







































Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 
12-23 

12 

 

 

 

Article 

Scale and implementation of the possible solar-

hydrogen system for island communities 
Minh Tran* 

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Arkansas Tech University, 1811 N Boulder Ave, Russellville, AR, 72801, USA 

               A R T I C L E   I N F O 
 

Article history: 
Received 28 June 2024  
Received in revised form 
02 August 2024 
Accepted 12 August 2024 
 
Keywords:  
Hydrogen fuel, Solar power, Microgrid power, 
Photovoltaic, Green hydrogen 
 
*Corresponding author 
Email address: 
htran2@atu.edu  
 
 
DOI: 10.55670/fpll.fusus.2.3.3 
 

A B S T R A C T 
 

As technology progresses, there is an increase in possibilities of designing an 

independent and self-reliant energy source for small communities. Island and 

remote communities often have to rely on fuel transportation and main grid 

development for energy supply. By using renewable energy as an alternative 

choice for energy sources, small communities can remove hazardous emissions 

while saving money on fuels and shipping costs. Solar-to-Hydrogen (StH) 

microgrid is a system of solar panels and hydrogen energy systems that can 

capture and store solar energy for daily usage without fear of energy disruption 

during nighttime. Despite the initial high capital investment, the concept can be 

explored and implemented as the long-term economic benefits are present 

when the cost of electricity is high for remote locations. This study is dedicated 

to researching and designing a microgrid that can sustain a small community 

without the presence of 3rd energy source for these communities. 

 

1. Introduction 

Since the beginning of the 21st century, renewable 
energy has become the main topic and focus of global 
development policies to gradually transform into an 
alternative source in the event of fossil fuel depletion.  Solar 
energy, geothermal energy, wind energy, tidal energy, and 
wave energy…  have been the notable energy sources to 
generate electricity in a sustainable and self-reliant manner. 
As the global population reaches over 8 billion in 2023 and as 
the life standard continues to increase, the state of energy 
sufficiency becomes more dramatic and problematic and 
requires the mass application of renewable energy. Two of 
the most successful renewable energy sources are solar 
energy and wind energy.  They have been utilized in large-
scale industrial and commercial applications. Solar power has 
the greatest potential of all, with 3×1024 MJ of energy released 
from the sun to Earth's surface annually [1]. Only a very small 
portion is currently exploited by humans, and there are 
numerous opportunities along with the development of 
future technology. In recent years, solar energy has become 
the answer to energy questions for remote and island areas. 
These areas, in many cases, do not have access to the main 
gridlines or do not have the capability to support such 
infrastructure. Because of this, electricity generation costs are 
higher in isolated communities, regardless of subsidies from 
local governments. For example, in 2023, the electricity cost 
in the mainland United States is $0.12/kWh, while on the 

island of Hawaii, it is $0.40/kWh, four times the mainland cost 
[2].  Instead of relying on fossil fuels, solar energy can pose as 
an alternative self-sustaining solution. No transportation of 
fuel is required, while the emission is eco-friendly. For small 
and isolated communities, solar power microgrids can be a 
viable option for long-term energy solutions. A microgrid is a 
small electrical generating system that can be independent 
and self-reliant. It ensures a stable and reliable energy source 
while maintaining a manageable, economical cost for 
communities. Microgrid design consists of 4 main 
components: the micro-energy source, the distribution 
network, the energy storage system (ESS), and the control 
module [3]. As it is designed to be compact and flexible for 
locations, it can be grid-connected or totally isolated. The 
micro-energy source itself can be fully conventional, hybrid 
renewable, or fully renewable. As the fossil fuel cost continues 
to rise, accompanied by future carbon taxes, the solar power 
microgrid offers total independence without the need for 
ports and logistic infrastructure development for fossil fuel 
transportation. In one of the studies, Ma et al. confirmed the 
feasibility of a solar system in combination with wind power 
for a remote island [4]. Nonetheless, solar power microgrid 
has some disadvantages. It relies on daytime, geographic 
conditions, and weather conditions. Solar energy can only be 
generated during the daytime; this means that the surplus 
energy is either wasted or needs to be stored somehow to 
reserve the energy for nighttime. During nighttime, solar 

Future Sustainability 

Open Access Journal 

https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fusus.2.3.3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

Journal homepage: https://fupubco.com/fusus 

 
ISSN 2995-0473 

mailto:htran2@atu.edu
https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fusus.2.3.3
https://fupubco.com/fusus


Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

13 

 

energy generation is almost zero, and fossil fuels or backup 
gridlines have to be used to substitute.  Daytime in the 
summer is also longer than in the winter. This varies the 
amount of energy generation over the seasons. Different 
geographic conditions also have negative effects on solar 
power. The efficiency of power generation increases as the 
location is closer to the equator as shown in the potential 
photovoltaic (PV) map Figure 1. Locations such as Hawaii, 
Guam, or the Virgin Islands will require fewer solar panels 
with greater output when compared with other locations such 
as Attu and Nunivak islands. Finally, weather conditions have 
significant effects on solar power. Cloudy weather over a long 
period of time will hamper the generation output. That is the 
reason why an energy storage system is required in the 
microgrid system. Most of the time, solar power excess is left 
to be wasted if it cannot be integrated back into the main grid 
or already exceeds the load capacity. Studies often show the 
generated energy curve increases gradually during the day, 
overreaching the required load during mid-day, then 
gradually decreasing in the afternoon until sunset. In the case 
of an ESS, when the generated energy curve and usage load 
have intersected, the excess will be converted and stored so 
that it can be released when the solar power output can no 
longer sustain the energy load. This can be nighttime, bad 
weather days, or a black-out emergency. Current ESS types 
include the battery model (BESS), the hydrogen model 
(HESS), and the hybrid model. The hydrogen model (HESS) 
works by converting the electrical power into hydrogen gas 
through the process of electrolysis. Hydrogen gas is then 
compressed and stored in an external tank. When the solar 
power output can no longer sustain the energy load, hydrogen 
gas is decompressed and converted back to electricity 
through fuel cells (FC). Different from BESS, which is 
constrained by the battery size and number, the hydrogen 
model is constrained only by its storing capacity. This allows 
it to be externally expanded until the hydrogen storage 
capacity overcomes the solar power excess. One of the papers 
related to the area is Li et al.'s study on the surplus renewable 
energy source generation on the island of Kyushu, Japan, to 
decrease the energy curtailment [5]. The solar power 
curtailment would be converted into a huge amount of 
hydrogen gas, adding value to the grid-connected solar and 
wind energy. The model of a solar-hydrogen system (SHS) has 
been in discussion in the last few decades. Despite the 
benefits of hydrogen fuel cell systems, their development has 
been limited due to the extremely high cost of the 
electrolyzers. The high investment in electrolyzers, in 
addition to the renewable energy generator, has often caused 
a reduction in design scale. The hydrogen system itself also 
has some setbacks in terms of its technology with fuel cells 
having only around 40-60% efficiency.  Hydrogen itself is a 
highly flammable gas with the chemical characteristics of 
metal embrittlement when being stored for a long period of 
time.  Making hydrogen even more dangerous is the fact that, 
unlike a hydrocarbon flame, human senses cannot easily 
detect a hydrogen flame. People who come upon a hydrogen 
flame will not see it, even up close. For microgrids, this poses 
potential problems if careful maintenance and inspection are 
not performed regularly. Some research has proposed to 
transport hydrogen gas for external applications, with prices 
fluctuating at US$5/kg in 2023 [6]. This comes with a loss of 
self-reliance on the microgrid, with the system having to rely 
on the main grid at critical hours. Although it can be more 
economically viable, this leaves out as the solution for remote 

areas where microgrid is supposed to ease the energy 

concerns. 

