Hydrogen_Shot_1733886337

HYDROGEN SHOT:
Water Electrolysis Technology Assessment

Hydrogen Shot: Water Electrolysis Technology Assessment
Lead Authors:
McKenzie Hubert, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO)
Anne Marie Esposito, HFTO
David Peterson, HFTO
Eric Miller, HFTO
Joseph Stanford, HFTO
Reviewed by:
Jai-Woh Kim, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM)
Eva Rodezno, FECM
Jennifer Roizen, Basic Energy Sciences
Viviane Schwartz, Basic Energy Sciences
Steve Capanna, Office of Policy (OP)
Ryan Wiser, OP
Brandon McMurtry, OP
Sunita Satyapal, HFTO
Katherine Rinaldi, HFTO
James Vickers, HFTO
Elias Pomeroy, HFTO
Tomas Green, HFTO
Michael Hahn, HFTO
Rick Farmer, HFTO
Michael Ulsh, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Alex Badgett, NREL
Bryan Pivovar, NREL
Caitlin Murphy, NREL
Micah Casteel, Idaho National Laboratory
Brian James, Strategic Analysis Inc.
Yaset Acevedo, Strategic Analysis Inc.
Jacob Prosser, Strategic Analysis Inc.
2
ACRONYMS
AEM alkaline exchange membrane
BOL beginning of life
BOP balance of plant
CO2 carbon dioxide
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
GHG greenhouse gas
GREET Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies
H2 hydrogen
H2A-Lite Hydrogen Analysis Lite Production
HTE high-temperature electrolyzer
LA liquid alkaline
LCOH levelized cost of hydrogen
LTE low-temperature electrolyzer
O-SOEC oxide-ion-conducting solid-oxide electrolyzer cell
PEM proton exchange membrane
PGM platinum group metal
P-SOEC proton-conducting solid-oxide electrolyzer cell
PTL porous transport layer
RD&D research, development, and demonstration
RDD&D research, development, demonstration, and deployment
SOFC solid-oxide fuel cell
TRL technology readiness level
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7
Hydrogen Shot ....................................................................................................................... 7
Impact .................................................................................................................................... 7
Clean Hydrogen Technology Pathways .................................................................................. 7
Technology Assessment vs. Commercial Liftoff...................................................................... 9
Water Electrolysis Overview......................................................................................................10
Techno-Economic Analysis .......................................................................................................13
GHG Emissions and Water Consumption .................................................................................19
Overview of RD&D Needs To Achieve Hydrogen Shot Goals ...................................................21
Manufacturing: Status and Cost Reduction Potential.................................................................24
Electrolyzer Technologies: Status and Cost Reduction Potential ..............................................26
PEM Electrolyzers .................................................................................................................26
System Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................26
RD&D Approaches for Cost Reduction ..............................................................................27
LA Electrolyzers ....................................................................................................................30
O-SOECs ..............................................................................................................................34
AEM Electrolyzers .................................................................................................................38
Status and R&D Cost Reduction Approaches ....................................................................38
P-SOECs...............................................................................................................................41
Status and R&D Cost Reduction Approaches ....................................................................41
Energy System Integration: Status and Cost Reduction Potential .............................................43
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................45
References ...............................................................................................................................46
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................50
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June 2021, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the first of a series of
department wide Energy Earthshots™ designed to accelerate breakthroughs of more abundant,
affordable, and reliable clean energy solutions within the decade. The Hydrogen Shot™ seeks
to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen (H2) production to $1 per 1 kilogram in 1 decade (“1 1 1”).
As part of this initiative, DOE is developing in-depth technology assessments of three general
pathways to clean hydrogen production: water electrolysis using renewable- or nuclear-
generated electricity (this report); thermal conversion (e.g., reforming of natural gas with carbon
capture); and advanced pathways (e.g., direct solar water splitting or biological conversion of
waste streams) [1]. As one in a series of Hydrogen Shot reports and assessments, this report,
Hydrogen Shot: Water Electrolysis Technology Assessment, focuses primarily on current
electrolyzer status and research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) needs to achieve
$1/kg H2 based on current information and analysis. Updated assessments with more detailed
analysis will follow as the technologies advance.
Water electrolysis, the process of using electricity to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen
gases, is a rapidly growing industry for hydrogen production. When electrolysis uses clean
electricity, clean hydrogen can be produced with zero or near-zero carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions. However, hydrogen produced by water electrolysis is currently more expensive than
incumbent hydrogen production methods that utilize fossil fuel feedstocks, such as natural gas.
Steam methane reforming of natural gas is the most common method of low-cost hydrogen
production today; however, this process emits approximately 10 tons of CO2 for every ton of
hydrogen produced. In the near term, carbon capture, utilization, and storage can be employed
with steam methane reforming to reduce CO2 emissions, but with added costs. In the long term,
opportunities for deep decarbonization through clean hydrogen deployments will require
sustainable approaches such as water electrolysis coupled with renewable and/or nuclear
power generation. However, significant capital and operating cost reductions, as well as science
and technology advancements, will be needed to meet the Hydrogen Shot goals and enable
greater market demand for clean electrolytic hydrogen.
This report documents the current state of development of five different electrolyzer
technologies: proton exchange membranes, liquid alkaline, oxide-ion-conducting solid-oxide
electrolyzer cells, alkaline exchange membranes, and proton-conducting solid-oxide electrolyzer
cells. Boundary-level techno-economic analysis—using grid scenarios for electricity cost—
shows that the current cost of hydrogen produced from these types of electrolyzers ranges from
approximately $6/kg to $8/kg (depending on the electrolyzer technology), while recognizing that
grid electricity does not currently qualify as clean, and that indirect emissions from grid-
connected electrolysis can be significant. Further analysis also shows that the Hydrogen Shot
goal of $1/kg for clean hydrogen produced by water electrolysis powered by clean electricity is
aggressive, but potentially achievable in the future, if we develop advanced technologies,
manufacture them at scale, and leverage ongoing cost reductions in clean electricity generated
by diverse renewable and/or nuclear resources across the nation. Since the Hydrogen Energy
Earthshot was launched, supply chain issues, higher electrolyzer system installation costs, and
inflation have increased costs, making this goal even more challenging to achieve. In light of
such challenges, this report describes the critical technology and manufacturing advancements,
5
as well as integrated energy system developments, that will be needed through continued
RD&D efforts. While each electrolyzer technology has its own specific development needs, all
technologies can benefit from at-scale manufacturing processes, balance-of-plant cost
reductions, and system optimization with clean energy resources. Deploying water electrolyzers
that utilize low-cost clean electrons at or near the site of electricity generation is an important
potential pathway to producing low-cost, clean hydrogen meeting the Hydrogen Shot goal.
6
INTRODUCTION
Hydrogen Shot
The Hydrogen Shot 1 is the first Energy Earthshot launched under the U.S. Department of
Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Earthshots Initiative, which will accelerate breakthroughs of more
abundant, affordable, and reliable clean energy solutions within the decade. Achieving the
Energy Earthshots will help America tackle the toughest remaining barriers to addressing the
climate crisis and more quickly reach the Biden-Harris administration’s goal of net-zero carbon
emissions by 2050 while creating good-paying union jobs and growing the economy.
The Hydrogen Shot establishes a

