Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH)”

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 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↗
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 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 OSTI2021

Technoeconomic assessment of hydrogen cogeneration via high temperature steam electrolysis with a light-water reactor

Increased electricity production from renewable energy resources, coupled with low natural gas (NG) prices, has caused existing light-water reactors (LWRs) to experience diminishing returns from the electricity market. This reduction in revenue is forcing LWRs to consider alternative revenue streams, such as introduction hydrogen production or desalination, to remain profitable. This paper performs a technoeconomic assessment (TEA) regarding the viability of retrofitting existing pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) to produce green hydrogen (H 2 ) via high-temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE). Such an integration would allow nuclear facilities to expand into additional markets that may be more profitable in the long term and eliminate CO 2 emissions from the hydrogen production process. Here, to accommodate such an integration, a detailed single market levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) and multimarket analyses were conducted of HTSE process operation, requirements, costing, and flexibility. Alongside this costing analysis, market analyses were conducted on the electric and hydrogen markets in the PJM interconnect. Utilizing a novel stochastic, dispatch optimization approach results suggest that a positive gain is achievable, and by operating in multiple markets, the nuclear facility can avoid the sale of electricity during times of low electricity market pricing, while maintaining the ability to capitalize on the high electricity market pricing. It should be noted that the analysis conducted is a differential cash flow analysis and, as such, does not present profit levels. LCOH analysis results demonstrate the potential exists to produce hydrogen at a cost as low as $1.20/kg. This price is lower than traditional steam methane reforming (SMR) allowing nuclear based hydrogen production to disrupt the existing hydrogen production market.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage in Hydrogen Production: A Combined Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Assessment

This paper presents a coupled techno-economic and life cycle assessment of “blue” hydrogen to be produced at a hydrogen facility through steam methane reforming (SMR) equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Blue hydrogen was modeled in ChemCAD, while an integrated asset model represented the carbon capture and storage chain. An unabated carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) configuration release 11.99 kgCO 2 -eq/ kgH 2 . Capturing ≥95% of the CO 2 stream lowers the carbon footprint to 6.59 kgCO 2 -eq/kgH2 but raises the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) from $\$$1.82/kgH 2 (no CO 2 capture) to $\$$3.22/kgH 2 ; the U.S. 45Q tax credit reduces it to $\$$2.59/kgH 2 . Incorporating CCS reduces the levelized net present value from $\$$0.87/kgH 2 to $\$$0.74/kgH 2 , owing to additional capture, transport, and storage costs. Supplying SMR with low-carbon electricity, especially nuclear, wind, or hydro, delivers the lowest carbon footprint relative to geothermal or grid mixes. Sensitivity analysis identifies that hydrogen sales price, internal rate of return, and CCS cost as the strongest economic levers, while electricity demand dominates residual lifecycle emissions. The results underscore a clear trade-off; substantial CO 2 reductions are achievable, but only with higher production costs, making supportive policy instruments, access to clean power, and robust hydrogen markets essential for large-scale deployment of blue hydrogen.

carbon capture↗
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 OSTI2025

Preliminary Techno-Economic Assessment of Gas Switching Reforming (GSR) of Natural Gas for Pure Hydrogen Production and Power Generation with Integrated CO2 Capture

The increasing demand for hydrogen and the CO2 intensity of natural gas (NG) reforming motivate the development of low-carbon-emission hydrogen production technologies. Gas Switching Reforming (GSR) is an advanced auto-thermal reforming technology that produces hydrogen or syngas from natural gas. It integrates inherent CO2 capture by utilizing a specialized oxygen carrier in a single fluidized bed reactor, eliminating the need for complex, energy-intensive post-combustion separation. GSR technology builds upon Chemical Looping Reforming (CLR), an experimentally proven technology with strong potential for scaling up. In this study, select oxygen carriers (OC) (NiO/Al2O3, Fe2O3-CeO2/Al2O3, and magnetite) were tested in methane steam reforming in a fixed bed reactor to determine their relative reactivities under relevant conditions for GSR (800 °C, 7 bar total pressure). Process models were then developed to perform techno-economic analysis (TEA) of GSR for hydrogen production (GSR-H₂) and a combined cycle (GSR-CC) in which high-purity H₂ is fired in a gas turbine to produce electricity. Operating at 10 bar and 1100 °C and with the additional recovery steps implemented increased H₂ production by ~30% and improved efficiency relative to prior studies. For GSR-H₂, the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) is 1.61–1.64 $/kg-H₂, competitive with a reference SMR case, though operating and maintenance costs are higher due to increased electricity demand. GSR-CC has a significantly higher levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) than its reference NGCC (natural gas combined cycle) plant, suggesting it is less competitive; however, increasing production scale could make it more attractive. Life-cycle results for GSR-H2 indicate NG consumption drives ~75% of total global warming impacts (~2.3 kg CO2 eq/kg H2). An environmental, health, and safety screening suggests iron-based carriers are comparatively safer, whereas NiO may pose greater risks. Overall, GSR-H2 is a scalable, competitive option for hydrogen production using nickel and non-nickel OC.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Preliminary techno-economic assessment of gas switching reforming (GSR) of natural gas for pure hydrogen production and power generation with integrated CO2 capture

