

Value

Units

PVinstalledpeakpower

48

kW

BatteryCapacity

240

kWh

Electrolyserinstalledpower

24

kW

HydrogenAutonomy

Days

Minimumcontinuouselectrolyseroperation

Hours

Numberofcarsrefueledbythestation

Cars

Location

Athens

Datatimeseries

Hence,itwasdecidedsuchasystem,installedinAthens,tobeabletorefuel2cars,
providing 2 kg of hydrogen gas per day(eq. 6). Assuming an average daily operation
timeforelectrolyserof5hours(minimumoperationat3hours),nominalproduction
rateshouldbeabout4Nm3/handconsequentlyitsnominalpowerat24kW(eq.21).
Concerningtheenergystoragesystem,batteriesaresizedat240kWhoftotalcapacity,
61

providing 6 hours (0.6*240/24) of powering autonomy. On the other hand,

photovoltaics peak energy production should be used not only to power the
electrolyserbutalsotochargethebatteries.Asaresult,48kWpforPVinstalledpower
seemstobereasonable.Also,hydrogenstoragetankcanpotentiallyguaranteeupto5
daysofhydrogenfuelautonomy.

Thesimulationofspecificsizedsystemisresultedtofig.1521.Systemperformanceis
reflected in graphs for two indicative weeks of the year. Three different graphs are
givenforeachoftheseweeks.Atfirst,thewaythatPVpowerproductionisdistributed
tothesystemisshowninfig.15,18.Powerproducediseitherconsumedbybatteries
(red)andelectrolyser(blue)orrejected(yellow).Ontheotherhand,fig.16,19reflect
electrolyseroperationwhichiseitherpoweredbyPV(green)orbattery(orange).Also,
thevariationofthestateofchargenotonlyforbatteries(blue)butalsoforstorage
tank(red)ispresentedbyfig.17,20.

Photovoltaics power consumption

Power (kW)

50
40
Battery
Electrolyser
Rejection

30
20
10
0
8256

8280

8304

8328
8352
8376
Hour of the year (h)

8400

8424

Figure15ConsumptionsourcesforPVpowerproduction(winterweek)

Electrolyser powering
Power (kW)

25
20
Battery
PV

15
10
5
0
8256

8280

8304

8328
8352
Hour of the year (h)

8376

8400

8424

Figure16Electrolyserpoweringsources(winterweek)

62

State of Charge/ Fulfilment

Batteries / Tank State of Charge / Fulfiment

1
0.8
Storage tank
Battery

0.6
0.4
0.2

8256

8280

8304

8328
8352
8376
Hour of the year (h)

8400

8424

Figure17Batteriesandstoragetankstatusvariation(winterweek)

Regardingthewinterweek,itisshowninFigure15thatPVpowerproductionisalmost
completely exploited either powering the electrolyser or charging the battery.
However,atthebeginningoftheweek,energyproductionisnotsufficienttopower
electrolyser(reachtheinitialrequiredlimitsetbyeq.37)andisrejectedasbatteryis
fullycharged(Figure17).Inaddition,atfirsthoursofeachday,PVenergyproductionis
driven to batteries and electrolyser is turned on at the solar peak of the day (Figure
15).Thereafter,electrolyseroperationismaintainedduringthetimethatPVisactive
and consequently more than the time limit (3 hours). Nevertheless, batteries
assistance to electrolyser powering is significant as shown in Figure 16. As a result,
batteries state of charge reaches the minimum limit at the mid of the week due to
batteries contribution to the system and then, increases exploiting the higher PV
production(Figure17).Finally,hydrogenstoragetankstateoffulfilmentvariesinlow
levels(Figure17),asthesolarconditionsdonotprovidethepotentialtooperatethe
electrolyserlongerindailybasis.

Photovoltaics power consumption

Power (kW)

50
40
Battery
Electrolyser
Rejection

30
20
10
0
4320

4344

4368

4392
4416
4440
Hour of the year (h)

4464

4488

Figure18ConsumptionsourcesforPVpowerproduction(summerweek)

63

Electrolyser powering
Power (kW)

25
20
Battery
PV

15
10
5
0
4320

4344

4368

4392
4416
Hour of the year (h)

4440

4464

4488

Figure19Electrolyserpoweringsources(summerweek)

State of Charge/ Fulfilment

Batteries / Tank State of Charge / Fulfiment

1
0.8
Storage tank
Battery

0.6
0.4
0.2

4320

4344

4368

4392
4416
4440
Hour of the year (h)

4464

4488

Figure20Batteriesandstoragetankstatusvariation(summerweek)

Ontheotherhand,PVenergyproductionismostlyresultedgreaterthanelectrolyser
demandduringasummerweek(Figure18).Asaconsequence,electrolyserisdirectly
powered by PV (Figure 19) filling the hydrogen storage tank completely (Figure 20).
However,anenergysurplus,thatcannotbestoredinbatterieswhicharefullycharged
(Figure20),isrejected.Also,electrolyserswitchesoffafteracertaintimeduetothe
factpotentialhydrogenproductioncannotbestoredinthefulltank,showninFigure
20. From Figure 18, electrolyser shut down occurs before the PV energy production
stopresultingtoenergyrejection.

Furthermore, batteries and hydrogen storage tank status over a simulation year is
showninFigure21.Batteriesstateofchargevaries,evenreachingitsminimumlimit,
during winter (02500h, 65008760h), although it remains almost constant at
maximum level during summer period (30006500h). Storage tank undergoes similar

64

variation; however, state of fulfillment is resulted high for longer time period (1000
7000h).

State of Charge/ Fulfilment

Batteries / Tank State of Charge / Fulfiment

1
0.8
Storage tank
Battery

0.6
0.4
0.2

1460

2920
4380
5840
Hour of the year (h)

7300

8760

Figure21Batteriesandstoragetankstatusvariation(annual)

Finally, results for evaluation indicators are given in Table 10. System simulated
showedhighreliability(99.7%)butpoorconversionefficiency(3.43%).Also,capacity
factor for PV and electrolyser was resulted as 12 and 23%, respectively. System
performanceisalsoreflectedatthefractionofenergyrejectedwhichwasestimated
44.5%. It is obvious, that low performance results had impact to specific production
costwhichfoundatabout6.2/Nm3.Inaddition,electrolyseroperatedalmostindaily
basis through the year, performing 353 cycles (only one cycle per day is permitted
accordingtooperationstrategy).

Table10CaseStudyResults
No

Description

Reliability

Specifichydrogenproductioncost

Energyrejection

PVcapacityfactor

Electrolysercapacityfactor

Systemefficiency

Electrolysercycles

Abbreviation

Units

99.7

6.176

/Nm3

44.5

11.9

22.9

3.43

353

Cycles

65

Value

5.2. SINGLEOBJECTIVEOPTIMIZATION

UsinggeneticalgorithmsofMOT,aseriesofoptimizationstudieswasconducted.Here,
theresultsofasingleobjectiveoptimizationarepresented.

The minimization of hydrogen specific production cost was set as the objective.
However, a constraint about system reliability was also included. Hence, system
resulted should be featured by reliability of 99.5% and over. Table 11 provides the
rangeofvaluesforvaryingsystemparameters.Valuesofotherparameterswhichare
assumedasconstantinthisstudyarealsogiven.Thehalfofsystemparameters,such
as location and number of cars refueled remained constant in contrast to the case
studyinorderacomparisonbetweenthemtobefeasible.

Table11SingleobjectiveoptimizationSpecificproductioncostParametersvaluesrange
Parameters
No

Description

Abbreviation

Value

Units

PVinstalledpeakpower

1070

kW

BatteryCapacity

100500

kWh

Electrolyserinstalledpower

1050

kW

HydrogenAutonomy

115

Days

Minimumcontinuouselectrolyseroperation

Hours

Numberofcarsrefueledbythestation

Cars

Location

Athens

>99.5

Datatimeseries

Constraint
1

Reliability

Objective convergence was not attained in a single run. Different limits were
attempted so to achieve the best objective value. Beginning with wide values range
and continuing with more and more decreased range, actual optimum system was
achieved.TheconvergenceforoneoftheseattemptsisshowninFigure22,whilethe
optimumsystemresultedispresentedinTable12.

66

SpecificProductionCost(/Nm3 )

SingleObjective ProductionCost Convergence

5.66
5.64
5.62
5.6
5.58
5.56
5.54
5.52
5.5
5.48
0

20

40

60

80

100

Generations

Figure22Convergenceinsingleobjectiveoptimization

Optimum system is consisted by almost 40 kWp PV which power an electrolyser of

nominalpowerof19.3kW.Also,batterieswith210kWhtotalcapacityarerequired,
whilestoragetankmustprovideabout10daysofautonomy.Apartfromstoragetank,
optimum system size is found to be decreased comparing to case study. It can be
noticed that, PV peak power should be about twice the electrolyser nominal power;
while batteries discharge rate (

/10) has to be equal or greater to electrolyser

power.

Table12SingleObjectiveoptimizationSpecificproductioncostOptimumSystemparameters
No

Description

Abbreviation

Value

Units

PVinstalledpeakpower

39.9

kW

BatteryCapacity

210.3

kWh

Electrolyserinstalledpower

19.3

kW

HydrogenAutonomy

10.4

Days

Similarly to case study (Table 10), summary results indicative for the cost optimum
system are given in Table 13. As expected, evaluators are improved, although the
difference is not significant. Hydrogen produced costs about 5.46 /Nm3, a relatively
highvalue.Moreover,33%ofenergyproducedbyPVisrejectedresultingto4%solar
hydrogenconversionefficiency.Ontheotherhand,electrolysercapacityfactorcame
upat28%,whichisacceptableasitisforcedtooperateonlyduringtheday.
67


Table13SingleObjectiveoptimizationSpecificproductioncostOptimumSystemresults
No

Description

Abbreviation

Reliability

Specifichydrogenproductioncost

Energyrejection

PVcapacityfactor

Electrolysercapacityfactor

Systemefficiency

Electrolysercycles

Value

Units

99.5

5.462

/Nm3

33

14.3

28.2

4.1

355

Cycles

At this point, the contribution of each system component to total capital and
maintenance has special interest. As shown in, PV capital cost constitutes about the
half of total capital cost, while electrolyser comes as the second more expensive
component with 35% contribution. On the other hand, batteries cost is resulted less
significant,beingthe5%ofthetotalcost.

Figure23Capital(left)/Maintenance(right)costshareintheoptimumsystem

However, batteries are resulted to have greater contribution (29%) in maintenance

costs (Figure 23). As a result, electrolyser seems to have relatively less cost (26%)
during system lifetime. Also, PV system remains as the main fraction of system
maintenancecost.Inbothdistributions,itmustbepointedoutthathydrogenstorage
tank

seems

not

to

have

important

impact

68

on

the

system

costs.

5.3. PARAMETRICSTUDIES

Systemsizing,basedoncostcriteria,isaffectedbyconstraintsandconstantparameter
valuesthathavesetbeforetheoptimization.Hence,itwasdecidedtoinvestigatethe
influence of some parameters on optimal economic systems. Optimization studies
havingasobjectivetheminimizationofthespecificproductioncostbutunderdifferent
conditions,comparingtoprevious(4.2.)section,arepresentedhere.Beforepresenting
the results, Table 14 defines the set of parameters used in following parameter
studies.ChangesinTable14occuronlyafterspecialreferenceineverystudy.

Table14ParametricStudiesParametersandconstraintdefinition
Parameters
No

Description

Abbreviation

Value

Units

PVinstalledpeakpower

Variable

kW

BatteryCapacity

Variable

kWh

Electrolyserinstalledpower

Variable

kW

HydrogenAutonomy

Variable

Days

Minimumcontinuouselectrolyseroperation

Hours

Numberofcarsrefueledbythestation

Cars

Location

Athens

>99.5

Datatimeseries

Constraint
1

Reliability

5.3.1. LOCATION

At the first two studies, weather data time series from Athens were used. However,
solar conditions in Greece are very advantageous for PV installations due to high
annual solar radiation density (about 6.3 GJ/m2). In this study, solar data time series
from Tokyo (4.7 GJ/m2) and Frankfurt (4.2 GJ/m2) are also applied and changes
performedinsystemsizingarenoticed.

69


In order to depict the effect of installation area on system sizing, each location is
featuredbyitsannualsolarenergydensityinGJ/m2.Itwasfoundthatcomponentssize
is largely affected which, however, could not be correlated with the annual solar
energydensityofthearea.Tobemoreprecise,PVelectrolysissystemestablishedin
Tokyo(4.7GJ/m2)orinFrankfurt(4.2GJ/m2)requiresabouttwotimeslargerbattery
capacity (500 kWh) than in Athens (see 5.2). On the other hand, PV and electrolysis
size of a system in Frankfurt resulted 2.5 times bigger than in Athens and Tokyo. As
expected, the specific production cost for optimum systems proved to increase in
areasoflowerannualsolarenergydensity(Figure24).

