Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Levelized Cost of Hydrogen”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Electrolyzers in the System Advisor Model (SAM): A Techno-Economic Potential Study

A technoeconomic analysis of grid to low temperature electrolysis (Grid-LTE), photovoltaic to low temperature electrolysis (PV-LTE), concentrating solar power to high temperature electrolysis (CSP-HTSE) and a concentrating solar power with PV to high temperature electrolysis (CSP-PV-HTSE) centralized hydrogen production systems are analyzed to assess the economics of system and to provide a baseline for comparing these technologies against hydrogen production cost targets. A framework integrating the system advisor model (SAM) and US Department of Energy hydrogen production models (H2A) is developed to assess these systems. The hydrogen levelized cost given current and future assumptions for technology cost and performance is evaluated at optimal system configurations. The framework described in this report integrates SAM with H2A electrolyzer technologies and provides analysts a detailed technoeconomic method to analyze concentrating and photovoltaic solar technologies to produce energy that are directly coupled to LTE and HTSEs that use that energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The baseline hydrogen levelized cost (HLCs) for the GRID-LTE, PV-LTE, CSP-HTSE, and CSP-PV-HTSE systems in Daggett, CA are 2.82, 3.86, 3.68, and 2.90 $\$$USD 2016/kg H2 and 2.50, 2.13, 2.84, 2.15 $\$$USD 2016/kg H2 in the 2020 and 2050 scenarios respectively. To achieve the $\$$2/kg H2 target in locations with excellent solar resources, cost parameters values aligned with aggressive R&D targets will need to be achieved for all the systems configurations. In Daggett, PV costs of $\$$0.68 /Wac or moderate ATB PV CAPEX projections result in HLCs of $\$$2 /kg H2. Similarly for PV-MSALT-HTSE systems, $\$$0.60 /Wac result in $\$$2/kg H2. For the MSALT-HTSE systems, better than aggressive 2050 ATB salt tower CAPEX projections would be needed to reach $\$$2/kg H2. Molten salt tower capital costs of $\$$2400/kW would enable $\$$2/kg H2 in 2050.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2026

Cost estimation of balance of plant equipment scale up for proton exchange membrane water electrolyzer systems

Water electrolyzers that use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen could be a key technology for increasing hydrogen supply to meet expanded and emerging market applications, although currently the capital costs of these electrolyzers are high. Here we examine cost reductions that might be achieved by scaling up proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzer systems and leveraging economies of scale through balance of plant (BOP) components for system sizes between 1 MW and 1 GW. We estimate BOP equipment capital costs of about $\$$848/kW at 1 MW, potentially decreasing to $\$$87/kW at 1 GW (2022-dollar year basis) with most of the cost reduction happening as systems scale from 1 MW to 100 MW. We find that BOP subsystems hydrogen drying and water knockout benefited the most from economies-of-scale cost reductions, and piping, instrumentation, and housing and power electronics were less impacted. These cost reductions from economies of scale could be more significant than estimated cost reductions from manufacturing scale-up reported in literature. These results add to the knowledge base that could guide optimal system designs that balance process scale-up with plant modularization and numbering-up. We also estimate that scaling up BOP could potentially lower the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) by $\$$1.7-$\$$4.6/kg, depending on the scale-up magnitude and the plant capacity factor.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2026

Levelized Cost of Dispensed Hydrogen for Heavy-Duty Vehicles

In this short technical report, we explore the range of levelized costs of dispensed hydrogen (H2) from hydrogen refueling (or fueling) stations (HRS) for H2 heavy-duty fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) that are feasible in the 2030 timeframe. We explore different scenarios by varying hydrogen delivery distances, HRS sizes, HRS utilization rates, and economies of scale in the Hydrogen Delivery Scenario Analysis Model (HDSAM). Thus, we observe how the contribution to the levelized cost of each supply chain component changes.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Levelized Cost of Dispensed Hydrogen for Heavy-Duty Vehicles

