Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Optimisation of Electrolyser Operation: Integrating External Heat

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read External heat integration can raise average daily profits of solid oxide electrolysers by up to 23.3%, according to a new mixed-integer operational model with piecewise-linear power curves and endogenous startup costs.

desk verdict A worthwhile modelling contribution whose SOE headline result is, as the stress-test says, tied to a circularly justified no-off-state assumption; a sensitivity run would settle it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06796 v1 pith:RZ5XALPN submitted 2025-07-09 physics.chem-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sciecon.GNq-fin.EC

Matthias Derez , Alexander Hoogsteyn , Erik Delarue This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phcond-mat.mtrl-sciecon.GNq-fin.EC
keywords hydrogenproductionelectrolyseroperationheatintegrationsolidoxideelectrolysisPEMpiecewiselinearizationstartupcostsdispatchoptimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that the operational value of external heat for electrolysers can be captured in a practical optimization model. The authors replace the electrochemical power curve of a solid oxide or PEM electrolyser with a piecewise-linear surface in temperature and current density, add endogenous startup costs, and allow low- or high-temperature heat to supply part of the energy demand. Applying the model to a 15 MW plant on 2019 Belgian day-ahead prices, they find that heat integration increases average daily profits for solid oxide electrolysis by up to 23.3% (with high-temperature heat) and by 17.1% (with low-temperature heat), while PEM gains only 1.8% at the lowest hydrogen price. They also report that solid oxide electrolysis still needs a hydrogen price near 5.5 EUR/kg to break even, whereas PEM breaks even at 3.5–4.5 EUR/kg depending on lifetime. The point of the work is to make such efficiency- and temperature-dependent behavior usable in dispatch and planning studies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is a piecewise-linear approximation of the cell power surface $P_{\text{cell}} = a_{m,n} T + b_{m,n} j + c_{m,n}$ on $M\times N$ segments of temperature and current density, with binary variables $S^b_{t,m,n}$ forcing the selected segment. Around this surface the model enforces temperature dynamics through a heat-balance constraint, couples hydrogen production to current via Faraday's law, prices external heat as the opportunity cost of foregone steam-turbine electricity through the efficiency $\eta_{\mathrm{ST}}$, and models startup costs endogenously: the SOE model only allows standby and production states (no cold start), while the PEM model includes cold-start costs tied to instantaneous electricity and hydrogen prices. The piecewise-linear formulation keeps the problem a mixed-integer linear program, which is what allows the rolling-horizon yearly simulation and the efficiency comparison.

What would settle it

Re-run the solid oxide case study with a model variant that permits full shutdown and cold starts (with the reported 6.5-hour cold-start duration and thermal-cycling risk), and compare the profit uplift from high-temperature heat. If allowing shutdown changes the optimal dispatch enough to shrink or reverse the 23.3% uplift, the core profit claim depends on the standby-only assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a mixed-integer linear operational model built from the underlying electrochemical equations—linearized piecewise over temperature and current density—can endogenously represent startup costs and direct heat integration, and that this matters economically. In the case study, integrating high-temperature heat into a solid oxide electrolyser raises average daily profits by up to 23.3% relative to no heat integration, and low-temperature heat raises them by up to 17.1%; system efficiency improves from 77.77% to 88.73% with high-temperature heat. For PEM electrolysers the same heat-integration mechanism yields only 1.83% to 0.44% profit gains across hydrogen prices of 2.5 to 5.5 EUR/kg, because PEM prefers the off-state over standby and its water-heating demand is small. The authors further claim that despite these gains, SOE remains capital-intensive, requiring a hydrogen price of about 5.5 EUR/kg to break even at 2300 EUR/kW investment, while PEM breaks even at 3.5–4.5 EUR/kg at 900 EUR/kW depending on lifetime. The models are presented as accurate enough for operational dispatch and efficient enough for large-scale energy-system planning.