SpecificProductionCost(/Nm3 )

ParametricStudy ProductionCost SystemLocation

12
10
y=31.7e0.286x

8
6
4
2
0
3

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

AnnualSolarEnergyDensity(GJ/m2 )

Figure24Productioncostvariationregardingtheannualsolarenergydensity

Itmustbepointedoutthattherateofproductioncostreduction,increasesrapidlyfor
areasof4.5GJ/m2andlowerannualsolarenergydensity.Hence,whileTokyosystem
produces hydrogen with 6.7 /Nm3, the optimum system for Frankfurt has a much
higher production cost of 11.3 /Nm3. Such a sudden increase in cost goes with the
demand for more installed PV panels and larger electrolyser unit which mentioned
before.

70

ElectrolyserCycles

ParametricStudy ProductionCost SystemLocation

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

y=49.781x1.0705

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

AnnualSolarEnergyDensity(GJ/m2 )

Figure25Electrolysercyclesvsannualsolarenergydensityinoptimaleconomicsystems

Theamountofcyclesthatelectrolyserperformsinayearisfoundtobeindicativeof
theareasolarconditionsandthesystemcomponentssize.ItisshowninFigure25that
annualelectrolysercyclesarelinearlyrelatedwiththeannualsolarenergydensity.To
give an example, electrolyser turned on 225 and 268 times in Frankfurt and Tokyo
respectively,incontrasttoAthensthatperformed355cycles.Itisobviousthatwhere
solarpotentialisweaklikeFrankfurtandTokyo,electrolyserunitturnsuplargerand
consequentlyisforcedtooperatefewertimestocoverthefueldemand.

5.3.2. RELIABILTY

Then,aparametricstudyregardingthesystemreliabilityisconducted.Discretevalues
(80,90,95and99.5%)forsystemreliabilityweresetasconstraintsfortheoptimum
economicsystemsexport.

Although the less hydrogen production required for systems of lower reliability,
specifichydrogenproductioncostisfoundtodecreasewithfueldemandsatisfaction
rate. As shown in Figure 26, cost for 80% reliable system reduced about 20 %
comparingwiththesystemof99.5%reliability.Itcanbesaidthathydrogenproduction
costcorrelateswithreliability.

71

SpecificProductionCost(/Nm3 )

ParametricStudy ProductionCost Reliability

6
5
4

y=0.1714x0.7464

3
2
1
0
75

80

85

90

95

100

Systemreliability(%)

Figure26Effectofsystemreliabilityonspecificproductioncostofoptimumeconomic
system

From a general point of view, optimizations resulted that the lower reliability that a
systemshouldhave,thesmallercomponentssizeisrequired.Hence,itwasprovedthe
ratioofPVtoelectrolyserinstalledpowerisrelatedwellwithsystemreliability(Figure
27). More specifically, PV peak power should be more than two times greater than
electrolyser installed power in order to achieve high reliability (99.5%). The almost
same relationship exists also for values of reliability greater than 90%. Then, ratio
dropsto1.75for80%reliablesystem.

PV/Electrolyserinstalledpower

ParametricStudy ProductionCost Reliability

2.5
2.25

y=0.9291e0.0081x

2
1.75
1.5
1.25
1
75

80

85

90

95

100

Systemreliability(%)

Figure27RatioofPVtoelectrolyserinstalledpowerrequiredforvariouslevelsofreliability

72

As a consequence of the reduced ratio PV to electrolyser installed power, capacity

factors of them are getting improved at lower reliable systems (Figure 28). More
specifically,PVcapacityfactorachievesavalueofabout20%atanoptimalsystemof
80% reliability. In correspondence, electrolyser capacity factor is found increased at
32%.Suchresultsarereflectedalsoatsystemefficiencywhichincreaseswithreduced
reliability,reachingamaximumof5.75%atalowreliablesystem(%).

In addition, it was pointed at the single objective optimization section that energy
rejectionisquitesignificantforthehighreliablesystemwhichcameup.Aninteresting
resultofthisstudyisthatenergyrejectionincreaseswithreliability.Alinearequation
depicts well the relationship between energy rejection and reliability (Figure 28).
Hence,every5%ofreliability,about57%isaddedtoenergyrejection.Also,itcanbe
noticedthatenergyrejectedintheoptimalsystemof80%reliabilityisonly4%.Itmust
bepointedoutthatthisdropinenergyrejectionisnotowedtosizeincreaseofsystem
storage devices, as both batteries and storage tank are resulted much smaller (25%
and80%maxreductionrespectively)inlowerlevelsofreliability.

ParametricStudy ProductionCost Reliability

40
35

Percentage(%)

30
25
EnergyRejection

20

PVcapacityfactor

15

Electrolysercapacityfactor

10

Systemefficiency

5
0
80

85

90

95

100

Systemreliability(%)

Figure28Performanceindicatorsofoptimumeconomicsystemswithdifferentreliability

73

5.3.3. NUMBEROFCARSREFUELED

Until now, optimization studies were conducted for a specific daily fuel demand (2
cars).Here,theimpactofthefueldemandonsystemsizingisinvestigatedbysetting
differentnumberofcars(2,10,50)toberefueledbythestation.

At a first glance, optimal systems exported are featured by similar performance

(efficiency,PVcapacityfactor,energyrejection).Also,componentssizesprovedtobe
almost proportional to fuel demand. However, electrolyser installed power (556 kW
for50carsstation)requiredovercomessucharateofincrease,whilePVpeakpower
slightly decreases. The correlation between the ratios of PV to electrolyser installed
powerwiththenumberofcarsrefueled,asdepictedbyFigure29,isindicativeofthis
situation.Hence,inasmallsizedsystem(2cars),thisratioisresultedabout2,whilefor
astationwhichrefuels50cars,thisvaluedropsto1.75.

PV/Electrolyserinstalledpower

ParametricStudy ProductionCost Carsrefueled

2.1
2.05
2
1.95
1.9
1.85

y=2.1099x0.049

1.8
1.75
1.7
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Numberofcarsrefueledbystation

Figure29PV/electrolyserinstalledpowerinoptimaleconomicsystemsfordifferentfuel
demand(carsrefueled)

Regarding the objective of the study, it is shown by Figure30 that system size has a
positiveimpactontheoptimalspecifichydrogenproductioncost.Tonotice,thatrate
of cost decrease is resulted higher in the low range (210 cars) of number of cars
refueled. As a consequence, a station that undertakes the refuelling of 10 cars,
74

produces hydrogen at 4.2 /Nm3, having 23% reduction comparing toa station for 2
cars.Ontheotherhand,hydrogenproductioncostfora50carsstationdecreasesto
3.7/Nm3whichmeansthatthedecreaserateintherangeof1050carsislimitedto
12%.

SpecificProductionCost(/Nm3 )

ParametricStudy ProductionCost Carsrefueled

6
5

y=5.7883x0.118

4
3
2
1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Numberofcarsrefueledbystation

Figure30Optimalproductioncostvariationwiththenumberofcarsrefuelledbystation

5.3.4. HYDROGENAUTONOMY

The volume of hydrogen storage tank guarantees a time period of autonomy, when
carsrefuelingcantakeplaceindependentlytosolarconditions.Surely,thebiggerthe
storagetankis,thelessenergyrejectionoccurs.However,volumeoccupiedbystorage
tank is an issue for such stations. Sometimes, storage tank is predefined due to
conditions of installation area. At this section, days of autonomy, that storage tank
provides,aresetasdiscretevalues(3.5,5,7.5,10,12.5,15days)foroptimaleconomic
systems.Theeffectofdaysofautonomyonsystemcharacteristicsisstudied.

Asageneraltrend,itwasprovedthatPVand electrolysersizearenotinfluencedby
thechangeinstoragetankvolume.Hence,PVpeakpowerismaintainedastwice(see
5.2) of the electrolyser installed power for every tank volume. On the other hand,
batteries,astheothermeansofstorageinthesystem,shouldhaveincreasedcapacity
incaseofsmallstoragetank(daysofautonomy).However,asshowninFigure31,
75

thehoursofautonomythatbatteriesprovidetoelectrolyserreachalowlimitfor7.5
daysanduprefuelingautonomy.Itcanbeconcludedthatelectrolysershouldbeable
tobeexclusivelypoweredbybatteriesatleastfor6.5hours.

EnergyAutonomy(hours)

ParametricStudy ProductionCost DaysofAutonomy

10
8
6
4
2
0
0

10

12

14

16

HydrogenAutonomy(days)

Figure31Hoursofautonomyrequiredbybatteriesvsdaysofautonomyprovidedbystorage
tankinoptimaleconomicsystems

Theresultsdescribedabovearealsoreflectedatthevariationofhydrogenproduction
costwithhydrogenautonomy(Figure32).Firstly,itisprovedthatanoptimaleconomic
systemshouldincludeatankthatprovidesatleast3.5daysofautonomy.Otherwise,
the required reliability (99.5%) cannot be achieved. Certainly, optimization was also
approachedfor2.5daysofhydrogenautonomy,butdidnthaveanyresults.Then,an
interestingfinding,depictedbyFigure32,isthatalimitexistsforhydrogenautonomy,
afterwhich,thecostreductionisinsufficient.Tobemoreprecise,asystemof3.5days
hydrogen autonomy produces hydrogen at about 6.2 /Nm3, while for 7.5 days the
correspondingcostisat5.55 /Nm3,resultingto10.5%costdecrease.But,afurther
increase in days of hydrogen autonomy drives to inadequate system economics
improvement. It can be noticed that a system which compromises minimum
production cost with minimum hydrogen autonomy is found by the tangent to the
slope of the fitting curve shown in Figure 32. In such a case, this compromise suits
better at the point of 5.65 /Nm3 hydrogen production and 6 days hydrogen
autonomy.

76

SpecificProductionCost(/Nm3 )

ParametricStudy ProductionCost DaysofAutonomy

6.4
6.2
6
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
0

10

12

14

16

HydrogenAutonomy(days)

Figure32Optimalproductioncostfordifferentdaysofautonomy(storagetank)required

Finally, to point out that performance indicators (conversion efficiency, capacity

factorsandenergyrejection)ofoptimaleconomicsystemsshowimprovementincase
largerstoragetankisintegrated.

5.3.5. CAPITALCOSTREDUCTION

Asresultedincasestudy(see5.1),systemcapitalcostismainlyowedtophotovoltaics
and electrolyser unit. Even though that, currently, capital costs of both technologies
arehigh,theprospectsareverypromising.PVcostshavebeendecliningsteadilyover
thelasttwodecades,havinga20%costreductioneverydoublingofproduction[32].
Also, PEM electrolysers seem to dominate the market in the future, due to their
operationcharacteristicsandreducedcost,takingadvantageoftherapidevolutionin
PEMfuelcellsarea[1].Asaconsequence,anoptimizationstudyhavingasparameter
thepotentialcapitalcostreductionforPVandelectrolyserwasconsideredaspointed.
Furthermore, whether capital cost reduction effect is influenced by the fuel demand
(carsrefueled)isinvestigated.

Threedifferentscenariosofpossiblecostreduction(25,50,75%)areimplemented.To
notice that cost reduction applied was the same for both components in every
scenario. What it was shown, is that specific hydrogen production cost decreases
linearly with potential capital cost reduction (Figure 33). Nevertheless, rate of
77

improvement in production cost is greater for small systems (2 vehicles). In the best
scenario of 75 % cost reduction, the hydrogen production cost varies between 1.37
1.88/Nm3forrefueling50and2carsrespectively.

SpeificPRoductionCost(/Nm3 )

ParametricStudy ProductionCost CapitalCostReduction/Cars

refueled
6
5
4

10

50

1
0
0

15

30

45

60

75

CapitalCostReduction(%)

Figure33Optimalhydrogenproductioncostfordifferentfueldemand(carsrefuelled)under
threescenariosofPVandelectrolysercapitalcostreduction.

System sizing under the different scenarios applied did not perform significant
changes. The slight increase of PV and electrolyser installed power with capital cost
reductioninoptimalsystemsisnoticeable.Ontheotherhand,meansofstoragetend
to reduce their size. As a result, system performance magnitudes, such energy
rejection, capacity factors and solar to hydrogen efficiency, decline with the capital
costreduction(Figure34).