framework and foundation for the
deployment of clean hydrogen (H2)
across multiple sectors of the
economy—most importantly in “hard-
to-decarbonize” applications. This
framework includes support for The first Energy Earthshot, launched June 7, 2021—
research, development, Hydrogen Shot—seeks to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen
by 80% to $1 per 1 kilogram in 1 decade (“1 1 1”).
demonstration, and deployment
(RDD&D) projects. Industries are
beginning to implement clean hydrogen to reduce emissions, yet many hurdles remain to
deploying it at scale, requiring continued RDD&D. Currently, hydrogen from clean and
renewable energy costs well over $5 per kilogram. Achieving the Hydrogen Shot’s 80% cost
reduction goal can unlock new markets for hydrogen, including steel manufacturing, clean
ammonia, energy storage, and heavy-duty trucks. This would create more clean energy jobs,
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and position America to compete in the clean
hydrogen market on a global scale. The needed RDD&D efforts should ensure that
environmental protection and benefits for local communities remain a priority.
Impact
The Hydrogen Shot goal is aligned with the priorities for affordable clean hydrogen articulated in
the U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap [2]. If the national strategy is
successfully implemented, scenarios show the opportunity for at least a fivefold increase in
clean hydrogen use, including in end uses that are otherwise difficult to decarbonize. Estimates
in the U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap show the potential for clean
hydrogen to contribute to substantial reductions in GHG emissions economywide by 2050, as
well as the potential to create more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2030. The
Hydrogen Shot will catalyze innovation in all clean hydrogen production pathways, encouraging
investment in diverse regions across the country.
Clean Hydrogen Technology Pathways