Load-bearing premise

The SOE model assumes the plant never fully shuts down, so cold starts and their costs are excluded from the optimization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The piecewise-linear models can be embedded in energy-system planning models, replacing the common constant-efficiency assumption with temperature- and current-dependent efficiency at modest computational cost.
  • For solid oxide electrolysis, high-temperature heat integration raises system efficiency to about 88.7% and boosts daily profits by up to a quarter, making it a significant economic lever when cheap high-temperature heat is available.
  • For PEM electrolysis, heat integration changes profitability by only a few percent, so investment and dispatch decisions for PEM should not be driven by heat availability.
  • Break-even analysis implies that solid oxide electrolysis needs hydrogen prices near 5.5 EUR/kg (with 2300 EUR/kW investment), while PEM reaches break-even at 3.5–4.5 EUR/kg depending on lifetime, so the two technologies occupy different economic niches.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the opportunity-cost efficiency $\eta_{\mathrm{ST}}$ of converting heat to electricity were higher than the assumed 0.45, the reported profit uplift from heat integration would shrink; the 23.3% figure is therefore not a technology constant but depends on the reference steam cycle.
  • The standby-only assumption for SOE likely makes the model optimistic during high electricity-price hours, when a full shutdown could be cheaper; allowing cold starts might narrow the gap between heat-integrated and baseline profits.
  • The same piecewise-linear machinery could be extended to co-optimize electrolysers with on-site renewables, batteries, or hydrogen storage, where temperature-dependent efficiency interacts with intermittent supply.
  • The analysis holds the hydrogen price constant; if hydrogen sales were price-responsive or coupled to electricity price, the optimal dispatch and the value of heat integration would change.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops MILP-compatible operational models for solid oxide (SOE) and proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysers, based on piecewise-linear approximations of electrochemical power curves. The models endogenize startup behaviour and allow external heat to substitute for electrical heating, either in the balance of plant (low-temperature heat) or directly in the electrochemical process (high-temperature heat for SOE). The authors apply the models to a 15 MW electrolyser using 2019 Belgian day-ahead prices and hydrogen prices from 2.5 to 5.5 EUR/kg. They report that heat integration raises average daily SOE profits by up to 23.3% and PEM profits by about 1.8%, and that the SOE only breaks even at 5.5 EUR/kg while PEM breaks even at 3.5-4.5 EUR/kg depending on lifetime. The paper also provides a public code repository and reports piecewise-linearisation errors for one, four, and nine segments.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper makes a useful contribution to operational modelling of electrolysers: it directly couples electrochemical power curves with dispatch decisions, includes startup costs and heat integration, and does so in a computationally tractable piecewise-linear form. The explicit reporting of linearisation errors and the availability of the Julia implementation are strengths. The headline quantitative claims, however, rest on the SOE model's exclusion of the off-state, which is justified in a circular way, and on several numerical inconsistencies that currently make the reported profit improvements and break-even prices difficult to verify.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (19) and footnote 1] The exclusion of the SOE off-state is not independently justified. Constraint (19) forces p^b_t + s^b_t = 1, so the optimizer can only choose between standby and production. Footnote 1 then says that 'Table IX shows that the number of hours in production state is high, confirming this assumption.' This is circular, because Table IX is generated by the very model that imposes p^b_t + s^b_t = 1. Since the headline 23.3% heat-integration uplift and the 5.5 EUR/kg break-even statement are computed under this restriction, the paper should add a sensitivity analysis that permits an off-state with a cold-start cost (for example, a 6.5 h cold-start duration and a thermal-cycling penalty) and report how the optimal dispatch, average profit, and the uplift from heat integration change. If the cold-start cost makes shutdown unattractive, the paper should demonstrate that from the optimization rather than assume it.
  2. [Section III-B, Eq. (2)] In the no-heat-integration reference case, the water heat demand term is written as dot{Q}^{water}_t * eta_ST, while all other heat demands are divided by eta_EH. Since dot{Q}^{water}_t is described as a thermal heat demand for heating and evaporating inlet water, the no-heat-integration electrical equivalent should be dot{Q}^{water}_t / eta_EH, not multiplied by eta_ST. With eta_ST = 0.45, the printed equation would make water heating reduce electrical demand, which is physically inconsistent for a case without heat integration. This equation defines the SOE baseline against which all relative profit improvements in Table II, Figures 2, and Table IX are computed, so the intended expression must be clarified and the affected results recomputed if a typographical error is present.
  3. [Abstract, Section IV-C, Table II, Table IX] The numerical reporting contains internal inconsistencies that must be corrected. The abstract reports PEM profit gains of 1.9-2.7%, while Table II lists 1.8%, 1%, 0.6%, and 0.4% and Section IV-C states '1.83% - 0.44%'. In Table IX, Model 2 at 5.5 EUR/kg shows an average profit of 4332 EUR/day, which is an order of magnitude below the no-heat-integration Model 1 value of 41642 EUR/day and breaks the monotone pattern of the other rows; this appears to be a missing digit (likely 43320). Section IV-B quotes improvements with one decimal (17.1%, 4.0%, 23.3%, 5.4%) while Table II uses integers. Please reconcile these numbers and re-verify the break-even statements that depend on them.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-B, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The displayed lower and upper bounds in Eqs. (8) and (9) are identical (both j_m on the right-hand side of Eq. (8), and both T_n in Eq. (9)). Please use distinct notation for the segment minimum and maximum values, for example j_m and j^m, so that the piecewise-active constraints are unambiguous.
  2. [Section III-C and Appendix C] The cold-start heat term in Eq. (25) uses Delta t^{CS}/Delta t and the difference p_{T,I} - U_{tn} I. Please state explicitly how the 10-minute startup is represented when Delta t = 0.25 h and confirm that the units in Eq. (25) are consistent with the power-balance equations.
  3. [Section IV-B and Table II] The text reports profit improvements as ranges such as '17.1% - 4.0%' and '23.3% - 5.4%', while Table II lists only integer percentages (17, 8, 6, 4 and 23, 12, 8, 6). Please align the precision used in the text and the table, or state that the table values are rounded.
  4. [Section II and footnote 4] The preheat calculation for the PEM inlet water is attributed to the first author's master thesis [15]. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source, please provide the calculation in the appendix or state where the thesis can be accessed, so that readers can reproduce the value Delta T^{water} = 53.2 C.
  5. [Throughout] Minor language issues: 'constraint to zero' should be 'constrained to zero' in Section IV-A, and 'exotherm process' should be 'exothermic process' in Section IV-C. These do not affect the technical content.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One circular validation of the SOE off-state exclusion; the central profit predictions remain independent outputs of the optimization model.