Percentage(%)

ParametricStudy ProductionCost CapitalCostReduction

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

EnergyRejection
PVCapacityFactor
ElectrolyserCapacityFactor
Systemefficiency

20

40

60

80

CapitalCostReduction(%)

Figure34Performanceindicatorsforoptimaleconomicsystemsabletorefuel2carsunder
differentcapitalcostreductionscenarios

78

5.4. DOUBLEOBJECTIVEOPTIMIZATION

At the previous studies, genetic algorithms of MOT were applied for determining
systemparameterswhichresulttheoptimalvalueofoneobjective.However,system
should be featured by more than one optimal objective. System optimization having
two competitive objectives is approached here. Multiobjective optimization using
geneticalgorithmsofMOTwasappliedfortheimplementationofthestudy.Tonotice
that,eithersystemparametersand/orperformanceindicatorsareusedasobjectives.
Then, three pairs of objectives are presented. It must be pointed out that the
minimization of production cost does not constitute an issue from now on, and also
hydrogenstoragetanksizeisassumedtobeconstant(10daysofhydrogenautonomy).
Summary of system parameters for the following studies is given in Table 15. Any
specificchangewillbementionedineachstudy,separately.

Table15DoubleobjectiveoptimizationsParametersandconstraintdefinition
Parameters
No

Description

Abbreviation

Value

Units

PVinstalledpeakpower

Variable

kW

BatteryCapacity

Variable

kWh

Electrolyserinstalledpower

Variable

kW

HydrogenAutonomy

10

Days

Minimumcontinuouselectrolyseroperation

Hours

Numberofcarsrefueledbythestation

Cars

Location

Athens

>99.5

Datatimeseries

Constraint
1

Reliability

79

5.4.1. ELECTROLYSER MINIMUM OPERATION HOURS ENERGY

AUTONOMY

Anassumptionthatmodeldevelopedtookintoaccountistheminimumofhoursthat
electrolyserrequiredtooperateincaseofswitchingon.Suchaconstraintwassetdue
to the fact that electrolyser cannot achieve instantly its nominal operating
temperature.Moreover,thefrequentonoffswitchingduringadayisavoided.Hence,
battery,asenergystoragedevice,shouldensureelectrolyserautonomousoperationat
least for the minimum required time. As a result, batteries capacity is expected to
increaseasminimumoperationhoursaregettingmore.However,theminimizationof
batteries capacity will contribute to system economics while the maximization of
minimumhoursrequiredforelectrolyseroperationwouldincreaseitscapacityfactor
andeliminatetheonoffswitching(cycles).

Doubleobjectiveoptimization
Minelectrolyseroperation/Energyautonomy

Energyautonomy(h)

12
10
8

y=1.4389x0.9524

6
4
2
0
3

Minimumelectrolyseroperation(h)

Figure35Energyautonomyvsminimumelectrolyseroperationfor99.5%reliablesystem

Results obtained by this multiobjective optimization can determine the minimum

energyautonomyrequiredforaspecifictimelengthofelectrolyseroperation.Optimal
pointsturnedupbytheoptimizationaregivenbyFigure35.Itisprovedthatenergy
autonomyandminimumelectrolyseroperationhavealinearrelation.Certainly,itcan
be exported as a general rule that battery should provide about 1.32 hours of
80

autonomy more than the required electrolyser minimum operation time. To give an
example,incasethatelectrolysershouldoperateatleast4hoursafteraswitchingon,
battery must be sized so that system has energy autonomy of 5.3 hours. To repeat
that,Figure35includesonlysystemsofhighreliability(over99.5%).

5.4.2. ELECTROLYSERCYCLESENERGYAYTONOMY

Itisalreadymentionedthattheeliminationofelectrolysercyclesisanobjectiveofthe
present project. Besides the special consideration in power management strategy,
according to which onoff switching is limited to 1 per day, further annual reduction
wouldbepossible.Hence,asalsoacontinuityofthepreviousstudy,theminimization
ofelectrolysercyclesisexaminedasacompetitiveobjectivetominimizationofsystem
energyautonomy.However,electrolyserminimumoperationissetnowasconstantat
3hours,whileotherparametersaresimilarlydefined.

DoubleObjectiveOptimization Electrolyser
Cycles/EnergyAutonomy
14
EnergyAutonomy(h)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
250

270

290

310

330

350

370

ElectrolyserCycles

Figure36EnergyautonomyvsElectrolysercyclesfora99.5%reliablesystem

Therelationshipbetweenenergyautonomyandelectrolysercycles,whichcomeupby
optimizationstudy,isdepictedbyFigure36.Aninterestingfindingisthatelectrolyser
cycles decrease, increasing the energy autonomy provided by batteries. To be more
81

precise,260cyclesperyearcanbeachievedifsystemenergyautonomyisatleast12
h.Lineardecreaseofenergyautonomyismaintaineduntilthepointwhere290cycles
can be obtained with about 7 hours of autonomy. However, the next system that
turned up, satisfying the constraint (more than 99.5% reliability), was featured by 4
hours of energy autonomy and 355 electrolyser cycles. It should be pointed out that
such energy autonomy is the minimum possible. To remind that, in an optimal
economic system (see 5.2), electrolyser performs 355 cycles but battery provides
about6.5hoursofautonomy.

5.4.3. PVELECTROLYSERCAPACITYFACTORS

Capacity factors of PV and electrolyser are indicative of their performance and the
appropriatesizingofthem.Therelationshipbetweenthemhasbeenconsideredasan
issue in a study [8]. Here, it is proved that PV and electrolyser capacity factors are
competitivemagnitudeseachother.Thepresentsectionapproachesthesimultaneous
maximizationofbothcapacityfactors.

Electrolysercapacityfactor(%)

DoubleObjectiveOptimizationPV/Electrolyser
capacityfactor
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

PVcapacityfactor(%)

Figure37RelationshipbetweenoptimalPVandelectrolysercapacityfactors

82

CapacityfactorsthatfeaturetheoptimalsystemsexportedareplottedinFigure37.It
canbeobservedthattheyareinverselyproportional,asthehighestcapacityfactorfor
PV corresponds to the lowest for electrolyser and vice versa. Capacity factor of PV
ranges at 9.515% while the one of electrolyser from 29% to 34%. An intermediate
compromisecouldbefoundbythetangenttothefittingcurve,resultingtoasystemof
12.2% PV and 32% electrolyser capacity factor. To notice that such values are
concerned with at least 99.5% reliable systems. However, that the parametric study
(see5.3.2)regardingthereliabilityofthesystemshowedthatbettercapacityfactors
can be obtained at lower levels of reliability. Finally, it must be noticed that optimal
economicsystemforthesameparameterswasfeaturedby14.3%and28.2%PVand
electrolysercapacityfactor,respectively(see5.2).

83

6. DISCUSSION
6.1. OPERATION

The incorporation of electrolyser operation limitations into the power management

strategywasoneoftheprojectobjectives.Powercontrolsuggestedandfollowedby
this study has as priority to ensure the reliable electrolyser operation, although a
possibleinefficientexploitationofenergyproduction.

Electrolyser operation features were depicted in case study simulation (fig. 1521).
However,theirpotentialadverseimpactonsystemefficiencyisanissue.Thedemand
ofminimumcontinuousoperationandthelimitationtooneonoffswitchingperday,
results to longer electrolyser operation and so requires lower hydrogen production
capacity (Nm3/h). At this point, adequate battery capacity is necessary to satisfy the
constraint.Furthermore,the,atleast,60%coverofelectrolysernominalpowerbyPV
issetasrequirementforhydrogenproductionstartup,sotomatchthePVproduction
withelectrolyseroperationandextendedbatterydischargingtobeavoided.Suchan
assumption makes anamount of PV energy production either to be used for battery
chargingortoberejection.ThecaseofbatterychargingcanbeobservedinFigure15,
where battery is charged before solar peak is sufficiently reached and turn the
electrolyseron.Nevertheless,duringsummernotonlysolarpotentialisstrongerthan
the system demand (Figure 18) but also battery is fully charged (Figure 21) and so
increasedenergyrejectionoccurs.Hence,itcanbeendedupthatalthoughPVbecome
the major electrolyser supplier, a sufficient amount of energy is rejected during
summer. The variation of solar radiation through the year in conjunction with the
electrolyserconstraintsmayresulttosystemoversizing.Inaddition,electrolyserisset
to operate very close to its design point. As a consequence, batteries should assist
electrolyser powering in case of low PV energy production (Figure 16). But, battery
undergoesdeepdischargingduringextendedperiodsoflowsolarradiation(Figure17).
Finally,electrolyserisdecidednottooperateduringthenightsobatterynaturetobe
maintained as power leveling and not as exclusive powering source. Regarding this
84

feature,casestudysimulationshowedaweaknessoftheapproach.Aperiodofalmost
zerohydrogenvolumestoredintankwaspointedduringwinter(Figure17),afactthat
does not ensure the total satisfaction of refueling demands. Observing Figure 17,
batterystateofchargehasreacheditsmaximumatthesameperiod.Hence,itwould
be preferred to allow the exclusive electrolyser powering by batteries, in case of
emergency(lowtankstateoffulfillment).

Overall,systemsimulationshowedthatoperationconstraintsforareliableelectrolyser
lifecycle have been applied into the power management strategy. However, most of
theelectrolyserrequirementsseemnottomatchwiththebestenergyexploitation.In
this study, the limitation of battery assistance in electrolyser powering was also
approached.Probably,furtherstrategydevelopmentordifferentconceptsareneeded
to compromise electrolyser steady operation and energy rejection elimination,
althoughtheircompetitivenature.

6.2. SIZING

System sizing was shown that is influenced by installation area (see 5.3.1), reliability
demanded(see5.3.2)andthenumberofcarsrefueled(see5.3.3).Ontheotherhand,
parametric study regarding the hydrogen autonomy (see 5.3.4) investigated the
relationship between system means of storage. However, some general trends for
systemsizingcanbehighlightedduetothefactthatmostofstudiesconductedforthe
same parameters base. To notice that, analysis below, deals only with optimal
economicsystems.

OptimalsystemresultedfortheareaofAthensand2carstoberefueledwasfoundto
requirePVpeakpoweralmostthetwiceoftheelectrolyserinstalledpower(Table12).
It can be ended up that each car refueled corresponds to 1.61 Nm3/h (19.39 kW/6
kWh/Nm3 *2 cars) of electrolyser capacity. Optimal design suggests such a small
electrolyser unit (about 7 hours of daily electrolyser operation are required) as the
capital cost for such small units is too high (Figure 12). Such a proportion is mainly
drivenduetothefactthatPVshouldbeabletopowerelectrolyserduringperiodsof
85

lowradiation.Toremindthat,the,atleast,60%poweringbyPVisarequirementfor
electrolyserstartup.However,duringsummerperiod,PVreachesitspeakandshould
be exploited either charging the battery or powering the electrolyser. Regarding
batterycapacity,aminimumofacceptablevaluesisdefinedbearinginmindthatmax
discharge rate (

/10) should be able to cover electrolyser demand completely.

Consequently, a capacity of 210 kWh (6.5 h of energy autonomy) seems reasonable

(electrolyser of 19.39 kW), while PV peak power is sufficiently the sum of battery
chargerateandelectrolyserpower.However,theminimumbatterycapacityresulted
issomehowbalancedwiththerelativelargestoragetankrequiredtoprovide10days
ofhydrogenautonomy.Itseemsthatincreasedhydrogenautonomy(tank)ispreferred
to energy autonomy (battery) due to storage tanks lower capital and maintenance
costs.

Needlesstosaythatenergyautonomyisdirectlyrelatedwiththeminimumcontinuous
electrolyseroperationrequired.AsdepictedinFigure35,batteriessizeshouldprovide
at least 1.32 additional hours of autonomy to the minimum electrolyser operation
(2+3 h). It has to be reminded that a requirement for electrolyser startup is the
minimum continuous operation which must be guaranteed by batteries state of
charge.However,suchaminimumdoesnotconstitutetheoptimaleconomicchoice.
To give an example, 6.5 hours of energy autonomy were resulted for 3 hours of
minimumhoursofelectrolyseroperation.

Atthispoint,therelationshipbetweensystemenergyandhydrogenautonomyshould
bealsopointed.Furthermore,asalreadymentionedtheminimumofenergyautonomy
(battery capacity) is defined by the electrolyser power. Such a minimum is reached
whenhydrogenautonomybecomeshigherthan7.5days(Figure31).Anyadditionto
storage tank capacity then has insufficient impact on system sizing. To notice, that
optimal economical system (Table 12) resulted with 10 days of hydrogen autonomy
due to the slightly less specific production cost (Figure 32). However, if volume and
area issues occur during system installation, a minimized storage tank is suitable. A
compromisebetweenspecificproductioncostandstoragetankcapacityispointedat
about6daysofhydrogenautonomy(Figure32).