This paper estimates the expected ranges of levelized cost of dispensed hydrogen at heavy-duty refueling stations. The analysis assesses a range of scenarios including type of production (centralized vs. onsite, market size in terms of number of vehicles, size of refueling station, utilization rates of the refueling stations, and pathway of delivery of hydrogen). Because delivery of liquid hydrogen is more cost effective at higher volumes than delivery of gaseous hydrogen, this paper only considers delivery of liquid hydrogen except in the case of onsite production.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2022

A novel green hydrogen production using water-energy nexus framework

The transformation of electrical energy to hydrogen via water electrolysis consumes considerable amount of fresh water and a productive use of nontraditional water sources enhances the reliability and resilience of energy and water systems. In this study, we have designed a solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) system which is an evolving hydrogen production technology at high temperatures for water electrolysis. Here, the SOEC uses steam generated from flue gas as its feedstock and is fully integrated with numerous power production units, including coal and natural gas-fired power plants as its energy feedstock. While there is a hasten global shift away from fossil fuel, integrating its asset into this technology helps limit the risk and future losses of stranded assets and reduce the cost of investment in the new technologies. But high capital expenditures and doubt concerning the future cost and efficiency upgrade are obstacles to investing in water electrolysis. Such a detailed Levelized cost of hydrogen and techno-economic analysis is conducted to show the viability and environmental impacts of this novel technology. The results show SOEC efficiency of 97.4 % and 56.3 % as thermal-to-hydrogen efficiency of the system with a daily hydrogen production of 242,400 kg at $2.9–3.5/kg H 2 . The estimates show a positive gain prospect in this technology and techno-economic challenges.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2022

Operating Strategies for Dispatchable PEM Electrolyzers that Enable Low-Cost Hydrogen Production

Hydrogen is a pathway to enabling decarbonization across multiple economic sectors that cannot be directly decarbonized with electricity including heat for industrial operations, medium- and heavy-duty transportation applications, long-duration energy storage, and as a feedstock for chemical synthesis. Producing hydrogen at low costs and carbon footprint is likely essential to economically decarbonize these otherwise "hard to decarbonize" sectors. Low-temperature polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolysis produces hydrogen from water and electricity and is a rapidly developing pathway towards making hydrogen at the scales required for decarbonization applications. The levelized cost of electrolytic hydrogen is dependent on the capital cost, efficiency, and durability of the electrolyzer system as well as the price of electricity supplied to the electrolyzer and the annual utilization of the electrolyzer (capacity factor). Electricity price and capacity factor depend on the source of energy that the system uses and impact other economic factors. Electricity price and capacity factor and the connections between other aspects of hydrogen production via PEM electrolyzers are the focus of this work. PEM electrolyzers have conventionally been operated at high capacity factors using electricity purchased from utilities with a constant price throughout the year. To achieve lower effective electricity prices, recent work has investigated opportunities for electrolyzers to purchase electricity in wholesale markets, where the cost of electricity varies hourly. This option can lead to lower electricity costs when the electrolyzer is a controllable load that ramps up and down rapidly and turns on and off frequently. This configuration and operating strategy capitalizes on times of low wholesale electricity prices and results in lower hydrogen levelized costs than constant operation due to reduced electricity costs even though the reduced capacity factor increases the cost of recovering the capital investment. Cycling on and off frequently also has implications for electrolyzer durability. An electrolyzer configuration where it is directly connected to renewable generation such as wind or solar, only running when the generator is producing energy, has similar implications on operating strategy, hydrogen levelized cost, capacity factor, and durability. This work provides insight into the relationships between dispatchable electrolyzer operating strategies and the cost of producing hydrogen from these systems, outlining strategies and opportunities to minimize production costs while minimizing operations that are likely to negatively impact system durability and efficiency. We find strategies that minimize electrolyzer cycling and the resulting durability impacts while increasing the hydrogen levelized cost only slightly above the minimum. We also find opportunities for batteries to minimize the number of cycles in systems directly connected to renewable generation. These findings outline key opportunities for future electrolyzer deployments and the synergistic benefits between electrolyzers and increased deployment of renewable energy generation like wind and solar. They also inform research and development that is reducing electrolyzer capital cost while managing durability impacts.