 
Figure 1. Potential for Solar PV energy according to World Bank 

Group’s Global Solar Atlas [7] 

Most studies have called out these problems and have 

often mentioned the compulsory combination of backup 

gridlines, fossil fuels, and wind power to substitute for the 

power drop. However, the current scale has been minimal in 

terms of the research on the possibility of totally independent 

microgrid. For example, Shahbazbegian et al. [8] and 

Nakamura et al. [9] designed power-to-hydrogen systems 

that still rely on the main grid for the load's substitute. 

Therefore, this paper dedicates itself to the possible 

application of an SHS under a totally independent microgrid 

for remote and island areas. This paper also identifies the 

optimal model, the size, the cost of installing a hydrogen 

system, and the economy of such a model. The goal is to 

understand the economic possibilities of the design for 

isolated areas.  

2.  Methodology 

2.1 End-user application 

For practical purposes, the microgrid is designed to be 

able to sustain a university hall's electrical load. The test 

subject is Arkansas Tech University's engineering 

department, Corley Hall (Figure 2).  The building occupies an 

area of approximately 2,525m2 or 27,190ft2 with four parking 

lots, each with a size of 4,000 m2. The possible maximum 

infrastructure area for the model includes the roof area as 

well as four parking lots with a total area of 16,000m2. 

Because Corley has two floors, the generated energy must 

satisfy the load of a total of 5,050m2. Since the actual data on 

the annual electrical usage is unavailable during the study, the 

value for annual energy usage is based on the national 

electrical usage data from the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) (see Table 1). According to EIA, an 

average university consumes over 1.2 million kWh annually. 

When compared to a small household, this is equivalent to 

150 houses or a small community. This can serve as a good 

reference for isolated and island communities. The study 

chose solar-to-hydrogen microgrid as the main studied 

model. The design took into consideration the location of the 

University as well as comparing it to different locations to 

calculate the scale and capital cost. Regardless of the location, 

the minimum energy output must be able to cover the 

required energy load during the lowest daytime time frame 

without the need for main gridlines integration. The scale of 

the power model must fit within the building's precinct and 



Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

14 

 

must be optimized for the setup, maintenance, and sustaining. 

The total electricity consumed by the building is calculated 

through equation (1), in which the area and the power density 

are provided. 

Edaily load = Atotal.
S

t
                           (1) 

where Edaily load is total energy consumption in a day, Atotal is 

the total area of all surface floors in the building, S is the 

power density or the average consumed power per square 

foot (
kWh

m2∗yr
), and t is the time, which, in this case, is 365 days.  

 

Figure 2. Arkansas Tech University's engineering department [10] 

Table 1. Annual electricity consumption totals [11, 12] 

  per building 
(thousand 
kWh) 

Average size 
(Thousand 𝑓𝑡2)  

Average 
per 
square 
foot 
(kWh) 

Median 
per 
square 
foot 
(kWh) 

Education  345         31.5 11.0         8.7 

College or 
university  

1,202         69.2 17.4         14.4 

Small 
Household 

8 1.4 5.4 - 

Average 
house 

10 2 5.4 - 

 

2.2 Testing Model 

The model in this study is a solar-to-hydrogen system 

(StH), as shown in Figure 3. Solar power from the sun is 

converted to electrical energy through a photovoltaic panel 

(PV panel). The solar power gradually increases during 

daytime, peaks during midday, and decreases as nighttime 

approaches. As it increases, the solar power energy level 

passes the demand load, where most of the energy excess is 

wasted. In the microgrid system, the excess energy is 

transferred to the battery and then to the electrolyzer to 

convert electrical energy into hydrogen gas for storage. As 

Hydrogen gas is generated through an electrolyzer, it is 

compressed and transferred into a storage tank where it is 

kept until needed. When solar power decreases below the 

demand load, the battery kicks in as a temporary energy 

source. After the battery's energy level decreases under a 

certain percentage, the fuel cell kicks in and supplies the load 

demand until the next solar power cycle. Parra et al. show that 

photovoltaic power is generated effectively from 9 a.m. to 5 

p.m. during a high-output day [13]. During that time, 

electrolyzers began to convert excess electricity to hydrogen 

at the rate of 65-70% of the electrical power received from 

the PV panels. Electrolyzers' gas is depleted at around 4 p.m. 

as the photovoltaic power decreases. At the same time, the 

Hydrogen gas was pumped from the storage tank to fuel cells 

to generate electricity and continue so after the PV panels 

were off. Li et al. [14] show the electrolyzers' output peaked 

between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m., while fuel cells' output remained 

constant after 7 p.m. in one of the models. Due to efficiency 

during hydrogen conversion as well as covering the real-time 

demand load, the energy produced by solar PV must be higher 

than electrolyzers while the energy produced by the FCs must 

be lower than electrolyzers. Figure 4 shows the 

representation of energy level of PV, electrolyzers, and FCs 

throughout the day if the testing model was to be put into 

operation. 

 

Figure 3. Microgrid system schematic 

 

Figure 4. Desired energy level vs. time of microgrid's energy source 

 

2.3 Photovoltaic panel (PV panel) 

 For the microgrid to operate independently and without 

relying on a 2nd energy source, the energy generated by solar 

power must be equivalent to or higher than the demand load or 

𝐸𝑃𝑉 ≥ 𝐸𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑. However, Figure 4 indicates that since the time to 

generate solar power is limited according to daytime, the energy 

rate or power of the PV must be much higher than the demand 

load so it can generate enough excess energy to store for nighttime 

or equation (2). The power generated by PV panels or daily 

energy is calculated from the product of solar insolation SI 

(
𝑘𝑊h

𝑚2.  𝑑𝑎𝑦
 ), the available surface area 𝐴𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒  (𝑚2) and the 

efficiency of commercial solar panels, equation (3).  

PPV ≫ Pload                                      (2) 

EPV = SI .   Asurface .  η                 (3) 

  



Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

15 

 

The solar insolation SI is generated by measuring the solar 

radiation in a set period of time. As it is measured, each location, 

depending on the latitude difference and seasons, has a 

distinguishing value. Figure 5 shows the average solar energy per 

square meter that any location within Arkansas might receive in a 

day. Figure 5 also shows the variation in SI between different 

months. As seasons change, SI values peak during summer and 

plummet during the winter. The SI values are also different when 

being compared at different latitudes and different climates.  

