% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Kuckshinrichs:827015,
author = {Kuckshinrichs, Wilhelm and Ketelaer, Thomas and Koj, Jan
Christian},
title = {{E}conomic analysis of improved {A}lkaline {W}ater
{E}lectrolysis},
journal = {Frontiers in energy research},
volume = {5},
number = {1},
issn = {2296-598X},
address = {Lausanne},
publisher = {Frontiers Media},
reportid = {FZJ-2017-01221},
pages = {1-21},
year = {2017},
abstract = {Alkaline water electrolysis (AWE) is a mature hydrogen
production technology and there exists a range of economic
assessments for available technologies. For advanced AWEs,
which may be based on novel polymer-based membrane concepts,
it is of prime importance that development comes along with
new configurations and technical and economic key process
parameters for AWE which might be of interest for further
economic assessments. This paper presents an advanced AWE
technology referring to 3 different sites in Europe
(Germany, Austria, Spain). The focus is on financial
metrics, the projection of key performance parameters of
advanced AWEs, and further financial and tax parameters. For
financial analysis from an investor’s (business)
perspective, a comprehensive assessment of a technology not
only comprises cost analysis but also further financial
analysis quantifying attractiveness and supply/market
flexibility. Therefore, based on Cash Flow (CF) analysis, a
comprehensible set of metrics may comprise Levelised Cost of
Energy or, respectively, Levelised Cost of Hydrogen (LCH)
for cost assessment, Net Present Value (NPV) for
attractiveness analysis and Variable Cost (VC) for analysis
of market flexibility. The German AWE site turns out to
perform best in all three financial metrics (LCH, NPV, VC).
Though there are slight differences in investment cost and
operation and maintenance cost projections for the three
sites, the major cost impact is due to the electricity cost.
Although investment cost is slightly and labour cost is
significantly lower in Spain, the difference can’t
outweigh the higher electricity cost compared to Germany.
Given the assumption that the electrolysis operators are
customers directly and actively participating in power
markets, and based on the regulatory framework in the three
countries, in this special case electricity cost in Germany
is lowest. However, as electricity cost is profoundly
influenced by political decisions as well as the
implementation of economic instruments for transforming
electricity systems toward sustainability, it is hardly
possible to further improve electricity price forecasts.},
cin = {IEK-STE},
ddc = {333.7},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013},
pnm = {153 - Assessment of Energy Systems – Addressing Issues of
Energy Efficiency and Energy Security (POF3-153)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-153},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000399153100001},
doi = {10.3389/fenrg.2017.00001},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/827015},
}