Green hydrogen, produced through the electrolysis of water powered by renewable energies such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro, has garnered widespread popularity. This is due to the abundance of renewable energy sources in many countries, the availability of freshwater or desalinated water, and the maturity of renewable technologies. Among the various electrolyser technologies, several have gained prominence in recent years. These include Alkaline Water Electrolysers (AWE), Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolysers (PEM), Solid Oxide Electrolysers (SOEC), and Anion Exchange Membrane (AEM) Electrolysers. While other electrolyser technologies exist, they have yet to reach the pre-commercialisation phase or be manufactured on an industrial scale.
Each technology is unique, offering its own advantages and disadvantages. The selection of the appropriate technology should be based on actual on-site conditions. Factors such as renewable capacity utilisation factor (CUF), electrolyser ramp-up time, efficiency, system cost, footprint, auxiliary support, and many other considerations must be taken into account before deciding on the choice of electrolyser for producing green hydrogen.
Alkaline water electrolysis is the most mature water electrolysis technology available to date, having been in use for over a century. Pioneering green hydrogen projects in the 1920s utilised AWE technology. Numerous companies around the world are currently manufacturing AWEs. This technology is also beneficial for electrolysing brine or saltwater to produce caustic soda, a crucial intermediate in the chlor-alkali industry.
Some of the benefits of AWE are:
Some of the disadvantages of AWE are:
PEM is a relatively new technology, having been commercialised about 20-30 years ago. PEM electrolysers offer to reduce some of the disadvantages associated with alkaline electrolysers in terms of size, flexibility towards variable renewables or VRE. PEM is the next most dominant electrolyser technology after alkaline in terms of manufacturing facilities dedicated to this.
Some of the benefits of PEM are:
Some of the disadvantages of PEM are:
SOEC is a new technology in pre-commercialisation phase. This technology offers the highest efficiency of electrolysis, reaching as high as 90% efficiency levels. This technology uses zirconia based ceramics for high temperature steam electrolysis to produce green hydrogen.
Some of the benefits of SOECs are:
Some of the disadvantages of SOECs are:
AEM is a new technology in pre-commercialisation phase, which combines the good features of both AWE and PEM. This technology neither uses expensive PGMs, nor does suffer from lack of flexibility in case of VRE.
Some of the benefits of AEMs are:
Some of the disadvantages of AEM are:
Type of Electrolyser | AWE (Alkaline Water Electrolyser) | PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) | SOEC (Solid Oxide Electrolyser) | AEM (Anion Exchange Membrane Electrolyser) |
Key Technology | Microporous separator | Proton exchange membrane (PEM) | Protonic ceramic electrochemical cell | Anion exchange membrane (AEM) |
Most common electrolyte/membrane | Na– or KOH (usually Aqueous KOH of 20–40 wt.%) | Proton conductive polymer (e.g. Nafion®) membrane | Ceramic: Solid, nonporous metal oxide (usually Y2O3- stabilized ZrO2) | Anion exchange ionomer (e.g. AS-4) + optional dilute caustic solution |
Reactant | Water (liquid) | Water (liquid) | Water (gas) | Water (liquid) |
Most common electrodes (cathode) | Ni & Ni-Mo alloys | Pt & Pt-Pd | Perovskite electrodes | Ni & Ni-Mo alloys |
Most common catalyst | Pt and Ru, but also Mn and W | Pt black, Ir, Ru, Rh | ZrO2 | Pt and Ru, but also Mn and W |
Minimum load (% of design capacity) | 15–40, 5 (state of the art) | 0–10 ~5 (typical) | >3 | 10-20 |
Operating temperature (deg C) | 50–80 | 60–200 | 800–1000 | 50–60 |
Average system efficiency (HHV) (%) | 68–77 | 70–80 | 80–90.8 | <=74 |
H2 purity (%) | 99.5– 99.99998 | 99.9–99.9999 | ~99.99 | 99.99 |
Estimated stack lifetime (h) | ~60,000– 100,000 | ~50,000– 90,000 | ~20,000– 90,000 | ~30,000 |
Estimated system lifetime (years) | 20–30 | 20–30 | 10–20 | <20 |
Approximate investment cost (USD/kW) | 800–1,500 | 1,400–2,100 | >2,000 | |
System size range (kW) | 1.8–5,300 | 100–1,300 | 1.5–200 | >100 |
H2 production per stack (Nm3 /h) | <760 | <400 | <10 | |
Technological maturity | Mature TRL 9 | Commercial TRL 7-8 | R&D TRL 5-7 | R&D TRL 2-5 |