Figure 6. shows the lowest average SI values in different states of 

the United States territory. States that are closer to the South and 

near the equator have higher SI values as well as the most stable 

trends. The top state is Hawaii, with the lowest value at 3.83 

kWh/m2 per day during December and the highest value of 6.6 

kWh/m2per day during June and July. In order to design a model 

that can sustain and operate fully independently, the minimum 

values for SI are used to calculate the generated energy of PV 

panels based on a hypothetical area. The obtained values are then 

compared to total energy consumption in a day Edaily load in order 

to determine the correct scale of the solar panels' area. The goal is 

to have a sufficient amount of energy during daytime use and to 

store it for nighttime use. The efficiency of most current solar 

panels varies between 17% and 20% [16].  However, research has 

shown that efficiency can reach the range of 30% in some studies 

[17]. For this study, the PV efficiency is set at 20%.  

Figure 5. Average solar insolation of Arkansas throughout a year [15] 

 
Figure 6.  Lowest average seasonal solar insolation of states in a day 

[15] 

2.4 Battery system and model 

 The BES has been a subject undergoing intense study 

and discussions for usage in a microgrid system. BES is the 

traditional method for storing backup energy in an electricity 

circuit and has high reliability in power transition during 

energy switch [18]. Before HES, BES was the default standard 

for storing electrical energy from gas turbines, fossil fuel 

engines, and renewable sources. For small independent and 

island grids where the load is under 5-200MW, BES has been 

very effective in providing and maintaining electricity service 

[19]. BES stores energy through an electrochemical process 

where the chemicals are contained inside the battery to 

absorb the energy. Some batteries have an instantaneous 

response time of about 20ms, which allows them to adapt 

quickly to any situation [20]. When a high load is required in 

the grid, and the battery is no longer charged, the battery 

releases the energy back into the system, maintaining the 

gridline's operation. BES maintains uninterrupted and stable 

power flow to the gridlines as long as there is still power 

stored in the chemical. When the system observes a sudden 

peak in energy usage in the microgrid, the BES enables 

flexibility for the system without the risk of blackout. Despite 

its advantages, the battery itself has some minor setbacks. As 

it stores energy within its chemical, when storing capacity is 

reached, excess energy generated from the renewable energy 

source has to be wasted. In order to increase the BES capacity, 

another battery must be installed. This increases both the 

complexity of integrating the system as well as the required 

space for the battery itself. Even though the battery can 

discharge 90-100% of its energy, frequent charge and 

recharge cycles reduce its lifespan significantly. Hlal et al. [21] 

studied the optimum battery depth of discharge of off-grid 

solar PV and stated that the range is between 20% and 70% 

to maximize the life cycle of BES. Alramlawi et al. [22] claimed 

that when comparing the battery lifespan of the dept of 

charge between 40% and 90%, there is a decrease of more 

than 25% or 15,000h in lifespan. Unlike BES, HES allows more 

capacity in energy storage since it stores its energy externally 

in the form of hydrogen gas. This allows the microgrid to 

expand its capacity by installing more storage tanks for 

hydrogen in case of excess energy without increasing the 

complexity of the electrical integrating system. However, FC 

in HES has a relatively slow response time in comparison with 

the traditional battery. Sun et al. [23] tested the PEMFC under 

multiple conditions of temperature, pressure, anode, and 

cathode humidification and showed that FCs could take 

anywhere from 2 minutes to half an hour in order to reach 

their capacity and stabilize the released power. In actual 

application, this can lead to sudden power drops and 

blackouts if the microgrid only relies on HES to supply the 

energy. Sudden changes in demand load and short-term loss 

in PV power put extreme stress on FCs as well as ELs. In a 

cloudy day, both FCs and ELs have to turn on and off 

continuously over a long period of time, degrading their 

lifespan. Therefore, a battery is needed in the microgrid in 

junction with the HES, so the power supply is always stable 

and uninterrupted. One of the most optimal setups is the 

battery-concentrated system, which charges and releases the 

battery first before HES. When BES is charged over 60-70%, 

energy is transferred into ELs where it is converted to 

hydrogen gas. When BES is depleted under 50%, FCs start to 

convert hydrogen back to electricity for long-term usage. 

Figure 7 illustrates how the BES-HES system can operate.  

Kafetzis et al. [24] proposed the start of FC cycles at the 20% 

limit and Els at the >70% limit of the battery's SOC in a 

battery-concentrated-hydrogen system. The study also 

mentions that the FC should be utilized to maintain the 



Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

16 

 

battery's SOC at 50% whenever its SOC reaches the lower 

limit to ensure safe operation.  Rey et al studied how the 

battery-concentrated system could outlast the HES-

concentrated system [25]. They concluded that the HES-

concentrated system would cost 3 times more in investment 

while requiring a replacement of 3 ELs and 8 FCs in the course 

of 20 years. The BES-concentrated system would only require 

a replacement of 1 battery bank and 1 EL in the same 

condition. The BES system is only responsible for supplying 

short-term energy during the transition state (~30 minutes) 

or during a sudden power surge. This is considered the most 

efficient metrology to utilize the HES while optimizing the 

best lifespan of the system. 

 

Figure 7.  Possible setting for Battery SOC in junction with EL and FC 

cycle 

2.5 Electrolyzers 

There are currently 2 common types of electrolyzers 

widely utilized for commercial applications: Alkaline 

electrolyzers and Proton-exchange membrane electrolyzers. 

Their compact size and relatively low maintenance cost are 

the main reasons and focus for the integration of HES in 

microgrid development. In order to decide which electrolyzer 

to use, 2 things are taken into account: the ROI cost and the 

lifespan of the system. ROI cost must be achieved within the 

lifespan of the system in order for the model to be successfully 

implemented. Alkaline electrolyzer (AEC) is currently one of 

the three most common electrolysis processes, in which 

water is split into hydrogen gas for commercial or industrial 

usage. It is also the oldest electrolysis method, dated back to 

the 1800s [26] AEC consists of a cathode, an anode, a 

separator, and an alkaline electrolyte solution. KOH or 

Potassium Hydroxide is currently the most common solution 

for AECs, other than NaOH or Sodium Hydroxide. The process 

requires electricity as an input of energy and releases heat as 

a byproduct. The AEC operates at around 60- 80℃  and 1.8- 

2.4V of terminal cell voltage with an efficiency of around 62-

82% [27, 28]. For every kWh of electrical energy, AEC 

produces around 0.019 kg of hydrogen gas [29]. The cost of 

an AEC varies from around $250-400 per kW, which is 

cheaper than a PEMEC electrolyzer [30]. It also accepts high 

tolerance for impurities and dust in the feedstock. Since its 

components are widely available, it does not depend on the 

noble metal catalyst like other electrolyzers [31]. In contrast, 

it is less efficient than PEMEC and requires higher operating 

pressure [32]. AEC generally has a lifetime of 60,000- 90,000 

hours or around 8 years. However, due to its alkaline nature, 

it is more prone to oxidization and corrosion, which can 

reduce its lifespan to below its standard time. It also can take 

up to 50 minutes for the AEC to be in full operation mode, 

while the PEMEC only takes 5 minutes [33]. Evolving from the 

AEC, the proton-exchange membrane electrolyzer (PEMEC) 