  1. self definitional [Section III-B, Eq. (19) and footnote 1]
    "The SOE model considers only the standby and production states, excluding the off-state due to the long cold start duration of up to 6.5 hours and the risk of thermal cycling damage associated with frequent cold starts [5]. As such, cold starts are to be avoided and omitted from the operational optimisation.1 [...] 1Table IX shows that the number of hours in production state is high, confirming this assumption."

    Constraint (19) forces pb_t + sb_t = 1, so the optimizer can never select an off-state. The 'hours in production state' reported in Table IX (e.g., 8473 h at 2.5 EUR/kg) are therefore outputs of a model in which the off-state is infeasible by construction. Using those same outputs as evidence that the off-state can be excluded is circular: the high utilization is built into the model, not an independent empirical fact. This restriction is load-bearing for the SOE dispatch and for the reported 23.3% heat-integration profit uplift, since a model allowing shutdowns could produce different production hours and different relative gains.

full rationale

The central results are genuine optimization outputs: the SOE and PEM models are built from literature electrochemical equations (Appendix A) and exogenous price, CAPEX, and efficiency parameters, with piecewise-linear fits to known power curves. The 23.3% SOE profit gain and the 1.9–2.7% PEM gains are not fitted to the reported outcomes, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. The only material circular step is the validation of the SOE off-state exclusion: constraint (19) prohibits the off-state, and footnote 1 cites Table IX—produced by that same constrained model—as confirming that production hours are high. That is a self-referential check rather than independent evidence, and the restriction is load-bearing for the dispatch and profit uplift. The self-citation [15] for the water preheat temperature difference is minor and not load-bearing. Numerical issues such as the apparent typo in Table IX (Model 2 at 5.5 EUR/kg) affect correctness reporting but are not circularity. Overall, the paper's derivation chain is mostly self-contained, with one circular justification preventing a clean score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on literature electrochemical parameters and standard optimization assumptions. The main ad hoc modeling choices are the segment count and the SOE no-off-state restriction.