electricity markets↗
DOE OSTI2025

Hydrogen-Battery Hybrid Energy System on Repurposed Offshore Platforms for Efficient Clean-Energy Transition

Due to the rising global energy demand and enhanced awareness of the environmental impact of fossil fuels, the Gulf of Mexico, traditionally known for oil extraction, offers a distinct chance to repurpose the existing offshore infrastructure. With the depletion of oil reserves, it is feasible to adapt previously utilized floating platforms for extraction to generate renewable energy, specifically through wind-generated power and hydrogen production. This adaptation seeks to promote a transport system that is more ecologically friendly in the future. Offshore wind turbines serve as the main energy source, with help from battery storage and hydrogen production to enhance the overall system performance, hydrogen creation, fuel, and electricity delivery for sustainable energy production. The system is divided into two distinct cases, each evaluated for cost, performance, and feasibility, with a focus on minimizing both the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) and the Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH). The first case examines the integration of offshore wind turbines with hydrogen production. Excess electricity generated by wind turbines is directed toward hydrogen production via electrolysis. The hydrogen produced can be used as fuel for vehicles or transported to the shore via pipelines. The second case investigates a technology that combines wind turbines with battery storage. The batteries possess an ability to supply electricity for a continuous duration of 4 hours maximum each day. The main objective is to reduce the LCOE by considering the battery's charging and discharging cycles, together with the uncertain attributes of wind power and battery deterioration. The produced energy can be distributed for onshore applications or utilized for the purpose of offsetting offshore loads such as subsea oil and gas production, transportation, etc. The offshore hydrogen-battery hybrid system is improved via three advanced algorithms, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), and Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO). In Case 1, PSO improves hydrogen production by efficiently managing the electrolyzer’s power consumption, decreasing production costs significantly. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is applied to improve the efficiency of the electrolyzer, reducing production costs and achieving an optimized CAPEX of $240.00 million (from an initial $300.00 million) and OPEX of $9.60 million per year. This system produces 4,720,000 kg of hydrogen annually, with a Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH) of $6.40/kg and an annual profit of $9.27 million. In Case 2, GWO effectively reduces the overall energy cost by improving the charge-discharge management of batteries, which extends battery life and optimizes their use. The second case focuses on integrating battery storage, optimized using the Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), which enhances battery charge-discharge cycles, extending battery life and lowering costs. This system achieves an optimized CAPEX of $204.80 million (from an initial $256.00 million) and OPEX of $9.29 million per year, producing 310883.39 MWh of electricity annually at a Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of $86.13/MWh, with an annual profit of $6.25 million. The implementation of a comprehensive strategy results in a substantial reduction in costs, improved energy efficiency, and a dependable supply of both electric power and hydrogen, emphasizing the benefits of converting offshore oil platforms for clean energy transition. This study explores a clean strategy to enable cost-effective repurposing of offshore O&G platforms. Both cases highlight the economic and technical feasibility of transitioning offshore oil platforms to clean energy systems, demonstrating substantial cost reductions and reliable energy and hydrogen supplies for sustainable energy production.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

High Temperature Steam Electrolysis Process Performance and Cost Estimates - DOE Hydrogen Program AMR Presentation