uses solid polysulfonated membranes as both a separator and 

a gateway for ions. The membranes have better gas 

permeability, productivity, and pressure characteristics and 

require lower thickness. This allows PEMEC electrolyzer 

systems to be more compact while producing pure hydrogen 

gas at higher rates than others. For every kWh of electrical 

energy, PEMEC produces around 0.021 kg of hydrogen gas 

[34]. As a result, PEMECs have become more favorable for 

pure hydrogen generation.  PEMEC's operating temperature 

is the same as AEC at around 60- 80℃ [35]. PEMEC's 

efficiency varies between 70% and 80%, with a study 

showing a possibility of 94% [35, 36]. Despite its higher 

efficiency, the PEMEC structure requires the usage of noble 

metals like Platinum, Iridium, and Ruthenium. Currently, 

platinum is considered the state-of-the-art electrocatalyst for 

the PEMEC cathode [37]. As these materials are rare and 

precious metals, the cost of the PEMEC is significantly 

increased. The current cost is $500-1100 per kW, and a single 

PEMEC costs around $400,000- $870,000. Its lifespan is also 

less than AEC, with the durability at around 30,000h -40,000 

[38]. This can be traced to PEMEC's higher efficiency, purity, 

and ability to produce hydrogen under higher pressure, 

which is attributed to its fast degradation [39]. In order to 

calculate the amount of hydrogen gas produced by the 

electrolyzer, the Gibbs free energy ∆Gd
0 is used to represent 

the electrical power required to break the O-H bonds and 

generate the hydrogen molecules. The electrolysis process is 

represented by equation 4.  

H2O → H2 +
1

2
O2                                             (4)  

∆Hd
0(H2O(l)) =  + 285,840

kJ

kmol
                (5) 

∆Sd
0(H2O(l)) = 163.150

kJ

kmol K
                 (6) 

∆Gd
0(water) = ∆Hd

0 − T∆Sd
0                         (7) 

where ∆Hd
0 is the enthalpy, ∆Sd

0 is entropy, and T represents 

the operating temperature of the electrolyzer. The unit of ∆Gd
0 

is under J/mol, so it needs to be converted to kg of hydrogen 

gas. ∆Gd
0 is divided to MH2 = 2 kg/kmol to obtain the unit J/g 

or kJ/kg as 1 mol of hydrogen gas equals to 2 g hydrogen gas. 

The full equation to get mass of hydrogen from PV's energy is 

represented by equation 8, where 1kJ= 2.87 × 10−4 kWh and 

η is the efficiency of the electrolyzer. 

ℳH2 =
ηEC(EPV)(MH2)

∆Gd
0  

   
1

2.87×10−4              (8)  



Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

17 

 

For PEMEC with η = 0.7 and operating temperature of 60℃, 

the simplified equation is: 

ℳH2 =
EPV

47.46 
                               (9)  

For AEC with η = 0.62  and operating temperature of 60℃, 

the simplified equation is: 

ℳH2 =
EPV

53.58
                           (10)  

Both 47.46 kWh/kg and 53.58 kWh/kg can be validated using 

the previously mentioned ratio of mass and electrical power. 

2.6 Fuel Cells (FC) 

Current technology has propelled the fuel cell system to 

be widely used in portable and stationary applications. While 

having the same reverse characteristics as the electrolyzer, 

the proton membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) has seen greater 

advancement in comparison with the alkaline fuel cell (AFC). 

Despite its reliability, AFC has a very low lifetime, measured 

between 3,000-5,000 hours or around 1 year, due to the 

voltage degradation of the individual cells [40]. The main 

cause of degradation is due to the corrosion by CO2 where CO2 

reacts with free OH- ions to form carbonate CO32- ions and 

reacts with Potassium in its electrolyte to form salt [41]. This 

reduces the available electrolyte KOH within the FC with the 

rate proportional to current density. Hence, the durability of 

the AEC degrades over a short period of time. Although the 

AFC has a relatively affordable cost of $400-$600 per kW, it is 

not considered in this study [42].  On the other hand, PEMFC 

has passed the demonstration phase and has been 

successfully applied in commercial vehicles and backup 

power applications. PEMFC uses perfluorosulfonic acid 

membranes in its design to allow hydrogen ions to flow to the 

cathode of the FC. It is considered to be low-temperature FCs 

that operate around 50-80℃ [43]. As the temperature, FC 

loses its efficiency as the energy release is inversely 

proportional to temperature. Due to PEMFC's wide 

application and design, its efficiency has a wide range 

between 40% and 80% [44, 45]. Parra et al. [46] designed a 

community hydrogen storage system for end-user 

applications and stated that the efficiency of PEMFC is 79%. 

For this study, the efficiency of PEMFC is set at 60%. The 

current cost of PEMFC has fluctuated a lot based on the 

countries and the providers. In the U.S., the price is about 

$700 per kW [47]. The lifetime of PEMFC has somewhat 

influenced its popularity in research and development.  It is 

targeted to last around 60,000-90,000 hours or 8-10 years for 

steady-state operation [48]. However, PEMFC has some 

minor setbacks. Although PEMFC can provide stable electrical 

power for the microgrid, its response time can be too long to 

avoid a brief blackout during the transition period. Cheng et 

al. investigated the PEMFC dynamic response and affirmed 

that it takes about 25 seconds for the power of PEMFC to rise 

from 10 kW to 110 kW [49]. In order to counter this setback, 

the BES system, therefore, has a decisive role in the microgrid, 

ensuring a smooth transition between energy modes. The fuel 

cell process is presented by equation 11.  The electrical power 

generated by an FC system is due to the changes in the Gibbs 

free energy of formation ∆Gf between the products and the 

reactants. The theoretical energy generated by a fuel cell has 

a value close to 33 kWh/kg under 100% efficiency which 

matches with reference [50]. 

H2 +
1

2
O2 → H2O               (11)  

∆Gf = ∆GH2O(l) − ∆GH2(g) − ∆GO2(g)             (12) 

where at the temperature of 50℃  

∆GH2O(l) = −308,464
kJ

kmol
 , 

 ∆GH2(g) = −42,180
kJ

kmol
,   ∆GO2(g) = −33,130

kJ

mol
  

EFC = ℳH2
∆Gf

MH2
(2.87 × 10−4)η          (13) 

For PEMFC with η=0.6 and operating temperature of 50℃, the 

simplified equation in kWh is: 

EFC = 20.07(ℳH2)                                  (14) 

3. Results and discussion 

The total power consumption of the Corley building is 

approximately 2,590 kWh/day. The total roof area of the 

Corley building is 2,525𝑚2, which can generate a maximum 

average of 2570 kWh using equation 3 under the condition 

that 80% of the area can be utilized. This figure, however, is 

insufficient to allow the microgrid to be self-reliant or sustain 

the power grid during the majority of the year. Figure 8 shows 

the generated power and the power deficit of the PV grid. The 

power deficit decreases during the summer months when 

solar radiation is higher. Nonetheless, during winter months, 

the available solar power can only supply 35-40% of the load. 