free parameters (1)
  • Piecewise segment count per dimension (M, N) = 4
    Chosen by the authors as a trade-off between accuracy and tractability; mean relative error falls from 4.83% (1 segment) to 1.14% (4 segments) for SOE. No sensitivity analysis for this choice is presented.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Nernst equation and Butler-Volmer type overpotential equations correctly describe cell voltage for SOE and PEM (Appendix A).
    The operational models rely on the electrochemical equations in Appendix A as valid descriptions of power consumption.
  • domain assumption Electrolyser parameters (activation energies, exchange current densities, conductivities) from cited literature are representative for a 15 MW plant.
    Tables III, IV, VI, VII take parameter values from [8], [10], [17]-[21]; the results inherit any error in these sources.
  • domain assumption 2019 Belgian day-ahead electricity prices are representative for assessing profitability.
    The case study uses one year of price data; the authors note results are contingent on this choice (footnote 7).
  • ad hoc to paper SOE can be modeled without an off-state; cold starts are excluded.
    Section III-B assumes cold starts are avoided and the off-state is omitted; the justification relies on the model's own high production hours.
  • domain assumption Internal heat recovery supplies water heating in SOE in both heat-integrated and non-heat-integrated cases, valued at steam turbine efficiency eta_ST = 0.45.
    Eqs. (2) and (3) both multiply Q_water by eta_ST, implying water heating never uses electrical heating even in the 'no heat integration' case.
  • domain assumption A rolling horizon of daily optimization approximates the full-year optimum.
    The paper states validation was performed for randomly selected weeks, but details are not given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimisation of Electrolyser Operation: Integrating External Heat." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZ5XALPN

@misc{pith2026250706796,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimisation of Electrolyser Operation: Integrating External Heat},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZ5XALPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06796}
}
read the original abstract

Integrating external heat into electrolysers can reduce the electrical power demand for carbon-neutral hydrogen production. Efficient operation requires detailed models that incorporate heat availability and its effect on startup costs. This paper advances existing operational models by endogenously modelling startup costs and direct heat integration, based on a piecewise linear approximation of the electrochemical equations. We analyse the impact of low- and high-temperature heat integration on the efficiency and profitability of hydrogen production for solid oxide and proton exchange membrane electrolysis technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06796 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Power consumed per cell by a SOE as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) SOE power and electricity price, and (b) temperature and operational state, for 5th Jan 2019 using 2.5 EUR/kg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) PEM power and electricity price and (b) temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Improvement of electrochemical representation and integra- tion of heat in electrolyser operational models,

    M. Derez, “Improvement of electrochemical representation and integra- tion of heat in electrolyser operational models,” Master Thesis, Jun. 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Can high temperature steam electrolysis function with geothermal heat?

    J. Sigurvinsson, C. Mansilla, P. Lovera, and F. Werkoff, “Can high temperature steam electrolysis function with geothermal heat?” Inter- national Journal of Hydrogen Energy , vol. 32, pp. 1174–1182, 06 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    On the possibilities of producing hydrogen by high temperature electrolysis of water steam supplied from biomass or waste incineration units,

    C. B. R. Rivera-Tinoco, C. Mansilla and F. Werkoff, “On the possibilities of producing hydrogen by high temperature electrolysis of water steam supplied from biomass or waste incineration units,” International Journal of Green Energy , vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 388–404,

    work page

  4. [3]

    Efficiency evaluation of high- temperature steam electrolytic systems coupled with different nuclear reactors,

    W. Zhang, B. Yu, and J. Xu, “Efficiency evaluation of high- temperature steam electrolytic systems coupled with different nuclear reactors,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy , vol. 37, no. 17, pp. 12 060–12 068, Sep. 2012. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319912008786

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    High-temperature electrolysis for large-scale hydrogen and syngas production from nuclear energy – summary of system simulation and economic analyses,

    J. E. O’Brien, M. G. McKellar, and E. A. Harvego, “High-temperature electrolysis for large-scale hydrogen and syngas production from nuclear energy – summary of system simulation and economic analyses,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy , vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 4808– 4819, May 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [5]

    Green hydrogen cost reduction: Scaling up electrolysers to meet the 1.5C climate goal,

    IRENA, “Green hydrogen cost reduction: Scaling up electrolysers to meet the 1.5C climate goal,” IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency, Tech. Rep., Dec. 2020, https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Dec/Green-hydrogen-cost- reduction. Last accessed 04/06/2023

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Techno-economic analysis of solar powered green hydrogen system based on multi-objective optimization of economics and productivity,

    J. Park, S. Kang, S. Kim, H.-S. Cho, S. Heo, and J. H. Lee, “Techno-economic analysis of solar powered green hydrogen system based on multi-objective optimization of economics and productivity,” Energy Conversion and Management , vol. 299, p. 117823, Jan. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S019689042301169X

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Optimization of Hybrid Power Plants: When Is a Detailed Electrolyzer Model Necessary?