Technology readiness levels (TRLs) of electrolysis systems have dramatically increased in recent years as the interest in clean hydrogen production and decarbonization of transportation, industrial and other sectors increases across the globe. This is especially true of high temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) / solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) systems which show promise of much higher system efficiencies than other more developed electrolysis technologies. This possibility of higher efficiencies of HTSE / SOEC systems has been previously assumed to be theoretically possible but in recent years it has become less theoretical and more realistic as an increasing amount of suppliers complete lab and pilot tests showing very promising results. Research in the areas of manufacturing techniques, material selection, electrode and electrolyte compositions, and balance of plant size and integration continues at a fast pace as an increasing number of suppliers both internationally and domestically become involved. The advantages of HTSE become more pronounced when HTSE is coupled with nuclear power plants (NPPs). This is because thermal energy produced by the nuclear reactor can be used in a series of heat transfer loops and heat exchangers to vaporize HTSE feedwater, which drastically improves the economics of the process. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has been very involved in the research and modeling of HTSE systems for a number of years, in collaboration with other national laboratories, academia, and industry stakeholders both on the hydrogen production as well as the hydrogen demand side. The modeling completed over the years on a large variety of projects has led to a wealth of knowledge at INL including in the area of the technoeconomic assessment (TEA) of HTSE systems. TEAs include process modeling of the HTSE systems to calculate system energy requirements and equipment sizing, followed by estimation of capital and operating costs to enable calculation of the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH). The TEA work performed has produced incremental improvements and tuning of the methods, assumptions, models, and results of the analyses as well as providing some opportunities for validating these results. The purpose of this document is to record the current baseline HTSE analyses led by INL to show the current status of assumptions and costs of these systems. Given the rapid development of this technology, the variety of suppliers entering the space, and the increasing attention government and industry are giving to such systems, this document may be updated on a periodic basis with updated analysis and assumptions. This document compiles various analyses results and approaches completed over a period of years into a single document to be used as a baseline going forward. It represents what the INL HTSE analysis group assumes to be the internal best estimate of the current operation, costs, and landscape of the HTSE industry state of the art capability for current SOEC technology in an Nth-of-a-Kind (NOAK) plant, which in this study is defined as existence of the manufacturing capacity to support previous deployment of N = 100 count of 25 MWe modular HTSE blocks (with modular equipment component cost reductions specified as following a 95% learning curve). That said, this is a public document and as such so no proprietary data was used or included in this report. There may be HTSE suppliers that have performance specifications, and cost estimates, and test data that differ from the analysis presented in this document. This document is meant to be a best conservative estimate of the technology and not an absolute reference.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Techno-Economic Analysis of Green Hydrogen Energy Storage in a Cryogenic Flux Capacitor

Abstract The Cryogenic Flux Capacitor (CFC) is a cold, dense energy storage core that is being studied in the cryo-compressed, about 300 bar and 80K, region of gaseous hydrogen (GH2) storage and liquid hydrogen (LH2) region near the normal boiling point. Hydrogen storage is improved by physically bonding the molecules within the nanoscale pores of the aerogel composite blanket material. The process of bonding or debonding is governed by principles of physical adsorption (physisorption) and thermodynamics. The large surface area afforded by the nanoporous aerogel (∼1,000 m2/g) allows its storage performance to easily exceed capacities of high-pressure GH2 storage for an equivalent volume. With the integrated aerogel, subscale tests have shown that storage is increased by about 36% over a simple tank filled with GH2 at the same operating temperature and pressure. For LH2 conditions, the CFC is shown to operate at improved densities, but testing is ongoing. For the techno-economic analysis (TEA), the source of hydrogen is compared between onsite steam methane reforming (SMR) and onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) panels providing power to electrolyzers to produce green GH2. The TEA compares pure hydrogen produced at a small scale for a 25 MW power system and at a large scale in a 500 MW power system. The system allowed for hydrogen imports and exports at a set price with a tank sized for 10 hours of power production. The two power producing technologies are a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and hydrogen fuel cells. The SMR system uses natural gas as an input and includes a carbon capture and storage (CCS) system. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH), and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) are developed based on the capital cost and operating cost of the systems. The results are shown for current costs using a 2021 benchmark and DOE projections for cost improvements by 2030. The TEA showed that onsite hydrogen generation from SMR has an LCOH of about 1.4 to 2 USD per kg over the life of the plant and the PV hydrogen production LCOH is about 5.2 to 5.5 USD per kg. The LCOS of conventional GH2 systems is estimated to be $210/MWh and cost of storage for LH2 systems is $205/MWh for fuel cell systems and $249/MWh for CCGT systems. CFC improved the LCOS of all these systems to $198/MWh, $191/MWh and $233/MWh respectively. The LCOE also improved with conventional systems between $171/MWh and $228/MWh improved by CFC to between $167/MWh and $212/MWh. Using projections for improvement in costs following DOE’s goals by 2030, green hydrogen improved to as low as $78/MWh LCOS and LCOE for conventional cases. CFC improved over conventional storage with the lowest LCOS being $62/MWh and the lowest LCOE being $73/MWh. These results correspond to an LCOH of $2/kg. Finally, the TEA shows how LCOE is improved for hydrogen conditioning and storage over conventional systems and caverns in the 10 to 50 hour range.