86

Then,thealmostproportionalrelationshipbetweenthenumberofcars(fueldemand)
and the optimum systems sizing was presented (see 5.3.3). Such a conclusion is
obvious as the fuel demand has been assumed as a daily constant value. However,
somesmallchangeshavebeennoticedinsizingofbiggersystems.Morespecifically,as
showninFigure29,ratioofPVpeakpowertoelectrolyserinstalledpowerdropsfrom
2.1(2cars)to1.75(50cars).Thisdifferenceoccursduetonotlinearrelationbetween
electrolyserspecificcapitalcostandcapacity(Figure12).Thedecreasedspecificcapital
costinhighercapacityrangesmakestheinstallationofabiggerunitacceptable.Onthe
otherhand,meansofstoragearesizedsimilarlytothesingleoptimizationreference
(see5.2).

Moreover, less reliable optimal systems found to be consisted of smaller sized

components. Indicatively, ratio of PV to electrolyser installed power is decreased to
1.75 for 80% reliability (Figure 27). Adversely to fuel demand impact, here, not only
electrolyserbutalsoPVrequiredpowerbecomeless.Incasetheobjectiveistoachieve
a reasonable but not perfect reliability, system sizing is relied more on the average
weather conditions and exclude extreme situations (low radiation for extended
period). Sufficiently, such extreme and seldom conditions define the sizing of high
reliablesystems.Hence,largersystemsareresulted,thepotentialofwhichcannotbe
exploitedcompletelyinstandalonesystems.

Regarding the system location, optimal sized systems were resulted for the cities of
TokyoandFrankfurt.Eventhoughtheirsimilarannualsolarenergyreceived(4.7and
4.1GJ/m2respectively),significantdifferencesoccurinsystemsizing.Thedoublingof
requiredbatterycapacityinTokyosystem,incontrasttothatofAthens(Table12),is
owedtothelimitedpeaksolarhoursduringsomedaysofthecorrespondingsolardata
time series. On the other hand, all the system components of optimal system for
Frankfurtturnedupto2.5timesgreaterthanthesamesysteminAthens.Thereason
for such a result is supposed to be an extended period of very low radiation. It is
obviousthatthedemandofhighsystemreliabilityrapidlyincreasescomponentssizein
caseofweaksolarpotential.

87

Asageneraltrendfortheoptimalsystemofhighreliability(99.5%)andestablishedin
areas of high solar potential (Athens), electrolyser should have a specific capacity of
1.61.85Nm3/h(250carstation)percarrefueled.Then,PVsizingisestimatedat2
1.75 times (250 car station) of electrolyser installed power. Regarding the means of
storage, batteries max discharge rate should be equal to electrolyser power. Finally,
storagetankhastoprovideaminimumofabout6daysofhydrogenautonomy(incase
thatvolumelimitationexists).

6.3. PERFORMANCE

Inthisstudy,systemperformanceisevaluatedthroughtheestimationofcomponents
capacityfactors,energyrejectionandconversionefficiency.Also,theamountofcycles
thatelectrolyserperformsisalsotakenintoaccount.Mostofthecommentsstatedfor
systemoperationandsizingarereflectedintheseevaluationmagnitudes.

CapacityfactorsofPVandelectrolyserarethepictureoftheirusagefrequency.Itwas
shownthattheyareadverselyrelatedeachother(Figure37).Thiscanbereasonedas
excess of PV production makes the electrolyser to operate longer but results also to
increased energy rejection. From Figure 37, maximum electrolyser capacity factor
found to be about 34% (for 9.5% PV capacity factor), which is acceptable keeping in
mindtheconstraintssetforitsoperation(see4.3.1).Inaddition,optimumPVcapacity
factorislimitedto15%.Electrolyseroperationconstraintsandsystemnature(stand
alone)arethemaincausesforsuchlowPVcapacityfactor.However,itseemsaclose
to maximum possible PV capacityfactor (14%) to be preferred for optimal economic
systems (Table 13), while electrolyser usage rate is at 28%. Coincidence of PV and
electrolyseroperationandsystemsizingareobviouslythereasonsforsucharesult.In
anycase,electrolysercapacityfactorshouldbehigherthanthecorrespondingofPVin
optimaleconomicsystems.Suchafactagreeswithrelativesizingadvicespresentedin
otherstudy[8].

Also,energyrejectionandsystemefficiencyareindicativeofsizingadequacy.Asnoted
inTable13,optimumsizingresultsto33%energyrejection.Demandforelectrolyser
88

steady operation during the whole year and the onesided exploitation of PV energy
production (electrolyser powering) cause such a high amount of rejection. However,
the increased PV peak power has also impact on system efficiency (eq. 52). As
hydrogen production is constant for determined system reliability, the only way to
improvesystemefficiencyistoeliminatePVeffectivearea(installedpower).Certainly,
PV peak power required is influenced by electrolyser operation mode. In this study,
steady operation was approached resulting to a maximum efficiency of 4.1% (Table
13). Comparing to similar studies [12,13,14] which ended up at about 10% solar to
hydrogen efficiency, such a system efficiency is considered as low. However, this
difference was expected due to variable electrolyser operation followed in these
simulations[12,13,14].

Itshouldbepointedoutthatasreliabilityaffectssystemsizing,impactalsooccursin
performanceevaluators(Figure28).Aninterestingresultisthealmostfullexploitation
of PV energy production (4% energy rejection) in optimal sized system of 80%
reliability. Also, for the same demand satisfaction, system efficiency achieves a
percentage of 5.75%. Considering that maximum efficiency can be achieved when
energy rejection is minimized, such a result is thought to be the greatest possible
undertheoperationconstraintsapplied.Asaconsequence,poweringsourcesstudied
(PV,batteries)cancontributetoelectrolyserpoweringwithoutsystemoversizinguntil
80% reliability. Then, the application of other concepts as the integration of diesel
generatororgridassistanceisrecommendedforcompletefueldemandsatisfaction.

The elimination of electrolyser cycles constituted an objective of the study. Power

controllimitstheonoffswitchingtoonetime perday.Further,optimizationstudies
showed that it is affected by system location (see 5.3.1) and the energy autonomy
provided by batteries (see 5.4.2.). Firstly, according to power management strategy
followedinthisstudy,electrolyserstartupdependsonthesolarpotentialofthearea.
Hence, it was expected that systems designed for areas of weak potential to be
oversized and operate the electrolyser less frequently during the year. Figure 25
reflects the decrease in electrolyser cycles regarding areas solar potential. On the
otherhand,batteriescapacitycanprolongelectrolyseroperationandsoshortperiod
cyclesmaybeeliminated.Certainly,optimaleconomicsystem(Table13)isfeaturedby
89

dailyelectrolyseroperation(355cycles).Nevertheless,lesselectrolysercyclescanbe
obtained in reliable systems of greater energy autonomy (Figure 36). In case of high
energy autonomy, electrolyser has lower installed power and is forced to operate
longeronceitisswitchedon.Fromacostview,itwasfoundthatelectrolysershould
operateindailybasisandbatterycapacitytobeeliminated.

To conclude, electrolyser operation constraints had significant impact on system

performance. Results seem to be unsatisfactory, in contrast to similar studies which
didnottakeintoaccountsuchlimitations.However,suchasystemissuitableforthe
partialsatisfactionofhydrogenfueldemand.Theadditionofsteadypoweringsources
(e.g. diesel generator) is considered as an alternative option for the total demand
cover.

6.4. HYDROGENPRODUCTIONCOST

Minimizationofspecifichydrogenproductioncostwastheobjectiveofthemajorityof
the optimizations presented. With no doubt, economic results exported by
optimizationstudiesaretoohigh.Thiscanberealizedcomparingwithcostsofother
simulation studies, different hydrogen production systems and competitive fuels.
However,otherissuesshouldbenoticedpriortoresultscriticism.

Consequenceofchangesperformedinsystemsizingfordifferentparametervaluesis
thedifferentiationinhydrogenproductioncost.Hence,parametersaslocation(Figure
24),numberofcarsrefueled(Figure30)andreliabilitydemanded(Figure26)modify
theresultedproductioncost.Reasoningfortheeffectofthemhasalreadytakenplace
duringthediscussionofsystemsizingandperformance.Theresultedproductioncost
of99.5%reliablesystemsinstalledinAthensisdiscussedbelow.

Tobemoreprecise,optimalhydrogenproductioncostforthepresentsystemranges
at3.735.48/Nm3forlarge(50cars)andsmall(2cars)stationsrespectively(Figure
30). At this point, it should be highlighted that operating conditions set for system
simulationarenotfavorable(steadyelectrolyseroperation,limitedonoffswitching).
90

As a consequence, system performance and economics are negatively affected.

Moreover, it should be mentioned that the empirical equations used may
overestimatecomponentspresentcapitalcost.NotonlyPVcostwhichisdefinedas4
/Wp but also electrolyser capital cost that varies between 115 /W for large and
small units respectively, may not represent the present status of the market.
Moreover,theincreasedmaintenancecostcausedmainlybyelectrolyserandbatteries
is also an issue (Figure 23). Although the cost rough estimation, its optimization
providedguidanceforsystemsizingandperformance.

ThedifferentscenariosofpotentialcostreductionofPVandelectrolyserwereapplied
for the determination of possible production in the future. It was shown that
differenceinproductioncostbetweendifferentsizedsystemsbecomeslessascapital
cost decreases (Figure 33). This fact is owed to the normalization of electrolyser
specificcapitalcostinhighnominalproductionrates(Figure12).Asaresult,production
cost decreases to 1.361.88 /Nm3 (50 2 cars station) for an assumed capital cost
reductionof75%(Figure33).

Certainly, even under such a great reduction, system production cost is far greater
than grid connected electrolysis systems (710 $/kg or equally 0.4 0.6 /Nm3) [38].
Thishappensduetohighenergyrejectionandcomponentscapitalcostswhichsetthe
electricity production more expensive than other sources (grid). Comparing the
consumption of a hydrogen and a gasoline fueled car, it can be concluded that
hydrogenshouldbeproducedwithlessthan0.3/Nm3inordertobecompetitive[38].
Itisunderstoodthatimprovementinefficiencyofhydrogenproductionviaelectrolysis
isneeded.Inthisstudy,anuppervalueforelectrolyserenergyconsumption(6kWh/
Nm3) was assumed and had also impact on system sizing and production cost
estimation.

On the other hand, simulation study for PVelectrolysis systems has also resulted to
low costs (1.06 /Nm3) [14]. Major differences of the present project to more
economicallyattractiveapproaches[12,13,14]istheapplicationofelectrolysersteady
operationandthebatteriesincorporationasshorttermstoragedevice.Furthermore,
systemoperationwassimulatedas100%standalone.
91


To sum up, assumptions made and power control followed by this study was not
favorableforlowproductioncostresults.Itwasprovedthat,evenwithagreatcapital
costreduction,suchaninvestmentisnotattractive.However,differentapproachesof
thesystemsuchasinstallationsubsidies,alternativeloadaddition,gridassistance,use
of diesel generator as a reserve, exploitation of oxygen produced, can improve the
hydrogenproductioncost.

92

7. CONCLUSIONS
The energy simulation and optimal design of a standalone PVelectrolysis system
incorporating electrolyser limitations was achieved with success. Simulation graphs
showedthatrespectofelectrolyserconstraints,bestenergyexploitationanddemand
satisfactioncannotbecompletelycompromisedduetotheircompetitivenature.

Then, optimization studies resulted to general trends for a reliable (99.5%) system
sizing installed in favorable areas (Athens). As a guide, electrolyser installed power
should be defined by the number of cars to be refueled, having a proportion of 1.6
1.85 Nm3/h (502 cars) per car. In addition, due to electrolyser operation
requirements, PV peak power should be almost 1.72 (502 cars) times greater than
electrolysernominalpower.Concerningthebatteriescapacityislargelyaffectedbythe
storage tank capacity. In case of no tank volume limitations, battery should have at
least a maximum charge rate able for the exclusive electrolyser powering. Results
showed that 6.5 hours of energy autonomy is required, while minimum hydrogen
autonomyof6dayscanbeappliedwithoutasignificantcostincrease.