Therefore, the roof-top PV is not sufficient to sustain the 

building's energy usage.   

 
Figure 8.  Generated power and power deficit under roof-top PV 

panel 

The alternative is to utilize the four parking lots with a 

total area of 16,000𝑚2 instead to see if the generated power 

from the parking lots can fulfill the required energy load. The 

model for the installation of PV panels is based on parking lots 

of the Intel semiconductor factory in Phoenix, Arizona, which 

combines the solar panel as the roof for parking spots. The PV 

panel generates solar power as well as provides shading areas 

for vehicles, as in Figure 9a. If 85% of the area is able to be 



Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

18 

 

utilized, the PV grids might see a significant surplus in energy 

during operation.  

(a) 

 

(b) 
Figure 9.   a) Solar PV roof parking lot and b) Generated power and 

power deficit under solar PV roof parking lot 

According to Figure 10, even in the lowest month of solar 

radiation, the microgrid would see a generation of 6,188 kWh, 

a surplus of 3596 kWh in comparison with the power 

consumption of 139%. This surplus covers HES loss during 

the EtH conversion as well as the HtE conversion. Using the 

data of load profile for a typical college building in California, 

a proportional dataset can be generated to simulate the actual 

load at Arkansas Tech University during the day [51]. In order 

to define the minimum capacity of the hydrogen tank, its mass 

needs to be calculated from the surplus of the PV power. The 

average surplus can be calculated by subtracting the demand 

load from the generated PV power at the same hour.  Figure 

10 shows the effective sun hour per day in each month in 

Arkansas. During December, the number of effective sunlight 

hours is only 3.5 hours, according to NREL [52].  As a result, 

the amount of needed hydrogen for the rest of the day must 

be generated in that 3.5-hour frame when the PV energy 

generation is maximized.  Figure 11 shows the required 

power generation during the 3.5 hours and the estimated 

power consumption during the day (total consumption is 

2590 kWh). The comprehensive amount of electrical energy 

to be converted to hydrogen gas after subtracting it from the 

consumed energy is 5,575 kWh or 90% of the generated PV 

energy. Using equation (9), the amount of equivalent 

hydrogen mass using the PEMEC is 117 kg. For the AEC, the 

amount of equivalent hydrogen mass is 104 kg using equation 

10. The hydrogen storage tank that the microgrid needs lies 

between 120 kg and 150 kg for the minimum value, where the 

extra capacity can be used as seasonal or weather backup. 

 
Figure 10. Effective sun hour per day vs. month of Arkansas [52] 

 

 

 

Figure 11. Total energy usage and generated solar power vs. hour in 

a day in December   

When sunlight is no longer available, FCs kick in to 

convert the hydrogen gas back to electricity. Using equation 

14, the amount of equivalent electricity in a PEMEC-PEMFC is 

2348 kWh. In the AEC-PEMFC, the generated electricity is 

2087 kWh. The possible total amount of electricity supplied 

by the microgrid is 2960 kWh and 2700 kWh for PEMEC-

PEMFC and AEC-PEMFC, respectively. This amount of energy 

is sufficient for the microgrid to be independent during the 

lowest sunlight month of December. Figure 12 shows the 

estimated model for the energy cycle within the microgrid. In 

order for the microgrid to be implemented in actual 

applications, its ROI must outweigh its cost during its lifespan. 

Therefore, it is necessary to generate the balance sheet for 30 

years. For every 10 years, both the EC and FC are required to 

be replaced due to their lifespan degradation. The estimation 

for total cost (excluding battery and grid components) is 

shown in Tables 2 and Table 3. The PV panels cost about 

$3,060 per kW and are the most expensive investment in the 

microgrid due to their scale [53].   



Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

19 

 

 

 

The Hydrogen tank with compressed pressure costs 

around $400-$700 per kg of hydrogen gas and is the least 

costly spending [54]. The total capital spending is then 

compared with different electrical costs from different 

locations, as in Table 4. Arkansas, which is located within the 

mainland United States, has a fairly low cost of energy at $0.12 

per kWh in 2023 [55]. In contrast, Martinique Island of 

France, which is located in the Caribbean Sea, has a high cost 

of $1.14 per kWh [56]. Small islands with small populations 

tend to not afford to build and maintain large power plants 

and therefore, have higher rates of electricity. The island of 

Cook and Solomon (island countries), which has less than 1 

million inhabitants, have rates around $0.52-$0.69 per kWh. 

The cost of electricity of each location is multiplied by the 

total power consumption of Corley building of 945,350 

kWh/year (2,590 kWh/day *365 days), then added up over 

the course of 30 years to determine if and when the spending 

savings across the capital spending. Figure 13 and Figure 14 

show the spending vs capital spending of 2 microgrid models. 

For both graphs, when the cost is below $0.30 per kWh, the 

microgrid economy is unable to sustain itself under a 10-year 

EC-FC replacement schedule within 30 years. As the PEMEC 

lifespan is only 4-6 years, it must be replaced, and its cost 

must be added to every 7th year. Hydrogen tank, AEC, and 

PEMFC also need to be replaced every 10 years; therefore, the 

capital cost rises every 6-10 years, depending on the model of 

the microgrid. 30 years also marks the lifespan of the solar 

panel to be replaced as its efficiency has decreased to no 

longer fit to generate electricity [57- 59]. When the cost is 

above $0.50 per kWh, the spending saving crosses the capital 

investment within 15 years for the AEC microgrid while it 

takes 30 years for the PEMEC microgrid. When the cost is 

above $1.00 per kWh, the spending saving crosses the capital 

investment within 6-9 years. The choice of AEC microgrid and 

PEMEC microgrid lies solely upon the communities based on 

their financial capability and requirements. For most 

locations with costs under $0.50 per kWh, such as Guam and 

Hawaii, the PV-AEC-PEMFC microgrid might be more suitable 

as it is significantly cheaper due to the AEC cost. The ROI 

might be achieved within 20 years for these locations. 