The increasing demand for hydrogen and the CO2 intensity of natural gas (NG) reforming motivate the development of low-carbon-emission hydrogen production technologies. Gas Switching Reforming (GSR) with integrated CO2 capture, a technology based on Chemical Looping Reforming (CLR), has been experimentally proven and shows potential for scale-up. In this study, select oxygen carriers (OC) (NiO/Al2O3, Fe2O3-CeO2/Al2O3, and magnetite) were tested in methane steam reforming in a fixed bed reactor to determine their relative reactivities under relevant conditions for GSR (800 °C, 7 bar total pressure). Process models were then developed to perform techno-economic analysis (TEA) of GSR for hydrogen production (GSR-H2) and a combined cycle (GSR-CC) in which high-purity H2 is fired in a gas turbine to produce electricity. Operating at 10 bar and 1100 °C and with the additional recovery steps implemented increased H2 production by ∼ 30% and improved efficiency relative to prior studies. For GSR-H2, the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) is 1.61–1.64 $/kg-H2, competitive with a reference SMR case, though operating and maintenance costs are higher due to increased electricity demand. GSR-CC has a significantly higher levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) than its reference NGCC (natural gas combined cycle) plant, suggesting it is less competitive; however, increasing production scale could make it more attractive. Life-cycle results for GSR-H2 indicate NG consumption drives ∼ 75% of total global warming impacts (∼2.3 kg CO2 eq/kg H2). An environmental, health, and safety screening suggests iron-based carriers are comparatively safer, whereas NiO may pose greater risks. Overall, GSR-H2 is a scalable, competitive option for hydrogen production using nickel and non-nickel OC.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Comparative assessment of new oxygen carrier materials for gas switching reforming of natural gas: Techno-economics assessment, life cycle analysis, and experimental insights

The increasing demand for hydrogen and the CO 2 intensity of natural gas (NG) reforming motivate the development of low-carbon-emission hydrogen production technologies. Gas Switching Reforming (GSR) with integrated CO 2 capture, a technology based on Chemical Looping Reforming (CLR), has been experimentally proven and shows potential for scale-up. In this study, select oxygen carriers (OC) (NiO/Al 2 O 3 , Fe 2 O 3 -CeO 2 /Al 2 O 3 , and magnetite) were tested in methane steam reforming in a fixed bed reactor to determine their relative reactivities under relevant conditions for GSR (800 °C, 7 bar total pressure). Process models were then developed to perform techno-economic analysis (TEA) of GSR for hydrogen production (GSR-H 2 ) and a combined cycle (GSR-CC) in which high-purity H 2 is fired in a gas turbine to produce electricity. Operating at 10 bar and 1100 °C and with the additional recovery steps implemented increased H 2 production by ∼ 30% and improved efficiency relative to prior studies. For GSR-H 2 , the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) is 1.61–1.64 $/kg-H 2 , competitive with a reference SMR case, though operating and maintenance costs are higher due to increased electricity demand. GSR-CC has a significantly higher levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) than its reference NGCC (natural gas combined cycle) plant, suggesting it is less competitive; however, increasing production scale could make it more attractive. Life-cycle results for GSR-H 2 indicate NG consumption drives ∼ 75% of total global warming impacts (∼2.3 kg CO 2 eq/kg H 2 ). An environmental, health, and safety screening suggests iron-based carriers are comparatively safer, whereas NiO may pose greater risks. Overall, GSR-H 2 is a scalable, competitive option for hydrogen production using nickel and non-nickel OC.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
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 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 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 OSTI2025

Global techno-economic and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions assessment of solar and wind based renewable hydrogen production