Concerning system performance, although results were not competitive, they are
explained by system nature (standalone) and the power management strategy
followed.PVandelectrolysercapacityfactorsareestimatedatabout14%and28%for
optimal economic systems. On the other hand, demand for high system reliability
drove to high energy rejection (33%) and relatively low solar to hydrogen energy
efficiency (4.1%). Also, the as long as possible daily operation of electrolyser in
conjunctionwiththeeliminationofitsinstalledpower(highcapitalcostatpresent)is
recommended.Moreover,itshouldbenotedthatPVelectrolysissystemissuitablefor
80% demand satisfaction, as optimal systems exported for this reliability level are
featuredbyalmostzeroenergyrejection(4%).Asaconsequence,itcanbeconsidered
that a system under such operation constraints is suggested to be assisted by an
additional powering source (e.g. diesel generator) for the complete cover of fuel
demand.
93

Ontheotherhand,hydrogenproductioncostscalculatedfoundtovaryat3.735.48
/Nm3 regarding the amount of fuel demand (502 cars refueled). Gradual PV and
electrolysercapitalcostreductionwasappliedandshowedthatproductioncostcanbe
limitedto1.361.88/Nm3(502cars)forapotential75%decrease.Evenunderthese
conditions, system investment seems not to be competitive not only for gasoline
replacement but also to grid connected electrolyser units. However, it is true that
operation strategy (electrolyser constraints), system nature (standalone) and
assumptionsmade(lowestpossiblecomponentsefficiency,overestimatedcapitaland
maintenance costs) were the reasons for such high resulted production cost. Finally,
installation subsidies, exploitation of oxygen production, are considered as potential
solutionstoimprovesystemeconomics.

94

APPENDIX
A. PVFUNCTION
function[PV_en_prod,PV_p_prod]=PV(Temperature,Radiation,Area,Time)
%Functionwhichcalculatesphotovoltaicsenergyproductionintimestep
%Inputs:Temperature(C),
%Solarradiationdatatimeseries(kWh/m2),
%Modulesarea(m2)
%Output:Photovoltaicenergyproduction(kWh)

Ta=Temperature;%Ambienttemperature
G=Radiation;%Globalradiation
A=Area;%Modulesarea
t=Time;%Computingtimestep

NOCT=48;%Nominaloperationcelltemperature
Tc=Ta+(NOCT20)*(G/0.8);%Celltemperature

nr=0.14;%Solarcellefficiencyatreferencedconditions
B=0.005;%SolarcellTemperaturecoefficient
Tr=25;%ReferencedTemperature
ne=nr*(1B*(TcTr));%Solarcellefficiencytemperatureeffectincluded

nc=0.95;%MPPTefficiency
wl=0.05;%Wiringlosses
de=0.05;%Degradationeffect
deul=1;%Degradationeffectupperradiationlimit
dell=0.2;%Degradationeffectlowerradiationlimit

%Degradationefficiency
ifG>=deul
nd=1;
elseifG<=dell
nd=1de;
else
nd=(G/deul)*de+(1de);
end

ndc=0.95;%DC/DCconverter/chargeregulatorefficiency

ifG>0%Ifnegativeradiancevalues(night)zeroproductionassumed
Epv=A*G*ne*nd*nc*(1wl)*ndc;%PVenergyproduction
Ppv=Epv/t;%PVpowerproduction
else
Epv=0;
Ppv=0;
end

%Outputstatement
PV_en_prod=Epv;%PVenergyproduction
PV_p_prod=Ppv;%PVpowerproduction

end

95

B. BATTERIESFUNCTION
%Functionthatsimulatesbatteryoperationinenergyterms

%Inputs:DepthofDischargeDoD(%),
%Energyforcharging(+)/discharging()(kWh),
%BatteryCapacity(kWh)
%Time(h)
%CurrentStateofCharge(%)

%Output:NewStateofChargeSOC(%)
%Energytobeprovided(discharge)()/PVEnergyexploited(charge)(+)(kWh)
%Powertobeprovided(discharge)()/PVpowerexploited(charge)(+)(kW)
%Energycharged(+)/disharged()(kWh)
%Powercharged(+)/discharged()(kW)
%Batteryenergylosses(always+nomatterischarge/discharge)(kWh)
%Batterypowerlosses(always+nomatterischarge/discharge)(kW)
%Energyrejected(batterylossesnotincluded)(kWh)
%Powerrejected(batterylossesnotincluded)(kW)

function
[State_of_charge,En_bat_net,P_bat_net,En_bat_in,P_bat_in,En_bat_los,P_bat_los,En_bat_rej,P_bat_rej
]=Battery(Depth_of_Discharge,B_Capacity,Time,Energy_for_dis_charging,Current_SOC);

DoD=Depth_of_Discharge;%DepthofDischarge(%)
t=Time;%ComputingTimestep(h)
C=B_Capacity;%BatteryCapacity(kWh)
Ebatn=Energy_for_dis_charging;%EnergyavailablefromPVforbatterycharging(+)orenergydemand
forelectrolyserpowering()(kWh)
SOC=Current_SOC;%CurrentStateofCharge(%)

SOCmax=1;%MaximumallowedStateofcharge(%)
SOCmin=SOCmaxDoD;%MinimumpermittedStateofCharge(%)
Rmax=C/10;%Maximumcharge/dischargerate(kW)
Sdr=0;%0.02*t/(30*24);%Selfdischargerate(14%montlhy)(kW)AppliedinSystem.mfile

nch=0.85;%Chargingefficiency(%)
ndis=0.85;%Dischargingefficiency(%)

Dis_cap=min(((SOCSdr)SOCmin)*C,Rmax*t);%DischargeCapability(kWh)
Ch_cap=min((SOCmax(SOCSdr))*C,Rmax*t);%ChargeCapability(kWh)

Epch=Ebatn*nch;%Potentialcharge(kwh)
Epdis=Ebatn/ndis;%PotentialDischarge(kWh)

ifEbatn<0%Dischargemode

ifabs(Epdis)>Dis_cap%Batterynotcapabletocoverthedemand
Ebat=0;%Batterydischarge
else%Batterycapabletocoverthedemand
Ebat=Epdis;%Batterydischarge
end

Ebatl=Ebat*ndis;%Energytobeprovidednet()
Erej=0;
Prej=0;

else%Chargemode

96

Ebat=min(Epch,Ch_cap);%Batterycharged
Ebatl=Ebat/nch;%Energyavailableexploitedincludingbatterylosses(+)
Erej=EbatnEbatl;%Energyrejected(batterylossesnotincluded)
Prej=Erej/t;%Powerrejected(batterylossesnotincluded)

end

SOC=(SOCSdr)+Ebat/C;%StateofChargeupdate
Pbat=Ebat/t;%Powercharge/discharge
Pbatl=Ebatl/t;%Powertobeprovided(discharge)()/PVpowerexploited(charge)(+)(kW)
Eblos=abs(EbatlEbat);%Batteryenergylosses(always+nomatterischarge/discharge)(kWh)
Pblos=abs(PbatlPbat);%Batterypowerlosses(always+nomatterischarge/discharge)(kW)

%Outputstatement

State_of_charge=SOC;%NewStateofChargeSOC(%)
En_bat_net=Ebatl;%Energytobeprovided(discharge)()/PVEnergyexploited(charge)(+)(kWh)
P_bat_net=Pbatl;%Powertobeprovided(discharge)()/PVpowerexploited(charge)(+)(kW)
En_bat_in=Ebat;%Energycharged(+)/disharged()(kWh)
P_bat_in=Pbat;%Powercharged(+)/discharged()(kW)
En_bat_los=Eblos;%Batteryenergylosses(always+nomatterischarge/discharge)(kWh)
P_bat_los=Pblos;%Batterypowerlosses(always+nomatterischarge/discharge)(kW)
En_bat_rej=Erej;%Energyrejected(batterylossesnotincluded)(kWh)
P_bat_rej=Prej;%Powerrejected(batterylossesnotincluded)(kW)

end

97

C. ELECTROLYSERFUNCTION
function
[Hydrogen_Production,Power_consumption,Energy_consumption,Power_rejection,Energy_rejection]=El
ectrolyzer(Power_available,Nominal_production_rate,Time,ELmax,ELmin,Eecon)
%Functionthatsimulateselectrolyseroperation
%Input:Power_available(kW),
%Productionrate(Nm3/h),
%Timestep(h)
%MinMaxoperationpoints
%Energyconsumption(kWh/Nm3)
%Output:Hydrogenproduction(Nm3),
%PowerConsumed(kW),
%Energyconsumed(kWh),
%Powerrejection(kW),
%Energyrejection(kWh)

Pav=Power_available;%Availablepowerforelectrolyser(kW)
Prrate=Nominal_production_rate;%NominalProductionrate(Nm3/h)
t=Time;%Computingtimestep(h)

Pelmax=ELmax*Eecon*Prrate;%Nominalelectrolyserpower(kW)
Pelmin=ELmin*Eecon*Prrate;%Minimumelectrolyserpoweracceptable(kW)

ifPavPelmin<0.001%Electrolyseroutofordernotsufficientpower
Pcons=0;%Totalpowerexploited
elseifPavPelmax>0.001%Poweravailablegreaterthanthenominalpower
Pcons=Pelmax;%Electrolyseroperatesatmaxima
else%Powerlevelacceptablebyelectrolyseroperationlimits
Pcons=Pav;
end

%Specificconsumptionestimation

EL_op_point=Pcons/Pelmax;%Electrolysercurrentoperationpoint

%NondimensionedrelationshipobtainedbyUllebergetal
El_sp_cons_nd=2.1478*(EL_op_point)^3+4.2745*(EL_op_point)^22.7977*(EL_op_point)+1.6403;
El_sp_cons=El_sp_cons_nd*Eecon;%Electrolyserspecificconsumption(kWh/Nm3)

Hydpr=Pcons*t/El_sp_cons;%Hydrogenproduction
Econs=Pcons*t;%Energyconsumption
Prej=PavPcons;%Powerrejection
Erej=Prej*t;%Powerrejection

%Outputstatement
Hydrogen_Production=Hydpr;%Hydrogenproduction(Nm3)
Power_consumption=Pcons;%PowerConsumed(kW)
Energy_consumption=Econs;%Energyconsumed(kWh)
Power_rejection=Prej;%Powerrejection(kW)
Energy_rejection=Erej;%Energyrejected(kWh)

end

98

D. STORAGETANKFUNCTION
function
[Volume_available,Stored_H2_available,New_state_of_fulfilment]=Tank(Capacity,Current_state_of_fulfi
lment,Hydrogen_Flow)
%Functionforhydrogenstoragetankfulfilment
%Input:Currentstateoffulfilment(%)
%Capacity(Nm3)
%HydrogenFlowstorage(+)/Demand()
%Output:Volumeavailableforstorage(Nm3)
%Hydrogenvolumeavailableforrefueling(Nm3)
%Newstateoffulfilment(%)

Vt=Capacity;%TankCapacity
SOF=Current_state_of_fulfilment;%CurrentHydrogenlevel
Qhyd=Hydrogen_Flow;%Outlet(),Inlet(+)

SOFmax=1;%Maximumleveloffulfilment
SOFmin=0.1;%Minimumleveloffulfilment

Vrem=(SOFmaxSOF)*Vt;%Volumeavailabilityforstorage
Vav=(SOFSOFmin)*Vt;%Hydrogenavailabilityforrefueling

SOF=SOF+Qhyd/Vt;%Newfulfilmentlevel

%Outputstatement
Volume_available=Vrem;%Volumeavailableforstorage(Nm3)
Stored_H2_available=Vav;%Hydrogenvolumeavailableforrefueling(Nm3)
New_state_of_fulfilment=SOF;%Newstateoffulfilment(%)

End

99

E. POWERMANAGEMENTSTRATEGYFUNCTION
function
[State_of_charge,En_bat_net,P_bat_net,En_bat_in,P_bat_in,En_bat_los,P_bat_los,En_bat_rej,P_bat_rej
,Hydrogen_Production,Power_consumption,Energy_consumption,Power_rejection,Energy_rejection,Vol
ume_available,Stored_H2_available,New_state_of_fulfilment,T_en_rej,T_p_rej]=Strategy(PV_en_prod,P
V_p_prod,Volume_available,Stored_H2_available,Time,Nominal_production_rate,Depth_of_Discharge,
B_Capacity,Capacity,Current_SOC,Current_state_of_fulfilment,Hour_of_the_day,EL_ONOFF,ELmax,ELmi
n,Eecon,Min_hours);

%Functionforpowermanagementstrategyforastandalonesolarhydrogen
%systemhavingasstoragedevice,batteries.