 

 

 

Table 2. The capital spending of PV-PEMEC-PEMFC microgrid 

Component   Cost per 
KW/ 
Cost per 
kg H2  

 Total 
Capacity 
in kW or 
kg H2  

 Total Capital 
Spending in 
US$ 

Lifespan 
(years) 

 PEMEC                                        
1,100.00  

                                          
1,614.00  

                   
1,775,400.00  

4-6 

 Hydrogen tank 
(kg)  

                                         
700.00  

                                             
117.00  

                         
81,900.00  

10 

PEMFC                                           
600.00  

                                             
153.00  

                         
91,800.00  

8-10 

 PV                                        
3,060.00  

                                          
1,768.00  

                   
5,410,080.00  

30 

 Total                         
7,359,180.00  

  

 

Table 3. The capital spending of PV-AEC-PEMFC microgrid 

Component   Cost per 
KW/ 
Cost per 
kg H2  

 Total 
Capacity 
in kWh 
or kg H2  

 Total Capital 
Spending in 
US$  

Lifespan 
(years) 

 AEC                                           
400.00  

                                          
1,614.00  

                                    
645,600.00  

8-10 

 Hydrogen tank 
(kg)  

                                         
700.00  

                                             
117.00  

                                      
81,900.00  

10 

 PEMFC                                           
600.00  

                                             
153.00  

                                      
91,800.00  

8-10 

 PV                                        
3,060.00  

                                          
1,768.00  

                                 
5,410,080.00  

30 

 Total                                       
6,229,380.00  

  

 

 

 

Figure 12. Total energy usage and generated solar power vs. hour in a day in December   

 



Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

20 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Conclusion 

This paper proposed a design to build a microgrid for 

small communities in remote and island areas based on the 

high-power consumption of a university building in Arkansas. 

This microgrid uses 100% renewable energy without the 

reliance on fossil fuels and other means of energy sources. 

The StH microgrid consists of PV panels and an HES system 

which converts excess solar energy to compressible matter 

during the daytime and releases electrical energy during 

nighttime. The lifespan and the economic feasibility are then 

established and compared to understand the impact of such a 

system in the communities. The expectation was that the 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

microgrid would eventually relieve communities of energy 

constraints as well as the economic burden in the long-term 

plan. 

• One of the major conditions for an independent microgrid 

is the location of the application and the availability of 

space in the area. Location has a crucial role in determining 

the scale of the system and the economic cost of the project. 

The investment of PV panels is more expensive than other 

investments due to its complex system and its sheer scale 

in order to generate energy. To generate enough power for 

small communities or commercial hubs, an area of 

equivalent PV power might be 1.5-4 times the floor area of 

the load demand. For this study, the ratio was 3.2 times the 

 

Figure 13. Saving and capital spending over 30 years of PV-PEMEC-PEMFC Microgrid   

 

 

Figure 14. Saving and Capital Spending over 30 years of PV-AEC-PEMFC Microgrid   

 

 



Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

21 

 

floor area of the Corley building in order to generate 

enough power for the HES system, Different locations with 

different climates and latitudes receive distinguished 

amounts of solar radiation throughout the year. In turn, the 

microgrid requires different areas of PV panels to ensure 

sufficient power to the grid. For example, due to its location 

and climate, Hawaii receives more sun hours and more 

solar radiation per meter square than Arkansas throughout 

the year. The fluctuation means that the required PV power 

area of Hawaii is less than Arkansas and costs less than 

Arkansas; therefore, the economic wise favors areas closer 

to the equators. This poses a great challenge in 

standardizing capital spending and forecasting accurate 

models for PV generators. 

• Two different kinds of microgrids are established and 

compared based on their lifespan and their economic 

feasibility: the PV-PEMEC-PEMFC microgrid and the PV-

AEC-PEMFC microgrid. The PV-AEC-PEMFC microgrid has 

a longer lifespan as well as lower initial capital cost than the 

alternative, which is suitable for most locations. For the 

ROI, the cost of electricity at the local locations has a major 

impact on the possibility of regaining the investment 

budget or gaining additional income. For areas where the 

electrical cost per kWh is below $0.30 -$0.40 per kWh, the 

spending saving might not overcome the capital spending 

in a 30-year period. This is also due to the increase of 

capital spending every 6-10 years for hydrogen tanks, 

electrolyzers, and fuel cells due to their efficiency and 

safety degradation over time. For areas where the electrical 

cost per kWh is above $0.40 per kWh like Hawaii and Guam, 

the spending savings might be able to pay off within a 25-

year period under the PV-AEC-PEMFC microgrid. 

Meanwhile, for the areas that are above $1.00 per kWh, the 

additional income is within 10 years.  

• This study did not include the BES system as it is a low-

capacity system that is only required for transition 

purposes and only holds 150 kWh in a maximum 0.5-to-1-

hour period. The cost of such a system is relatively cheap 

(~$150 per kWh) in comparison with the HES system. 

However, the study recognizes the necessity of the BES 

system in the case of fluctuation in PV power out and short-

term blackouts. The application of BES also increases the 

lifespan of HES systems while decreasing the number of 

charging and discharge cycles of electrolyzers and fuel cells 

in daily operations. In the case of a major power surge in 

the grid, it is favored that the battery system takes up the 

stress instead of the HES system to reduce the damage and 

replacement cost it might cause to the microgrid system. 

• Future development will be able to reduce the cost and 

increase the lifespan of both the PV panels and HES system so 

that it is more economically viable to mass implement 

microgrids for more communities. The reduction in 

manufacturing PV panels and electrolyzers, in particular, 

PEMEC, will have a determining impact on the microgrid 

market. PEMEC has some unique characteristics in producing 

higher hydrogen purity and higher efficiency while limiting 

the corrosion problem that is observed in the alkaline 

electrolyte. Current progress has shown that PEMEC 

efficiency can achieve an efficiency of 80%. Along with the 

improvement of PEMFC, this will result in lower required PV 

panel areas and a reduction in capital cost.  

Ethical issue 

The author is aware of and complies with best practices in 
publication ethics, specifically with regard to authorship 
(avoidance of guest authorship), dual submission, 
manipulation of figures, competing interests, and compliance 
with policies on research ethics. The author adheres to 
publication requirements that the submitted work is original 
and has not been published elsewhere. 

Data availability statement 
The manuscript contains all the data. However, more data will 

be available upon request from the corresponding author. 

Conflict of interest 

The author declares no potential conflict of interest. 

References 

[1]    Hosseini, Seyed Ehsan. Fundamentals of Hydrogen 

Production and Utilization in Fuel Cell Systems. 

Elsevier, 2023. ISBN: 978-0-323-88671-0 DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/C2020-0-03183-X 

[2]  Choose Energy. (n.d.). Learn about electricity rates, 

providers, &amp; plans: Choose energy®. Learn About 

Electricity Rates, Providers, &amp; Plans | Choose 

Energy®. https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-

rates/ 

[3]  Mariam, L., Basu, M., & Conlon, M. F. (2016). Microgrid: 

Architecture, policy and future trends. Renewable and 

Sustainable Energy Reviews, 64, 477–489. 

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.037  

[4]  Ma, T., Yang, H., & Lu, L. (2014). A feasibility study of a 

stand-alone hybrid solar–wind–battery system for a 

remote island. Applied Energy, 121, 149–158. 

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.09 

[5]  Li, Y., Gao, W., & Ruan, Y. (2019). Potential and 

sensitivity analysis of long-term hydrogen production in 

resolving surplus RES generation—a case study in 

Japan. Energy, 171, 1164–1172. 