08 HYDROGEN↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Techno-Economic Analysis of Green Hydrogen Energy Storage in A Cryogenic Flux Capacitor

The Cryogenic Flux Capacitor (CFC) is a cold, dense energy storage core that is being studied in the cryo-compressed, about 300 bar and 80K, region of gaseous hydrogen (GH 2 ) storage and liquid hydrogen (LH 2 ) region near the normal boiling point. Hydrogen storage is improved by physically bonding the molecules within the nanoscale pores of the aerogel composite blanket material. The process of bonding or debonding is governed by principles of physical adsorption (physisorption) and thermodynamics. The large surface area afforded by the nanoporous aerogel (~1,000 m 2 /g) allows its storage performance to easily exceed capacities of high-pressure GH 2 storage for an equivalent volume. With the integrated aerogel, subscale tests have shown that storage is increased by about 36% over a simple tank filled with GH 2 at the same operating temperature and pressure. For LH 2 conditions, the CFC is shown to operate at improved densities, but testing is ongoing. For the techno-economic analysis (TEA), the source of hydrogen is compared between onsite steam methane reforming (SMR) and onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) panels providing power to electrolyzers to produce green GH 2 . The TEA compares pure hydrogen produced at a small scale for a 25 MW power system and at a large scale in a 500 MW power system. The system allowed for hydrogen imports and exports at a set price with a tank sized for 10 hours of power production. The two power producing technologies are a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and hydrogen fuel cells. The SMR system uses natural gas as an input and includes a carbon capture and storage (CCS) system. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH), and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) are developed based on the capital cost and operating cost of the systems. The results are shown for current costs using a 2021 benchmark and DOE projections for cost improvements by 2030. The TEA showed that onsite hydrogen generation from SMR has an LCOH of about 1.4 to 2 USD per kg over the life of the plant and the PV hydrogen production LCOH is about 5.2 to 5.5 USD per kg. The LCOS of conventional GH 2 systems is estimated to be $210/MWh and cost of storage for LH 2 systems is $205/MWh for fuel cell systems and $249/MWh for CCGT systems. CFC improved the LCOS of all these systems to $198/MWh, $191/MWh and $233/MWh respectively. The LCOE also improved with conventional systems between $171/MWh and $228/MWh improved by CFC to between $167/MWh and $212/MWh. Using projections for improvement in costs following DOE’s goals by 2030, green hydrogen improved to as low as $78/MWh LCOS and LCOE for conventional cases. CFC improved over conventional storage with the lowest LCOS being $62/MWh and the lowest LCOE being $73/MWh. These results correspond to an LCOH of $2/kg. Finally, the TEA shows how LCOE is improved for hydrogen conditioning and storage over conventional systems and caverns in the 10 to 50 hour range.

Joshua Schmitt↗
DOE OSTI2025

Grid-responsive hydrogen production: Capital utilization and current density vs. efficiency in variable electricity markets

To achieve low-cost hydrogen production from water electrolyzers, grid tied electrolysis may need to operate dynamically to minimize the cost of supplying energy to the electrolyzer stack and produce hydrogen during low-cost hours and turn off/down during high-cost hours. Operating systems in this way can decrease capital utilization (capacity factor) and electricity costs. This strategy would shift the dominant cost drivers away from electricity (and thus efficiency) to the capital costs of the system, due to the underutilized capital when operating at low-capacity factors. Increasing the operational current density of the system could, in effect, reduce the capital cost of the system while producing hydrogen at a lower efficiency on a per unit energy basis. In the variable electricity cost profiles analyzed in this paper, increasing the current density for liquid alkaline from 0.5 A/cm2 to 1.5 Ac/m2 and proton exchange membrane electrolyzers from 2 A/cm2 to 4 A/cm2 resulted in substantial reductions in the levelized cost of hydrogen. Additionally, as capacity factors and electricity costs decrease, the optimal operating current density of the electrolyzer systems analyzed increases. These findings suggest R&D efforts should focus on increasing the operational current densities, reducing the turn down ratios, and understanding the durability implications of those strategies on low-temperature liquid alkaline and proton exchange membrane electrolyzers.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Wind Turbine Design Optimization for Hydrogen Production