%Input:Photovoltaicpowerproduction(kw)
%Photovoltaicenergyproduction(kWh)
%Availablevolumeforhydrogenstorageintank(Nm3)
%VolumeofstoredHydrogenintank(Nm3)
%Electrolysernominalproductionrate(Nm3/h)
%BatteryDepthofDischarge(%)
%BatteryCapacity(kWh)
%StorageTankCapacity(Nm3)
%SimulationTimestep(h)
%BatteryStateofCharge(%)
%Currentstateoftankfulfilment(%)
%MinMaxoperationpoints
%ElectrolyserEnergyconsumption(kWh/Nm3)

%Output:NewStateofChargeSOC(%)(BATTERY)
%Energytobeprovided(discharge)()/PVEnergyexploited(charge)(+)(kWh)(BATTERY)
%Powertobeprovided(discharge)()/PVpowerexploited(charge)(+)(kW)(BATTERY)
%Energycharged(+)/disharged()(kWh)(BATTERY)
%Powercharged(+)/discharged()(kW)(BATTERY)
%Batteryenergylosses(always+nomatterischarge/discharge)(kWh)(BATTERY)
%Batterypowerlosses(always+nomatterischarge/discharge)(kW)(BATTERY)
%Energyrejected(batterylossesnotincluded)(kWh)(BATTERY)
%Powerrejected(batterylossesnotincluded)(kW)(BATTERY)
%Hydrogenproduction(Nm3)(ELECTROLYZER)
%PowerConsumedbyBattery(kW)(ELECTROLYZER)
%EnergyconsumedbyBattery(kWh)(ELECTROLYZER)
%PowerrejectionbyBattery(kW)(ELECTROLYZER)
%Energyrejection(kWh)(ELECTROLYZER)
%Volumeavailableforstorage(Nm3)(STORAGETANK)
%Hydrogenvolumeavailableforrefueling(Nm3)(STORAGETANK)
%Newstateoffulfilment(%)(STORAGETANK)
%Totalenergyrejection(kWh)(SYSTEM)
%Totalpowerrejection(kW)(SYSTEM)

Prrate=Nominal_production_rate;%NominalProductionrate(Nm3/h)
t=Time;%ComputingTimestep(h)
EL_en_cons=Eecon;%Electrolyserenergyconsumption(kWh/Nm3)

%ElectrolyseroperationData

EL_max_power=ELmax*EL_en_cons*Prrate;%Nominalelectrolyserpower(kW)
EL_min_power=ELmin*EL_en_cons*Prrate;%Minimumelectrolyserpoweracceptable(kW)

100


%Checkwhethertherequirementsforelectrolyseroperationaresatisfied.

% Requirements: 1. Sufficient available volume in hydrogen tank (Even in unconstrained steady or

variableoperation)
%2.PVpowerproducedover60%oftheelectrolysernominalpowertobepoweredforthefirst
timeduringaday
%3.PVpowerproducedover40%oftheelectrolysernominalpowerandstateoftanklower
than70%ifelectrolyserisonattheprevioushour(before8.00pm)
%4.Onlyoneonoffswitchingisacceptedinaday
%5.Electrolysercannotbepoweredbybatteryduringthenight
%6.Sufficientvolumeintankforminhours(3)ofoperation
%7.BatterySOCguaranteestheminhouroperation

%CaseA:Someoftherequirementsabovenotsatisfied.PVpowerproductionusedforbatterycharging
if (EL_ONOFF==0 & (((Volume_available)*EL_en_cons)<Min_hours*EL_max_power | (Current_SOC(1
|
Depth_of_Discharge))*B_Capacity<Min_hours*EL_max_power))
((Volume_available)*EL_en_cons)/Time<EL_max_power
|
(EL_ONOFF==0
&
PV_p_prod<0.6*EL_max_power)|EL_ONOFF==3|EL_ONOFF==4|(PV_p_prod<0.1*EL_max_power&
EL_ONOFF~=10)

Energy_for_dis_charging=PV_en_prod;%TotalPVenergyproductionusedforbatterycharging

%CallBatteryfunction

[State_of_charge,En_bat_net,P_bat_net,En_bat_in,P_bat_in,En_bat_los,P_bat_los,En_bat_rej,P_bat_rej
]=Battery(Depth_of_Discharge,B_Capacity,Time,Energy_for_dis_charging,Current_SOC);

Power_available=0;%Electrolysernotpowered

%CallElectrolyserfunction

[Hydrogen_Production,Power_consumption,Energy_consumption,Power_rejection,Energy_rejection]=El
ectrolyzer(Power_available,Nominal_production_rate,Time,ELmax,ELmin,Eecon);

Hydrogen_Flow=Hydrogen_Production;%Duetopreviouscheckalltheproductionstorageisensured

%CallTankfunction

[Volume_available,Stored_H2_available,New_state_of_fulfilment]=Tank(Capacity,Current_state_of_fulfi
lment,Hydrogen_Flow);

%CaseB:Alltherequirementsaresatisfied.Electrolysercanoperateifsufficientenergyexists.
else

Pelmaxal=min(EL_max_power,((Volume_available)*EL_en_cons)/Time); % Max permitted power of

electrolyser=theminofitsmaxandtankavailability

%CaseB1:PVpowerproductionenoughforelectrolyzeroperationatminima
ifPV_p_prod>EL_min_power

Power_available=min(PV_p_prod,Pelmaxal); % Power provided to electrolyser=min of PV power

productionandmaxpermittedfortheelectrolyser

In_rej=abs((Power_availablePV_p_prod)*t);%Energyrejectedenergysurplus

%CallElectrolyserfunction

101


[Hydrogen_Production,Power_consumption,Energy_consumption,Power_rejection,Energy_rejection]=El
ectrolyzer(Power_available,Nominal_production_rate,Time,ELmax,ELmin,Eecon);

Hydrogen_Flow=Hydrogen_Production; % Due to previous check all the production storage is

ensured

%CallTankfunction

[Volume_available,Stored_H2_available,New_state_of_fulfilment]=Tank(Capacity,Current_state_of_fulfi
lment,Hydrogen_Flow);

Energy_rejection=Energy_rejection+In_rej;

%CaseB1i:ElectrolyserrejectsanamountofPVenergyproduction
ifEnergy_rejection>0

Energy_for_dis_charging=Energy_rejection; % Energy rejected by electrolyser can be stored in

battery

%CallBatteryfunction

[State_of_charge,En_bat_net,P_bat_net,En_bat_in,P_bat_in,En_bat_los,P_bat_los,En_bat_rej,P_bat_rej
]=Battery(Depth_of_Discharge,B_Capacity,Time,Energy_for_dis_charging,Current_SOC);

%CaseB1ii:ElectrolyserexploitsalltheamountofPVenergyproduction
else%Repeatedonlyforthezerooutput
Energy_for_dis_charging=Energy_rejection; % Energy rejected by electrolyser can be stored in
battery

%CallBatteryfunction

[State_of_charge,En_bat_net,P_bat_net,En_bat_in,P_bat_in,En_bat_los,P_bat_los,En_bat_rej,P_bat_rej
]=Battery(Depth_of_Discharge,B_Capacity,Time,Energy_for_dis_charging,Current_SOC);

end

%CaseB2:PVpowerproductionnotenoughtopowerelectrolyseratminima
else

Energy_for_dis_charging=(EL_min_powerPV_p_prod)*t;%Batteryiscalledtoprovidetheenergy
deficitsoelectrolysertooperateatminima

%CallBatteryfunction

[State_of_charge,En_bat_net,P_bat_net,En_bat_in,P_bat_in,En_bat_los,P_bat_los,En_bat_rej,P_bat_rej
]=Battery(Depth_of_Discharge,B_Capacity,Time,Energy_for_dis_charging,Current_SOC);

%CaseB2i:Batterycanprovidetheenergydeficit
ifabs(P_bat_net)>0

Power_available=PV_p_prod+abs(P_bat_net);%ThesumofPVandbatterypowerproductionis
providedtoelectrolyser

%CallElectrolyserfunction

[Hydrogen_Production,Power_consumption,Energy_consumption,Power_rejection,Energy_rejection]=El
ectrolyzer(Power_available,Nominal_production_rate,Time,ELmax,ELmin,Eecon);

102

Hydrogen_Flow=Hydrogen_Production; % Due to previous check all the production storage is

ensured

%CallTankfunction

[Volume_available,Stored_H2_available,New_state_of_fulfilment]=Tank(Capacity,Current_state_of_fulfi
lment,Hydrogen_Flow);

%CaseB2ii:Batterycannotprovidetheenergydeficit,sotheelectrolysercannotbepowered
else

Power_available=0;%Electrolysernotpowered
Energy_for_dis_charging=PV_en_prod;%PVproductiontobestoredinbattery

%CallBatteryfunction

[State_of_charge,En_bat_net,P_bat_net,En_bat_in,P_bat_in,En_bat_los,P_bat_los,En_bat_rej,P_bat_rej
]=Battery(Depth_of_Discharge,B_Capacity,Time,Energy_for_dis_charging,Current_SOC);

%CallElectrolyserfunction

[Hydrogen_Production,Power_consumption,Energy_consumption,Power_rejection,Energy_rejection]=El
ectrolyzer(Power_available,Nominal_production_rate,Time,ELmax,ELmin,Eecon);

Hydrogen_Flow=Hydrogen_Production; % Due to previous check all the production storage is

ensured

%CallTankfunction

[Volume_available,Stored_H2_available,New_state_of_fulfilment]=Tank(Capacity,Current_state_of_fulfi
lment,Hydrogen_Flow);

end

end
end

%Outputstatement
T_en_rej=En_bat_rej;%SystemEnergyrejection(kWh)
T_p_rej=P_bat_rej;%SystemPowerrejection(kW)
End

103

F. ECONOMICSFUNCTION

function
[
Hydrogen_prod_cost
]
=
Economics(Area,B_Capacity,Nominal_production_rate,Capacity,Total_H2_prod,Bat_cycles,Electrolyser_
cycles,Depth_of_Discharge,EL_Cost_reduction,PV_Cost_reduction);

%Functionthatestimatesthesystemcapital,operationalcostandthe
%hydrogenproductioncost

%INPUT:PVarea(m2)
%BatteryCapacity(kWh)
%Electrolysernominalproductionrate(Nm3/h)
%AnnualHydrogenproduction(Nm3)
%AnnualBatterycycles
%AnnualElectrolysercycles
%BatteryDepthofDisharge(%)

%OUTPUT:HydrogenProductionCost(Pounds/Nm3)

%Dataabouttheeconomicsofthesystem

n=20;%Systemlife(years)
r=0.1;%Discountrate

%PV

PV_power=Area*0.1;%empeiricalrelationship:1m2correspondsto100Wp
PV_cap_cost=4000*PV_power*(1PV_Cost_reduction);%PVcapitalcost
PV_OM_cost=0.02*PV_cap_cost;%PVO&Mcost

%BATTERIES

Bat_cap_cost=70*B_Capacity;%Batteriescapitalcost
Bat_max_cycles=500/Depth_of_Discharge;%MaximumnumberofcyclesforbatterydependingonDoD
Bat_Life_cycle=min((Bat_max_cycles/Bat_cycles)*0.75,5);%Batterylifetime(years)
Bat_replace=round(n/Bat_Life_cycle);%Batteryreplacementsthroughthesystemlifetime

ifBat_replace<1%Incasethatthebatterylifetimeprovedtobeoverthesystemlifetime,noneedfor
replacement
Bat_replace=1;
else
end

Bat_OM_cost=0.01*Bat_cap_cost+((Bat_replace1)*Bat_cap_cost)/n;%BatteriesO&Mcost

%ELECTROLYSER

EL_cap_cost=(1EL_Cost_reduction)*64547*((Nominal_production_rate)^(
0.562))*Nominal_production_rate;%Electrolysercapitalcost
EL_max_cycles=2500;%Maxelectrolyseronoffswitchingbeforedegradation(typicalvalue)
EL_life=(1.5*EL_max_cycles/Electrolyser_cycles); % Electrolyser lifetime accepting a period with
degradedefficiency(years)
EL_replace=floor(n/EL_life);%Electrolyserreplacements
EL_OM_cost=0.02*EL_cap_cost+((EL_replace1)*EL_cap_cost)/n;%ElectrolyserO&Mcost

%STORAGETANKS

104


Tank_cap_cost=222.25*(Capacity^(0.258))*Capacity;%Storagetankcapitalcost
Tank_OM_cost=0.005*Tank_cap_cost;%StoragetankO&Mcost

%OTHER

Other_cap_cost=0.05*(PV_cap_cost+Bat_cap_cost+EL_cap_cost+Tank_cap_cost);
Other_OM_cost=0.05*(PV_OM_cost+Bat_OM_cost+EL_OM_cost+Tank_OM_cost);

%SYSTEM

Capital_Cost=PV_cap_cost+Bat_cap_cost+EL_cap_cost+Tank_cap_cost+Other_cap_cost; % System
capitalcost
OM_Cost=PV_OM_cost+Bat_OM_cost+EL_OM_cost+Tank_OM_cost+Other_OM_cost; % System O&M
cost

%Capitalcostannualdepreciation

Da=Capital_Cost*r/(1(1+r)^(n));%Annualdepreciation

%Hydrogenproductioncost

Hydrogen_prod_cost=(Da+OM_Cost)/(Total_H2_prod);

End

G. FUELDEMANDFUNCTION
function[Fuel_Demand]=Demand(Number_of_Vehicles)
%Functionfordetermingthehydrogendemandof1dayforanumberofvehicles
%Input:NumberofVehicles
%Output:FuelDemand

%DemandStatement
Daily_Fuel_dem=1;%Hydrogendemandof1carfor1day(kg)
Daily_Fuel_demand=Daily_Fuel_dem*11.2;%TransformingtoNm3
Fuel_Demand=Number_of_Vehicles*Daily_Fuel_demand; % Total Daily demand for the number of
vehicles
end

105

H. SYSTEMFUNCTION

function[f]=System(x)
%FunctionCodefortheenergysimulationofastandalonepvelectrolyser
%systemhavingbatteriesasstoragedevice.