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.106 

[6]  Office of Energy Efficiency &amp; Renewable Energy. 

(2021, September 1). Hydrogen shot. Energy.gov. 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-shot 

[7]  Solargis. (n.d.). Global solar atlas. 

https://globalsolaratlas.info/map  

[8]  Shahbazbegian, V., Shafie-khah, M., Laaksonen, H., 

Strbac, G., & Ameli, H. (2023). Resilience-oriented 

operation of microgrids in the presence of power-to-

hydrogen systems. Applied Energy, 348. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121429 

[9]  Nakamura, Y., Aoki, M., Kado, Y., & Iki, H. (2021). Study 

on operation in microgrid including hydrogen supplying 

equipment for contributing power system operation. 

Electrical Engineering in Japan, 214(2). 

doi:10.1002/eej.23329  

[10] Google. (n.d.). Google earth. 

https://earth.google.com/web/search/arkansastech+u

niversity/@35.29730806,-

93.13570327,108.25093027a,289.08682634d,35y,-

0.00678014h,67.09981852t,0r/data=CigiJgokCRJqRmp

bn0BAEeyyuZOZnkBAGf9AOr3d91vAIdHEfu-y-

FvAOgMKATA 

[11] U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - 

independent statistics and analysis. Energy Information 



Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

22 

 

Administration (EIA)- About the Commercial Buildings 

Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). (n.d.). 

https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2

012/c&amp;e/cfm/pba4.php 

[12] Almerini, A. (2023, April 12). How many kwh does a 

house use?. Solar Reviews. 

https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/how-many-kwh-

does-a-house-

use#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20average%20hom

e,different%2Dsized%20homes%20might%20use 

[13] Parra, D., Gillott, M., & Walker, G. S. (2016). Design, 

testing and evaluation of a community hydrogen 

storage system for end user applications. International 

Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(10). 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.01.098 

[14] Li, B., Roche, R., Paire, D., & Miraoui, A. (2017). Sizing of 

a stand-alone microgrid considering electric power, 

cooling/heating, hydrogen loads and hydrogen storage 

degradation. Applied Energy, 205, 1244–1259. 

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.142 

[15] Honsberg, C., &amp; Bowden, S. (n.d.). Average solar 

radiation. PVEducation. 

https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-

sunlight/average-solar-radiation 

 [16] Walker, E. (2023, May 18). What are the most efficient 

solar panels? top brands in 2023. EnergySage. 

https://www.energysage.com/solar/what-are-the-

most-efficient-solar-panels-on-the-market/ 

[17] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (n.d.). Best 

research-cell efficiency chart. Photovoltaic Research. 

https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html 

 [18] AL Shaqsi, A. Z., Sopian, K., & Al-Hinai, A. (2020). 

Review of energy storage services, applications, 

limitations, and benefits. Energy Reports. 

doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2020.07.028  

[19] Bizuayehu, A. W., Medina, P., Catalao, J. P. S., Rodrigues, 

E. M. G., & Contreras, J. (2014). Analysis of electrical 

energy storage technologies’ state-of-the-art and 

applications on islanded grid systems. 2014 IEEE PES 

T&D Conference and Exposition. 

doi:10.1109/tdc.2014.6863361  

[20] P. Medina, A. W. Bizuayehu, J. P. S. Catalão, E. M. G. 

Rodrigues and J. Contreras, "Electrical Energy Storage 

Systems: Technologies' State-of-the-Art, Techno-

economic Benefits and Applications Analysis," 2014 

47th Hawaii International Conference on System 

Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2014, pp. 2295-2304, doi: 

10.1109/HICSS.2014.290. 

[21] Hlal, M. I., Ramachandaramurthy, V. K., Sarhan, A., 

Pouryekta, A., & Subramaniam, U. (2019). Optimum 

battery depth of discharge for off-grid solar PV/battery 

system. Journal of Energy Storage, 26, 100999. 

doi:10.1016/j.est.2019.100999  

[22] Alramlawi, M., & Li, P. (2020). Design Optimization of a 

Residential PV-Battery Microgrid with a Detailed 

Battery Lifetime Estimation Model. IEEE Transactions 

on Industry Applications, 1–1. 

doi:10.1109/tia.2020.2965894  

[23] Sun, H., Zhang, G., Guo, L., & Liu, H. (2009). A Study of 

dynamic characteristics of PEM fuel cells by measuring 

local currents. International Journal of Hydrogen 

Energy, 34(13), 5529–5536. 

doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.04.06 

[24] Kafetzis, A., Ziogou, C., Panopoulos, K. D., Papadopoulou, 

S., Seferlis, P., & Voutetakis, S. (2020). Energy 

management strategies based on hybrid automata for 

islanded microgrids with renewable sources, batteries 

and hydrogen. Renewable and Sustainable Energy 

Reviews, 134. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110118 

[25] Rey, J., Segura, F., Andújar, J. M., & Ferrario, A. M. (2023). 

The economic impact and carbon footprint dependence 

of energy management strategies in hydrogen-based 

microgrids. Electronics, 12(17), 3703. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12173703  

[26] Carmo, M. (2022, January 26). Introduction to Liquid 

Alkaline Electrolysis. Department of Energy. 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-

02/2-Intro-Liquid%20Alkaline%20Workshop.pdf  

[27] Ebbesen, S. D., Jensen, S. H., Hauch, A., & Mogensen, M. B. 

(2014). High Temperature Electrolysis in Alkaline Cells, 

Solid Proton Conducting Cells, and Solid Oxide Cells. 

Chemical Reviews, 114(21), 10697–10734. 

doi:10.1021/cr5000865  

[28] Luo, Y., Shi, Y., &amp; Cai, N. (2021). Bridging a bi-

directional connection between electricity and fuels in 

hybrid multienergy systems. Hybrid Systems and Multi-

Energy Networks for the Future Energy Internet, 41–84. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-819184-2.00003-1  

[29] Mamlouk, M. (2022). Alkaline anion exchange 

membrane (AEM) water electrolysers—current/future 

perspectives in electrolysers for Hydrogen. 

Comprehensive Renewable Energy, 473–504. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-819727-1.00103-5  

[30] Kamaroddin, M. F. A., Sabli, N., & Abdullah, T. A. T. 

(2018). Hydrogen Production by Membrane Water 

Splitting Technologies. Advances In Hydrogen 

Generation Technologies. 

doi:10.5772/intechopen.76727  

[31] Krishnan, S., Koning, V., Theodorus de Groot, M., de 

Groot, A., Mendoza, P. G., Junginger, M., &amp; Kramer, 

G. J. (2023). Present and future cost of alkaline and PEM 

electrolyser stacks. International Journal of Hydrogen 

Energy, 48(83), 32313–32330. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.031  

[32] Pozio, Alfonso & Bozza, Francesco & Nigliaccio, 

Giuseppe & Platter, Marzio & Monteleone, Giulia. 