To help meet the need for inexpensive green fuels, we are working on wind turbine design optimization specifically for hydrogen production. We have thus far achieved a 1.53% decrease in LCOH as compared to a turbine optimized for LCOE using the same code, design variables, and models. We accomplished this by optimizing some components of the wind turbine tower, rotor, and drivetrain design with hydrogen production and costs in the design loop.

hydrogen↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hydrogen Storage for Load-Following and Clean Power: Duct-firing of Hydrogen to Improve the Capacity Factor of NGCC Plants (Final Report, Phase II Pre-Front End Engineering Design Study)

GTI Energy (GTI) and team members Southern Company Services (SCS), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) performed a Phase II Pre-Feed Study under contract DE-FE0032008 for Hydrogen Storage for Load-Following and Clean Power. The configuration of the proposed system consists of subsystems for on-site H 2 production, on-site H 2 storage (up to 54 MWth in commercial vessels) and H 2 combustion in a duct burner in a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) integrated with an existing fossil asset. Here, the firing rate of the duct burner is varied to let the plant respond to fluctuations of electrical load and H 2 production is relatively constant by storing H 2 . The proposed system is an improvement over alternate low carbon dispatchable power options. Technoeconomic analyses show H 2 produced with GTI’s patented Compact Hydrogen Generator (CHG) with inherent carbon capture will be lower cost (Levelized Cost of Hydrogen, LCOH) relative to hydrogen produced with a Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) with an amine system for carbon capture. This lower cost hydrogen enables our integrated system to deliver electricity (Levelized Cost of Electricity, LCOE) at 17.4% lower cost relative to a SMR sourced H 2 -fired HRSG (with an amine system for carbon capture) – Steam Turbine Generator (STG). Our analysis using EPRI’s US REGEN macroeconomic model shows our system will have significant demand in the power market and therefore require significant capacity expansion (CHG plants built to deliver hydrogen) to deliver low cost, low carbon power. In Phase II, our Team has completed a detailed system definition including the development of process models, definition of battery limits, Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs), Piping and Instrumentation Drawings (P&IDs), and a plant layout. A preliminary design for the key components of the CHG was developed including component lists & specifications. An evaluation of environmental and permitting considerations was completed and included the development of an Environmental Information Volume (EIV). The duct burners, which are flexible and can burn hydrogen and/or natural gas, were defined and initial CFD analyses were completed.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hydrogen Production Cost with Alkaline Electrolysis

Rigorous stakeholder-vetted techno-economic analysis was performed to assess the cost of hydrogen (H 2 ) produced using state-of-the-art Liquid Alkaline (LA) electrolysis. Projected high-volume, untaxed levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) range from 2020US $\$ 1.84$ to $\$ 2.88$/kg-H 2 depending on technology year, process design, and electrolyzer project scale, assuming an electricity price of $\$ 0.03$/kWh. The total installed capital cost for a LA electrolysis plant was estimated from bottom-up stack and installed cost models that account for purchased equipment, installation costs, site preparation, and general overhead costs. For this study, the LA electrolysis plant is assumed to be a stick-built, greenfield project developed by an EPC firm with electrolysis stacks purchased directly from an electrolysis stack manufacturer. The price of the electrolysis stacks is based on a bottom-up cost assessment with business markup for the electrolysis company fabricator. Methods from the Hydrogen Analysis (H 2 A) production model, a peer-reviewed national laboratory-developed discounted cash flow model, were used to calculate the LCOH production in 2020$/kg-H 2 . The baseline electricity price case ($\$ 0.03$/kWh) corresponds to average wholesale electricity prices currently possible in U.S. markets with plentiful wind. Similar low-cost electricity pricing is possible from solar Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) although these prices are typically limited by renewable energy capacity factors.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hydrogen Production Cost with Anion Exchange Membrane Electrolysis