    M. T. Baumhof, E. Raheli, A. G. Johnsen, and J. Kazempour, “Optimization of Hybrid Power Plants: When Is a Detailed Electrolyzer Model Necessary?” Jan. 2023. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2301.05310

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 23 references
  1. [8]

    Modelling and simulation of a proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyser cell,

    Z. Abdin, C. J. Webb, and E. M. Gray, “Modelling and simulation of a proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyser cell,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy , vol. 40, no. 39, pp. 13 243–13 257, Oct. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article...

    2015

  2. [9]

    Thermodynamic and electrochemical assessment of an alkaline electrolyzer (AE) at different operating parameters,

    I. Firtina-Ertis, “Thermodynamic and electrochemical assessment of an alkaline electrolyzer (AE) at different operating parameters,” Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering , vol. 10, no. 2, Apr. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi...

    2022

  3. [10]

    System level heat integration and efficiency analysis of hydrogen production process based on solid oxide electrolysis cells,

    Y . Zhao, H. Xue, X. Jin, B. Xion, R. Liu, Y . Peng, L. Jiang, and G. Tian, “System level heat integration and efficiency analysis of hydrogen production process based on solid oxide electrolysis cells,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy , vol. 46, no. 77, pp. 38 163– 3...

    2021

  4. [11]

    Modeling of advanced alkaline electrolyzers: a system simulation approach,

    O. Ulleberg, “Modeling of advanced alkaline electrolyzers: a system simulation approach,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 21–33, Jan. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319902000332

    2003

  5. [12]

    Modeling alkaline water electrolysis for power-to-x applications: A scheduling approach,

    C. Varela, M. Mostafa, and E. Zondervan, “Modeling alkaline water electrolysis for power-to-x applications: A scheduling approach,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy , vol. 46, no. 14, pp. 9303–9313, Feb. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science...

    2021

  6. [13]

    Optimal day-ahead dispatch of an alkaline electrolyser system concerning thermal–electric properties and state-transitional dynamics,

    Y . Zheng, S. You, H. W. Bindner, and M. Munster, “Optimal day-ahead dispatch of an alkaline electrolyser system concerning thermal–electric properties and state-transitional dynamics,” Applied Energy , vol. 307, Feb. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc...

    2022

  7. [14]

    Benefits of external heat sources for high temperature electrolyser systems,

    F. Petipas, A. Brisse, and C. Bouallou, “Benefits of external heat sources for high temperature electrolyser systems,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy , vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 5505–5513, Apr. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/...

    2014

  8. [16]

    Electrochemical hydrogen generation,

    A. Kecebas, M. Kayfeci, and M. Bayat, “Electrochemical hydrogen generation,” in Solar Hydrogen Production . Academic Press, Jan. 2019, pp. 299–317. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/B9780128148532000096

    2019

  9. [17]

    A detailed techno- economic analysis of heat integration in high temperature electrolysis for efficient hydrogen production,

    A. Buttler, R. Koltun, R. Wolf, and H. Spliethoff, “A detailed techno- economic analysis of heat integration in high temperature electrolysis for efficient hydrogen production,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 38–50, Jan. 2015. [Online]. Available...

    2015

  10. [18]

    Control- oriented dynamic modeling and thermodynamic analysis of solid oxide electrolysis system,

    R. Yin, L. Sun, A. Khosravi, M. Malekan, and X. Shi, “Control- oriented dynamic modeling and thermodynamic analysis of solid oxide electrolysis system,” Energy Conversion and Management , vol. 271, Nov. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Chitsaz, M

    A. Chitsaz, M. A. Haghghi, and J. Hosseinpour, “Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic analyses of a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) system and the feasibility evaluation of integrating with a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer (PEME),” Energy Conversion and Management...

    2019

  12. [20]

    A comprehensive review on PEM water electrolysis,

    M. Carmo, D. L. Fritz, J. Mergel, and D. Stolten, “A comprehensive review on PEM water electrolysis,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 4901–4934, Apr. 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319913002607

    2013

  13. [21]

    Investigation of PEM electrolyzer modeling: Electrical domain, efficiency, and specific energy consumption,

    A. Hernandez-Gomez, V . Ramirez, and D. Guilbert, “Investigation of PEM electrolyzer modeling: Electrical domain, efficiency, and specific energy consumption,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy , vol. 45, no. 29, pp. 14 625–14 639, May 2020. [Online]. Available: https:/...

    2020

  14. [23]

    PEM without heat integration, Model 5) PEM with heat integration

  15. [2008]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/15435070802414322

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/15435070802414322

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.