(2021). Development perspectives on low-temperature 

electrolysis. 1. 66-72. 10.12910/EAI2021-014.  

[33] Martin, P. (2023, July 5). Green hydrogen: Which type of 

electrolyser should you use? alkaline, PEM, solid oxide 

or the latest tech?. Hydrogen news and intelligence | 

Hydrogen Insight. 

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/electrolysers/green

-hydrogen-which-type-of-electrolyser-should-you-use-

alkaline-pem-solid-oxide-or-the-latest-tech-/2-1-

1480577 

[34] Malla, K. (2023, February). Shortage of electrolyzers for 

green hydrogen. EY Pathenon. 

 https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-

com/en_in/topics/energy/2023/02/ey-shortage-of-

electrolyzers-for-green-hydrogen-v2.pdf 



Minh Tran /Future Sustainability                                                                                               August 2024| Volume 02 | Issue 03 | Pages 12-23 

23 

 

[35] Shiva Kumar, S., & Himabindu, V. (2019). Hydrogen 

Production by PEM Water Electrolysis – A Review. 

Materials Science for Energy Technologies. 

doi:10.1016/j.mset.2019.03.002  

[36] Lewinski KA, van der Vliet DF, Luopa SM (2015) NSTF 

Advances for PEM Electrolysis-The Effect of Alloying on 

Activity of NSTF Electrolyzer Catalysts and Performance 

of NSTF Based PEM Electrolyzers. ECS Trans 69:893–

917 

[37] Wang, T., Cao, X. & Jiao, L. PEM water electrolysis for 

hydrogen production: fundamentals, advances, and 

prospects. Carb Neutrality 1, 21 (2022). 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s43979-022-00022-8 

[38] Tomić, A. Z., Pivac, I., &amp; Barbir, F. (2023). A review 

of testing procedures for proton exchange membrane 

electrolyzer degradation. Journal of Power Sources, 557, 

232569. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.232569  

[39] Thunder Said Energy. (2023, January 27). Green 

hydrogen: Alkaline versus PEM electrolyser? - thunder 

said. Thunder Said Energy. 

https://thundersaidenergy.com/2023/01/17/green-

hydrogen-alkaline-versus-pem-

electrolysers/#:~:text=(9)%20Longevity%20implicatio

ns.,are%2C%20by%20definition%2C%20acidic 

[40] Ferriday, T. B., & Middleton, P. H. (2021). Alkaline fuel 

cell technology - A review. International Journal of 

Hydrogen Energy, 46(35), 18489–18510. 

doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.203 

[41] Tomantschger, K., Findlay, R., Hanson, M., Kordesch, K., 

& Srinivasan, S. (1992). Degradation modes of alkaline 

fuel cells and their components. Journal of Power 

Sources, 39(1), 21–41. doi:10.1016/0378-

7753(92)85003-s  

[42] Ni, M. (2005). Current Status of Fuel Cell Technologies. 

Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 23(3), 207–214. 

doi:10.1260/014459805774852083  

[43] Hosseini, Seyed Ehsan, Hydrogen Diplomacy. Future 

Publishing LLC, 2024. ISBN: 979-8-9906790-0-9 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.book/1 

[44]  Tsuchiya H, Kobayashi O. Mass production cost of PEM 

fuel cell by learning curve. Int J Hydrogen Energy 

2004;29:985–90. 

[45] Luo, Y., Shi, Y., &amp; Cai, N. (2021a). Bridging a bi-

directional connection between electricity and fuels in 

hybrid multienergy systems. Hybrid Systems and Multi-

Energy Networks for the Future Energy Internet, 41–84. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-819184-2.00003-1  

[46] Parra, D., Gillott, M., & Walker, G. S. (2016). Design, 

testing and evaluation of a community hydrogen 

storage system for end user applications. International 

Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(10). 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.01.098 

[47] Lipman, T. E., Edwards, J. L., & Kammen, D. M. (2004). 

Fuel cell system economics: comparing the costs of 

generating power with stationary and motor vehicle 

PEM fuel cell systems. Energy Policy, 32(1), 101–125. 

doi:10.1016/s0301-4215(02)00286-0  

[48] Stropnik, R., Mlakar, N., Lotrič, A., Sekavčnik, M., &amp; 

Mori, M. (2022). The influence of degradation effects in 

proton exchange membrane fuel cells on life cycle 

assessment modelling and environmental impact 

indicators. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 

47(57), 24223–24241. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.04.011  

[49] Cheng, S., Hu, D., Hao, D., Yang, Q., Wang, J., Feng, L., 

&amp; Li, J. (2022). Investigation and analysis of proton 

exchange membrane fuel cell dynamic response 

characteristics on hydrogen consumption of fuel cell 

vehicle. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 

47(35), 15845–15864. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.03.063  

[50] Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 

(AHDB). (n.d.). Hydrogen electrolysis. AHDB. 

https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/hydrogen-

electrolysis#:~:text=When%20used%20as%20part%2

0of,%2C%20or%20burning%2C%20the%20hydrogen 

[51] Business Energy Advisor. (2020, June 15). Business 

Energy Advisor. 

https://esource.bizenergyadvisor.com/article/colleges-

and-universities 

[52] "PV Watts". NREL. Retrieved 11 June 2012. 

https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/ 

[53] How much do solar panels cost? (expert reviewed). This 

Old House. (2023, July 26). 

https://www.thisoldhouse.com/solar-alternative-

energy/reviews/solar-panel-cost  

[54] Cerri, I.; Lefebvre-Joud, F.; Holtappels, P.; Honegger, K.; 

Stubos, T.; Millet, P.; Coordination, J.; Pfrang, A.; 

Bielewski, M.; Tzimas, E.  Strategic Energy Technology 

Plan; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012 

[55] Energy Sage. (n.d.). Compare and save on Clean Home 

Energy Solutions. Energy Sage. 

https://www.energysage.com/local-data/electricity-

cost/ar/#:~:text=Electric%20rates%20in%20Arkansas

,-

The%20easiest%20way&text=The%20average%20resi

dential%20electricity%20rate,rate%20of%2018%20%

C2%A2%2FkWh. 

 [56] U.S. Department of Energy. (2020, August). Martinique 

Energy Snapshot. Energy Transitions Initiative. 

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/76647.pdf 

[57] Howdle, D. (n.d.). Worldwide electricity pricing: Energy 

cost per kwh in 230 countries. Cable.co.uk. 

https://www.cable.co.uk/energy/worldwide-pricing/ 

 [58] Walker, E. (2022, December 12). How long do solar 

panels last? solar panel lifespan 101. EnergySage. 

https://www.energysage.com/solar/how-long-do-

solar-panels-

last/#:~:text=The%20industry%20standard%20for%2

0the,below%20what%20the%20manufacturer%20proj

ected. 

[59]  Statista Research Department. (2023, October 19). 

Battery price per kwh 2023. Statista. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/883118/global-

lithium-ion-battery-pack-costs/  

 

 This article is an open-access article 

distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative 

Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