%Parameters:Location(Solarradiation(kWh/m2)+temperature(C))
%PVArea(m2)
%BatteryDepthofDischarge(%)
%BatteryCapacity(kWh)
%ElectrolyserNominalProductionRate(Nm3/h)
%Systemautonomy(days)

%Objectives:HydrogenProductionCost(Pounds/Nm3)
%Reliability(%)
%Overallsystemefficiency(%)
%PVcapacityfactor(%)
%ElectrolyserCapacityfactor(%)
%Energyrejection(%)
%Electrolysercycles

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
F
U
N
C
T
I
O
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%Parametersstatement

PV_power=x(1);%PVpeakpower(kW)
Bat_Cap=x(2);%Batterycapacity(kWh)
EL_power=x(3);%Electrolysernominalpower(kW)
Days_of_autonomy=x(4);%Daysofautonomy(days)

Vehicles_No=10;%x(6);%Vehiclestoberefueledeveryday

EL_Cost_reduction=0.5;%Futureelectrolysercapitalcostreduction(%)
PV_Cost_reduction=0.5;%Futurephotovoltaicscapitalcostreduction(%)

%CallDemandfunction
[Fuel_Demand]=Demand(Vehicles_No);

Tank_cap=Days_of_autonomy*Fuel_Demand;%Tankcapacityspecifiedbydaysofautonomy

%Electrolyseroperationfeatures

ELmax=1;%Maxoperationpoint(%)
ELmin=0.95;%Minoperationpoint(%)
Eecon=6;%Electrolyserelectricityconsumption(kWh/Nm3)
Min_hours=3;%Electrolyserminimumhours(h)
Bat_DoD=0.6;%x(3);%BatteryDepthofDischarge(%)

%EstimationofPVareaandElectrolysernominalrate

PV_area=PV_power*10;%empeiricalrelationship:1m2correspondsto100WpPV(m2)
EL_Pr_rate=EL_power/Eecon;%Electrolysernominalpower(Nm3/h)

%Parametersrename

Area=PV_area;%PVmodulestotalarea(m2)

106

Depth_of_Discharge=Bat_DoD;%BatteryDepthofDischarge(%)
B_Capacity=Bat_Cap;%BatteryCapacity(kWh)
Nominal_production_rate=EL_Pr_rate;%ElectrolyserH2productionrate(Nm3/h)
Capacity=Tank_cap;%HydrogenStorageTankcapacity(Nm3)
Number_of_Vehicles=Vehicles_No;%NumberofVehicles

%HydrogenHigherHeatingvalue

HHV=3.52226;%(kWh/Nm3)

%Optimization?

opt=1;

%Openfiles

ifopt==0
fid=fopen('Results.txt','w');%Afilethatresultsareexported
fid2=fopen('Summary_table.txt','w');%Asummarytable
else
end

%Fileincludingsolarradiation,temperaturedatatimeseriesloaded
loadAthens.dat;

%Simulationtimestepdeterminedbytheinputfile
Time=length(Athens)/(365*24);

%Cumulativemagnitudesnullifiedbeforethebeginningoftheiterations

Annual_Dem=0;%AnnualHydrogenDemandatthebeginningoftheyear
Annual_Dem_ns=0;%AnnualHydrogennonstatisfieddemandatthebeginningoftheyear
Total_H2_prod=0;%AnnualHydrogenproduction
Total_PV_prod=0;%AnnualPVenergyproduction
Total_rejection=0;%Annualenergyrejection(batteryelectronicdeviceslossesexcluded)
Total_el_consumption=0;%Annualelectrolyserenergyconsumption
Total_radiation=0;%Totalsolarradiationtothepanels
Electrolyser_cycles=0;%AnnualElectrolysercycles
Bat_cycles=0;%AnnualBatterycycles

%Iterationsstartup
fori=1:length(Athens)%Procedurerepeatedequaltimeswiththerowsofinputfile
a=Athens(i,:);%Everyiterationreadsthedatafrom1x7array
Hour_of_the_year=a(1);%Inputdefinition
Hour_of_the_day=a(2);
Day_of_the_month=a(3);
Month_of_the_year=a(4);
Temperature=a(5);
Radiation_Horizontal=a(6)/1000;
Radiation=a(7)/1000;

%Settingthestateofcharge/fulfilmentofbattery/tankamongtheiterations
ifi==1%Initialstates
SOF(i)=0.1;
SOC(i)=1.0;
else%Thishourinitialstateequalstothelastprevioushourstate
SOF(i)=SOF(i1);
SOC(i)=SOC(i1)0.02*Time/(30*24);%Selfdischargerate(14%montlhy)(kW);
end

107


%Initializingthedailyelectrolysercycles

ifHour_of_the_day==1
EL_ON_OFF(i)=0;%Nopreviousonoffswitchduringthepresentday
else
EL_ON_OFF(i)=EL_ON_OFF(i1);
end

%CallPVfunctionforenergyproductionestimation

[PV_en_prod,PV_p_prod]=PV(Temperature,Radiation,Area,Time);

Current_state_of_fulfilment=SOF(i);%Inputfortankfunctionstatament

%CallTankfunctionforcheckingthestoredhydrogenavailability

Hydrogen_Flow=0;%Functioniscalledonlyforthestatusdetermination

[Volume_available,Stored_H2_available,New_state_of_fulfilment]=Tank(Capacity,Current_state_of_fulfi
lment,Hydrogen_Flow);

SOF(i)=New_state_of_fulfilment;

%CallDemandfunction

[Fuel_Demand]=Demand(Number_of_Vehicles);

%Assumption:Vehiclesrefuelingtakesplaceat9pm

ifHour_of_the_day==21
Hydrogen_Flow=min(Fuel_Demand,Stored_H2_available);
else
Fuel_Demand=0;
Hydrogen_Flow=0;
end

Non_cov_dem=Fuel_Demandabs(Hydrogen_Flow);%AmountofH2demandnotavailable

Current_state_of_fulfilment=SOF(i);%Inputfortankfunctionstatement

%CallTankfunction

[Volume_available,Stored_H2_available,New_state_of_fulfilment]=Tank(Capacity,Current_state_of_fulfi
lment,Hydrogen_Flow);

SOF(i)=New_state_of_fulfilment;%UpdateofTankfulfilimentaftertherefueling

Current_state_of_fulfilment=SOF(i);%Inputforstrategyfunction
Current_SOC=SOC(i);%Inputforstrategyfunction
EL_ONOFF=EL_ON_OFF(i);%Inputforstrategyfunction

%Callstrategyfunction

[State_of_charge,En_bat_net,P_bat_net,En_bat_in,P_bat_in,En_bat_los,P_bat_los,En_bat_rej,P_bat_rej
,Hydrogen_Production,Power_consumption,Energy_consumption,Power_rejection,Energy_rejection,Vol
ume_available,Stored_H2_available,New_state_of_fulfilment,T_en_rej,T_p_rej]=Strategy(PV_en_prod,P
V_p_prod,Volume_available,Stored_H2_available,Time,Nominal_production_rate,Depth_of_Discharge,

108

B_Capacity,Capacity,Current_SOC,Current_state_of_fulfilment,Hour_of_the_day,EL_ONOFF,ELmax,ELmi
n,Eecon,Min_hours);

SOF(i)=New_state_of_fulfilment;%Finalstateoftankfulfilmentforthepresenttimestep
SOC(i)=State_of_charge;%Finalbatterystateofchargeforthepresenttimestep

%CountingBatteryCycles

%Thedefinitionofacompletechargeanddischargeisfollowed

SOC_ref=1Depth_of_Discharge;%ThereferenceSOCisassumedtobetheminimumpermitted
Marg=0.42*Depth_of_Discharge;%Themarginusedinbatterycyclesestimation(%)

%Description:Initially,Flag_1=0&Flag_2=0.
%Thefirsttimethatreachestheupperlimit>>Flag_1=1
%Ifthenreachesthelowerlimit>>Flag_2=1
%Ifbothflagsare1andreachestheupperlimitfora2ndtimea
%cycleiscounted(Flag_1=2)

ifi==1%Settingtheinitialstatus

if(abs(SOC(i)1)<Marg)
Bat_high(i)=1;
Bat_low(i)=0;
elseif(abs(SOC(i)SOC_ref)<Marg)
Bat_high(i)=0;
Bat_low(i)=1;
else
Bat_high(i)=0;
Bat_low(i)=0;
end

else

if(abs(SOC(i)1)<Marg)&(Bat_low(i1)==1&Bat_high(i1)==1)
Bat_high(i)=2;
Bat_low(i)=Bat_low(i1);
elseif(abs(SOC(i)1)<Marg)&((Bat_low(i1)==0)&(Bat_high(i1)==1|Bat_high(i1)==0))
Bat_high(i)=1;
Bat_low(i)=Bat_low(i1);
elseif(abs(SOC(i)1)<Marg)&(Bat_low(i1)==1&Bat_high(i1)==0)
Bat_high(i)=1;
Bat_low(i)=Bat_low(i1);
elseif(abs(SOC(i)SOC_ref)<Marg)
Bat_high(i)=Bat_high(i1);
Bat_low(i)=1;
else
Bat_high(i)=Bat_high(i1);
Bat_low(i)=Bat_low(i1);
end
end
%Whena"complete"chargefollowsa"complete"dischargeacycleisadded
if(Bat_high(i)==2&Bat_low(i)==1)
Bat_cycles=Bat_cycles+1;
Bat_high(i)=1;
Bat_low(i)=0;
else
end

109

%Countingelectrolyseronoffswitching

%Statusdefinition(EL_ON_OFF(i)):
%0=Electrolyserisoffuntilthistimestepoftheday
%1=Electrolyserturnedonattheprevioustimestep
%2=Itoperatesmorethatonetimestep
%2.x=Itoperatesforx+1timesteps
%3=Itwasswitchedoffattheprevioustimestep
%4=Ithasbeenswitchedoffmorethanonetimestep
%10=Ithasexceededtheminimumtimestepsofoperation

ifHydrogen_Production>0
Elec_on(i)=1;

ifi>Min_hours
ifElec_on(i1)==0
EL_ON_OFF(i)=1;
elseifElec_on(i1)==1&EL_ON_OFF(i1)==1
EL_ON_OFF(i)=2;
elseifElec_on(i1)==1&EL_ON_OFF(i1)~=1
EL_ON_OFF(i)=EL_ON_OFF(i1)+0.1;
else
end

ifEL_ON_OFF(i)>(Min_hours/10)0.1+2
EL_ON_OFF(i)=10;
else
end

else
end

else
Elec_on(i)=0;

ifi>1
ifElec_on(i1)==1%Whenitisturnedonacycleisadded
Electrolyser_cycles=Electrolyser_cycles+1;
EL_ON_OFF(i)=3;

elseifElec_on(i1)==0&(EL_ON_OFF(i1)==3);
EL_ON_OFF(i)=4;
else
end
else
end

end

%PLOTS
%Plot1PVproduction

plot_1A=Hour_of_the_year;

ifP_bat_net>0
plot_1B=P_bat_net;
plot_1C=plot_1B+Power_consumption;
else
plot_1B=0;

110

plot_1C=Power_consumption+P_bat_net;
end

plot_1D=plot_1C+T_p_rej;
plot_1E=PV_p_prod;

%Plot2Electrolyserconsumption

ifP_bat_net>0
plot_2B=0;
plot_2C=PV_p_prodT_p_rejP_bat_net;
else
plot_2B=abs(P_bat_net);
plot_2C=PV_p_prod+plot_2BT_p_rej;
end

plot_2D=Power_consumption;

%Plot3Tankslevel

plot_3B=SOF(i);
plot_3C=SOC(i);

ifopt==0
fprintf(fid,'%6.0f %12.8f %12.8f %12.8f %12.8f %12.8f %12.8f %12.8f %12.8f %12.8f
\r\n',plot_1A,plot_1B,plot_1C,plot_1D,plot_1E,plot_2B,plot_2C,plot_2D,plot_3B,plot_3C);
else
end
%Balancescheck

%Specificconsumptionestimation

EL_op_point=Power_consumption/(ELmax*EL_power);%Electrolysercurrentoperationpoint