This study conducts a global assessment of renewable hydrogen production pathways, focusing on techno-economic performance and life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It evaluates standalone solar photovoltaic (PV), wind, and hybrid PV/wind systems, integrated with proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzers, through multi-objective optimization and considering embodied emissions in manufacturing PV, wind and electrolyzers. Results identify optimal configurations to minimize levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) and carbon intensity (CI) of hydrogen, showing potential reductions of cost and CI by 2030. Standalone PV systems can achieve LCOH values smaller than 6.5 USD/kg H 2 and CI less than 2.5 kg CO 2 eq/kg H 2 in regions with high solar irradiance, such as North Africa, the Middle East and Chile. Wind systems in regions such as Middle East, North Africa, Australia and Central United States achieve LCOH below 5 USD/kg H 2 and CI under 1.5 kg CO 2 eq/kg H 2 . Hybrid systems emerge as the optimal solution for minimizing both the LCOH and CI by maximizing the use of renewable energy. Moreover, the results also indicate that, with the technological advancements, future reduction in the capital cost of renewable energy systems and the PEM electrolyzer as well as the trade of coproduct O 2 could drive the LCOH of all the RES-based hydrogen systems below 1 USD/kg H 2 and the CI below zero in different regions as Middle East, North Africa and Central United State

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2023

A techno-economic evaluation of solar-powered green hydrogen production for sustainable energy consumption in Belgium

Here this study focuses on the production and consumption of solar-powered green hydrogen in Belgium by comparing the costs of domestic production with those of imports from Morocco and Namibia. The levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) is determined via a techno-economic assessment considering various parameters including, power connectivity, electrolyzer types, location factors, and risk premium. The results show that the lowest LCOH can be achieved by on-grid Proton exchange membrane electrolyzers (PEMEL). LCOH of production in Belgium, Morocco, and Namibia with a PEMEL on-grid system are 5.64, 6.32 and 5.13 euro/kg H 2 , respectively. Thus, importing hydrogen from Namibia to Belgium is more competitive than domestic production. The sensitivity analysis suggests that a target LCOH of 3 euro/kg H 2 is achievable by importing from Namibia through various cost combinations. One of these combinations involves reducing the cost of PV panels to 222.3 euro/kW (70% reduction) and electrolyzers to 363.3 euro/kW (25% reduction).

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2023

Exploiting electricity market dynamics using flexible electrolysis units for retrofitting methanol synthesis

Here we investigate the economic viability of integrating flexible electrolysis units to produce hydrogen in methanol synthesis processes. Specifically, we investigate whether this approach can help reduce methanol production costs by strategically exploiting dynamics of electricity markets. Our study integrates high-fidelity process simulations, optimization tools, and microkinetic modeling (informed by density functional theory) to conduct detailed techno-economic analyses and to compare performance against traditional processes that use hydrogen produced via steam-methane reforming (SMR). We also use this approach to estimate the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) as a function of time-varying electricity prices (from day-ahead and real-time prices) and of key techno-economic parameters. Our results show that the proposed electrification framework is cost-competitive under certain electricity market conditions. Specifically, we find that, when the electrolysis system is operated in flexible mode (and can respond to dynamics of electricity markets), the associated electricity cost nearly collapses to zero. Conversely, when the unit is not flexible (and cannot respond to markets), the electricity cost comprises 60% of the total cost. Our results also reveal that the LCOH of the flexible electrolysis system participating in real-time electricity markets is 31% lower than the LCOH obtained from SMR. Overall, this indicates that exploiting the dynamics of electricity markets can make hydrogen production cost-competitive and this can lead to viable alternatives to electrify methanol production and other hydrogen-based processes.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Nuclear Integrated Hydrogen Production Analysis Tool

This is an Excel-based time-independent discount cash flow calculator for LWR-HTSE systems. The tool incorporates (1) discounted cash flow and levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) analysis, (2) sensitivity analysis with respect to select financial performance metrics with output ‘tornado’ charts, (3) profitability analysis represented by heat maps using the two most sensitive parameters, (4) electricity versus hydrogen production preference analysis by comparing change in net present value (?NPV) between NPP-HTSE and business-as-usual electricity production for the grid, and (5) competitiveness analysis by comparing the calculated LCOH for NPP-HTSE with that of steam methane reforming, which is the conventional process to produce hydrogen.

Cheng, WenChi [Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Id↗