Rigorous stakeholder-vetted techno-economic analysis was performed to assess the cost of hydrogen (H 2 ) produced using state-of-the-art Anion Exchange Membrane (AEM) electrolysis. Projected high-volume, untaxed and unsubsidized levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH)1 range from 2020 $\$$1.78 to $\$$3.68/kg H 2 depending on technology year, process design, and electrolyzer project scale, assuming an electricity price of $\$$0.03/kWh and a capacity factor of 97%. The total installed capital cost for an AEM electrolysis plant was estimated from bottom-up stack and process plant cost models. The stack cost model accounts for manufacturing equipment, equipment maintenance, material, tooling, cycle time, yield, labor, utilities and general overhead. The process plant cost model accounts for purchased equipment, installation costs, site preparation, and general overhead costs. For this study, the AEM electrolysis plant is assumed to be a stick-built, greenfield project developed by an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) firm with electrolysis stacks purchased directly from an electrolysis stack manufacturer. The price of the electrolysis stacks is based on a bottom-up cost assessment with business markup for the electrolysis company fabricator. Methods from the Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) production model, a peer-reviewed national laboratory-developed discounted cash flow (DCF) model, were used to calculate the production LCOH in 2020 $\$$/kg H 2 . The baseline electricity price case ($\$$0.03/kWh) corresponds to average wholesale electricity prices currently possible in U.S. markets with plentiful wind. Similar low-cost electricity pricing is possible from solar Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) although these prices are typically limited by renewable energy capacity factors.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hydrogen Production Cost from Proton-Conducting Solid Oxide Electrolysis

Rigorous stakeholder-vetted techno-economic analysis (TEA) was conducted to estimate the cost of hydrogen (H 2 ) production using Proton-Conducting Solid Oxide (PSO) electrolysis. The analysis evaluates Current (2025) and Future (2035) technology cases at centralized plant scales of 50 and 500 metric tonnes per day (MTD), assuming electricity, water, and air as the only system inputs. Untaxed, unsubsidized levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) is projected to range from 2020 $\$$1.81 to $\$$2.47/kg H 2 at an electricity price of $\$$0.03/kWh and 97% capacity factor under Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) deployment assumptions. Total installed capital cost was developed using bottom-up Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) stack cost modeling and detailed balance-of-plant estimates, including mechanical and electrical subsystems, installation, site preparation, engineering, and contingency. Stack performance assumptions include thermoneutral operation, degradation over time, and periodic replacement. LCOH was calculated using the Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) discounted cash flow model in constant 2020 dollars. Results indicate PSO electrolysis has potential for competitive hydrogen production costs under low-cost electricity and mature manufacturing conditions.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2022

Capacity Assessment and Cost Analysis of Geologic Storage of Hydrogen: A Case Study in Intermountain-West Region USA

Hydrogen is an integral component of the current energy transition roadmap to decarbonize the economy and create an environmentally-sustainable future. However, surface storage options (e.g., tanks) do not provide the required capacity or durability to deploy a regional or nationwide hydrogen economy. In this study, we have analyzed the techno-economic feasibility of the geologic storage of hydrogen in depleted gas reservoirs, salt caverns, and saline aquifers in the Intermountain-West (I-WEST) region. We have identified the most favorable candidate sites for hydrogen storage and estimated the volumetric storage capacity. Our results show that the geologic storage of hydrogen can provide at least 72% of total energy consumption of the I-WEST region in 2020. We also calculated the capital and levelized costs of each storage option. We found that a depleted gas reservoir is the most cost-effective candidate among the three geologic storage options. Interestingly, the cushion gas type plays a significant role in the storage cost when we consider hydrogen storage in saline aquifers. The levelized costs of hydrogen storage in depleted gas reservoirs, salt caverns, and saline aquifers with large-scale storage capacity are approximately $\$$1.15, $\$$2.50, and $\$$3.27 per kg of H 2 , respectively. Here, this work provides essential guidance for the geologic hydrogen storage in the I-WEST region.

08 HYDROGEN↗