%NondimensionedrelationshipobtainedbyUllebergetal
El_sp_cons_nd=2.1478*(EL_op_point)^3+4.2745*(EL_op_point)^22.7977*(EL_op_point)+1.6403;
El_sp_cons=El_sp_cons_nd*Eecon;%Electrolyserspecificconsumption(kWh/Nm3)

%OVERALLENERGYMANAGEMENT

ifi>1
if abs(PV_en_prodEn_bat_netEnergy_consumptionT_en_rej)>0.00001 | abs(((SOF(i)SOF(i
1))*Capacity+(Fuel_DemandNon_cov_dem))*El_sp_consEnergy_consumption)>0.001
disp(i)
disp(PV_en_prod)
disp(P_bat_net)
disp(Energy_consumption)
disp(T_en_rej)
disp(SOF(i))
disp(PV_en_prodEn_bat_netEnergy_consumptionT_en_rej)
else
end

else
end

%BATTERY

111

ifi>1
ifEn_bat_net>0

ifabs(En_bat_net*0.85(SOC(i)SOC(i1)+0.02*Time/(30*24))*B_Capacity)>0.001
disp(i)
disp(En_bat_net)
disp(En_bat_net*0.85)
disp(SOC(i))
disp(SOC(i1))
else
end
else
ifabs(En_bat_net/0.85(SOC(i)SOC(i1)+0.02*Time/(30*24))*B_Capacity)>0.001
disp(i)
else
end
end
else
end

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%Cumulativemagnitudescalculation

Annual_Dem=Annual_Dem+Fuel_Demand;%Cumulativeannualfueldemand
Annual_Dem_ns=Annual_Dem_ns+Non_cov_dem;%Cumulativenoncovereddemand
Total_H2_prod=Total_H2_prod+Hydrogen_Production;%AnnualHydrogenproduction
Total_PV_prod=Total_PV_prod+PV_en_prod;%AnnualPVenergyproduction
Total_rejection=Total_rejection+T_en_rej; % Annual energy rejection (batteryelectronic devices
lossesexcluded)
Total_el_consumption=Total_el_consumption+Energy_consumption; % Annual electrolyser energy
consumption
Total_radiation=Total_radiation+Radiation*Area;%Totalsolarradiationtothepanels

end

%ResultsOutputEvaluationMagnitudes

%CallEconomicsfunction
[
Hydrogen_prod_cost
]
=
Economics(Area,B_Capacity,Nominal_production_rate,Capacity,Total_H2_prod,Bat_cycles,Electrolyser_
cycles,Depth_of_Discharge,EL_Cost_reduction,PV_Cost_reduction);

En_rej=Total_rejection/Total_PV_prod;%EnergyrejectiontoPVproduction
PV_CF=(Total_PV_prodTotal_rejection)/(PV_power*length(Athens));%PVcapacityfactor
EL_CF=Total_el_consumption/(EL_power*length(Athens));%ELcapacityfactor
Overall_Efficiency=Total_H2_prod*HHV/Total_radiation;%Annualoverallsystemefficiency
EL_cycles=Electrolyser_cycles;%AnnualElectrolysercycles
Battery_cycles=Bat_cycles;%AnnualBatterycycles
Reliability=(1Annual_Dem_ns/Annual_Dem);%Reliabilityofthespecificdimensionedsystem(%)

%Summarytable
ifopt==0
fprintf(fid2,'%6.3f\r\n',abs(Reliability));
fprintf(fid2,'%6.3f\r\n',Hydrogen_prod_cost);
fprintf(fid2,'%6.3f\r\n',En_rej);
fprintf(fid2,'%6.3f\r\n',abs(PV_CF));

112

fprintf(fid2,'%6.3f\r\n',abs(EL_CF));
fprintf(fid2,'%6.4f\r\n',abs(Overall_Efficiency));
fprintf(fid2,'%4.0f\r\n',EL_cycles);
else
end
%Constraintsusedforoptimizationspeedup

if abs(Reliability)<0.995 %| Hydrogen_prod_cost>20 %| Total_H2_prod>Annual_Dem %|

PV_power>(EL_power+B_Capacity/10)%|B_Capacity/10>2*EL_power
|
abs(PV_CF)<0.1
|
abs(EL_CF)<0.25%|EL_cycles>500%
Hydrogen_prod_cost=50;
En_rej=0;
PV_CF=0;
EL_CF=0;
Overall_Efficiency=0;
B_Capacity=10000;
EL_cycles=1000;
Days_of_autonomy=0;
Min_hours=0;
Depth_of_Discharge=1;
else
end

%Filesclose
ifopt==0
fclose(fid);
fclose(fid2);
else
end

%Optimizationobjectives

f(1)=Hydrogen_prod_cost;
%f(2)=Days_of_autonomy;
%f(3)=B_Capacity/EL_power;

end

113

REFERENCES

[1] J. Hu, D.L. King, Y. Wang J.D. Holladay, "An overview of hydrogen production
technologies,"CatalysisToday,no.139,pp.244260,2009.
[2] C.J. Winter, "Hydrogen energy Abundant, efficient, clean: A debate over the
energysystemofchange," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, no. 34, pp.
152,2009.
[3] R. McConnell, S. Licht K. Rajeshwar, "Solar Hydrogen Generation Toward a
RenewableEnergyFuture,"SpringerScienceBusinessMedia,2008.
[4] .Markvart,SolarElectricity,2nded.:JohnWileyandSonsLtd,2000.
[5] T. L. Gibson, D. B. Ouwerkerk N. A. Kelly, "A solarpowered, highefficiency
hydrogen fueling system using highpressure electrolysis of water: Design and
initialresults,"InternationalJournalofhydrogenenergy,no.33,pp.27472764,
2008.
[6] S. Giddey, F.T. Ciacchi, S.P.S. Badwal, B. Paul, J. Andrews R.E. Clarke, "Direct
coupling of an electrolyser to a solar PV system for generating hydrogen,"
InternationalJournalofHydrogenEnergy,no.34,pp.25312542,2009.
[7] T. Nakken, A. Ete . Ulleberg, "The wind/hydrogen demonstration system at
Utsira in Norway: Evaluation of system performance using operational data and
updated hydrogen energy system modeling tools," International Journal of
hydrogenenergy,no.35,pp.18411852,2010.
[8] F. Barbir, "PEM electrolysis for production of hydrogen from renewable energy
sources,"SolarEnergy,no.78,pp.661669,2005.
[9] M.Thomson,D.InfieldM.Little,"Electricalintegrationofrenewableenergyinto
standalone power supplies incorporating hydrogen storage," International
JournalofHydrogenEnergy,no.32,pp.15821588,2007.
[10].Ulleberg,"TheimportanceofcontrolstrategiesinPVhydrogensystems,"Solar
Energy,no.76,pp.323329,2004.
[11]S. Voutetakis, P. Seferlis, F. Stergiopoulos, C. Elmasides D. Ipsakis, "Power
management strategiesfor a standalone power system using renewable energy
114

sourcesandhydrogenstorage,"InternationalJournalofHydrogenEnergy,no.34,
pp.70817095,2009.
[12]E.Bilgen,"Domestichydrogenproductionusingrenewableenergy,"SolarEnergy,
no.77,pp.4755,2004.
[13]E. Bilgen, "Solar hydrogen from photovoltaicselectrolyser systems," Energy
Conversion&Management,no.42,pp.10471057,2001.
[14]A.Contreras,T.N.VezirogluJ.M.Vidueira,"PVautonomousinstallationtoproduce
hydrogen via electrolysis, and its use in FC buses," International Journal of
HydrogenEnergy,no.28,pp.927937,2003.
[15]N. A. Kelly Th. L. Gibson, "Optimization of solar powered hydrogen production
using PV electrolysis devices," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, no. 33,
pp.59315940,2008.
[16]M.B.Pate,N.K.OlsonJ.R.Bartels,"Aneconomicsurveyofhydrogenproduction
from conventional and alternative energy sources," International Journal of
hydrogenenergy,no.xxx,pp.114,2010.
[17]J.M.Joubert,B.Lachal,K.YvonP.Hollmuller,"Evaluationofa5kWpPVhydrogen
production and storage installation for a residential home in Switzerland,"
InternationalJournalofHydrogenEnergy,no.25,pp.97109,2000.
[18]J.AndrewsB.Paul,"OptimalcouplingofPVarraystoPEMelectrolysersinsolar
hydrogen systems for remote area power supply," International Journal of
HydrogenEnergy,no.33,pp.490498,2008.
[19]N. A. Kelly Th. L. Gibson, "Predicting efficiency of solar powered hydrogen
generation using PVelectrolysis devices," International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy,no.35,pp.900911,2010.
[20]W. Martnez, U. Cano, H. Blud L.G. Arriaga, "Direct coupling of a solarhydrogen
systeminMexico,"InternationalJournalofHydrogenEnergy,no.32,pp.2247
2252,2007.
[21]O. Atlam, "An experimental and modelling study of a photovoltaic / proton
exchange membrane electrolyser system," International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy,no.34,pp.65896595,2009.
[22]J.Ivy,"SummaryofElectrolyticHydrogenProduction,"NationalRenewableEnergy
115

Laboratory,2004.
[23]D. Zhang K. Zeng, "Recent progress in alkaline water electrolysis for hydrogen
productionandapplications,"ProgressinEnergyandCombustionScience,no.36,
pp.307326,2010.
[24]L.CastanerT.Markvart,Ed.,PracticalHandbookofPhotovoltaicsFundamentals
andApplications.:Elsevier,2003.
[25]M. K. Mann, R. M. Margolis, A. Milbrandt J. I. Levene, "An analysis of hydrogen
productionfromrenewableelectricitysources,"SolarEnergy,no.81,pp.773780,
2007.
[26]K.Agbossou,J.Hamelin,T.K.BoseM.Kolhe,"Analyticalmodelforpredictingthe
performance of photovoltaic arraycoupled with a wind turbine in a standalone
renewable energy system based on hydrogen," Renewable Energy, no. 28, pp.
727742,2003.
[27]T. Muneer, P. Clarke A. N. Celik, "Optimal Sizing and Life Cycle Assessment of
Residential Photovoltaic Energy Systems With Battery Storage," Progress in
Photovoltaics:ResearchandApplications,no.16,pp.6985,2008.
[28]S. A. Sharkh D. Doerffel, "A critical review of using the Peukert equation for
determining the remaining capacity of leadacid and lithiumion batteries,"
JournalofPowerSources,no.155,pp.395400,2006.
[29]D. Zafirakis, K. Kavadias J.K. Kaldellis, "Technoeconomic comparison of energy
storage systems for island autonomous electrical networks," Renewable and
SustainableEnergyReviews,no.13,pp.378392,2009.
[30]T.B.ThomasD.Linden,HandbookofBatteries,3rded.NewYork,USA:McGraw
Hill,2002.
[31].UllebergH.Miland,"Testingofasmallscalestandalonepowersystembased
on

solar

energy

and

hydrogen,"

Solar

Energy,

no.

doi:10.1016/j.solener.2008.04.013,2008.
[32]P.FranklM.Raugei,"Lifecycleimpactsandcostsofphotovoltaicsystems:Current
stateoftheart,"Energy,no.34,pp.392399,2009.
[33]Z.Wei,L.ChengzhiY.Hongxing,"Optimaldesignandtechnoeconomicanalysisof
ahybridsolarwindpowergenerationsystem,"AppliedEnergy,no.86,pp.163
116

169,2009.
[34]X.J. Zhu, G.Y. Cao, S. Sui, M.R. Hu C.H. Li, "Dynamic modeling and sizing
optimization of standalone photovoltaic power systems using hybrid energy
storagetechnology,"RenewableEnergy,no.34,pp.815826,2009.
[35]R.Glockner,N.Lymberopoulos,T.Tsoutsos,I.Vosseler,O.Gavalda,H.J.Mydske,
P.TaylorE.I.Zoulias,"Integrationofhydrogenenergytechnologiesinstandalone
powersystemsanalysisofthecurrentpotentialforapplications,"Renewableand
SustainableEnergyReviews,no.10,pp.432462,2006.
[36]Amitava Roy, John Barton, Matthew Little Rupert Gammon, "HYDROGEN AND
RENEWABLES INTEGRATION (HARI)," CREST (Centre for Renewable Energy
SystemsTechnology),LoughboroughUniversity,UK,2006.
[37]John M., Jr. and Robert E. Chapman Watts, "Engineering Economics," in SFPE
HandbookofFireProtectionEngineering.:NFPA,QuincyMA,2002,ch.7.
[38]J. Shayegan M. Qadrdan, "Economic assessment of hydrogen fueling station, a
casestudyforIran,"RenewableEnergy,no.33,pp.25252531,2008.

117