In pursuit of the Hydrogen Shot, DOE focuses on the research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) of multiple technology pathways with the potential to achieve affordable
1
www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-shot.
7
clean hydrogen production in the near and longer terms, leveraging different resources across
the nation. These technology pathways fall broadly into three main categories:
• ELECTROLYSIS
The electrolysis pathways are based on commercial and near-commercial
technologies for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, which can be powered by low-
carbon sources such as wind, solar, hydropower, or nuclear energy (among others) to
produce clean hydrogen. Examples include low-temperature electrolyzers (LTEs) using
liquid alkaline (LA) solutions or proton exchange membranes (PEMs) as ionic
conductors, as well as higher-temperature solid-oxide electrolyzers with the potential for
higher electricity-to-hydrogen conversion efficiency. Hydrogen Shot strategic priorities for
electrolysis pathways include improving performance and cost of electrolyzer systems
(e.g., stacks and balance of plant [BOP]) at gigawatt scales; optimizing integration of
electrolyzer systems with renewable or nuclear power to leverage low-cost on-site
electricity; and facilitating expanded domestic manufacturing capacity.
• THERMAL CONVERSION
Thermal conversion processes use heat as a primary energy source to drive chemical
reactions that convert carbon-based feedstocks into hydrogen and other byproducts.
Examples include reforming, gasification, and pyrolysis processes. Carbon capture,
utilization, and storage can be used in conjunction with thermal conversion to reduce the
carbon footprint of the hydrogen produced. The Hydrogen Shot’s strategic priorities for
thermal conversion include improving the performance and cost of integrated systems
for natural gas reforming with carbon capture, and storage to achieve emissions targets,
as well as developing diverse options such as gasification of waste feedstocks with
carbon capture and storage and pyrolysis of natural gas into hydrogen and solid carbon
to meet cost and emissions goals. These priorities are examined in detail in the report
Hydrogen Shot Technology Assessment: Thermal Conversion Approaches, which was
released in December 2023 [1].
• ADVANCED PATHWAYS
As part of the longer-term vision, clean hydrogen can also be produced through a variety
of new and advanced pathways requiring little or no electricity inputs. Examples include
photoelectrochemical and thermochemical processes for direct solar water splitting, and
biological processes that can convert biomass or waste streams into hydrogen with
value-added coproducts (such as purified water). Additionally, advanced hybrid
approaches combining electrochemical, thermochemical, pyrolytic, and/or
photoelectrochemical processes producing clean hydrogen from water, biomass, or
wastes are being explored. Other interesting opportunities, such as geological hydrogen,
are also being investigated. The Hydrogen Shot’s strategic priorities for advanced
pathways include high-risk, high-reward R&D to advance fundamental scientific
understanding that can drive progress across multiple advanced hydrogen production
pathways. These priorities will be examined in detail in the forthcoming report, Hydrogen
Shot Technology Assessment: Advanced Pathways.
8
Technology Assessment vs. Commercial Liftoff
This report provides a technology assessment of electrolysis pathways for clean hydrogen
production covered by the Hydrogen Shot. As noted above, other documents will provide
technology assessments of thermal conversion pathways and advanced pathways [1].
Consistent with methodologies adopted in all of DOE’s Energy Earthshots, these assessments
are intended to track status and RD&D improvements relative to a 10-year performance target
that will directly support long-term national decarbonization goals. As such, a techno-economic
framework has been adopted in this report referencing a static technology performance baseline
separate from variable economic factors such as inflation. Specifically for the Hydrogen Shot,
technology baselines for the various clean hydrogen production pathway costs were established
on the basis of 2020 dollars (2020 $), and status and projected cost reductions compared to the
baselines are reported in the same basis to emphasize the impact of RD&D on technology
advancement and facilitate comparison between pathways, separate from consideration of
macroeconomic factors. For consistency, all Energy Earthshots will use the same 2020 dollar
basis for annual comparisons related to technology development but will also track
corresponding values for nominal year dollars to facilitate comparisons with other analyses and
reports.
For example, DOE, through its Pathways to Commercial Liftoff initiative, tracks year-over-year
changes in the commercial deployment status and prospects of different clean energy
technologies reflective of the present economywide realities, including inflation and supply chain
factors. The resulting reports are intended specifically to provide valuable information for
industry stakeholders and investors who have the potential to take action that will accelerate
deployment. The Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen report addresses
electrolyzer technologies, as well as the other Hydrogen Shot pathways; however, the techno-
economic framework is different and considers available costs in current-year dollars, as well as
the impacts of various incentives [3]. The cost projections presented in this report are related to
various cost scenarios in the Pathways to Commercial Liftoff report, including through the use of
harmonized technical inputs and assumptions in both reports. However, it is important to
emphasize that the interpretation of results relative to specific electrolyzer technologies must
account for the different purposes of each document, as well as the different techno-economic
frameworks employed.
This Hydrogen Shot technology assessment presents a snapshot of various electrolyzer

technology pathways for clean hydrogen production, including technology status and envisioned
approaches for achieving the Hydrogen Shot goals through RD&D advances. This document, as
well as the Pathways to Commercial Liftoff report, will be updated periodically by DOE to reflect
progress reported by stakeholders from industry, academia, and the national labs.
9
WATER ELECTROLYSIS OVERVIEW
Hydrogen can be produced from water using electricity
through an electrochemical process known as
electrolysis. As shown in Figure 1, electrolysis splits
water into hydrogen and oxygen gases; systems
employing this process are called electrolyzers.
Electrolyzer systems consist of stacks (groups of
individual cells) and BOP equipment that manages the
inputs (electricity and water) and outputs (hydrogen and
oxygen) from the stack (Figure 2). The use of water
electrolysis powered by the nation’s abundant clean
energy resources is aligned with the Hydrogen Shot
mission and is expected to play a critical role in achieving
national decarbonization goals [4].
Figure 1. PEM electrolyzer cell—showing
As electrolyzer technologies improve and their costs water and electricity in and hydrogen and
come down, global capacity is expected to increase oxygen gases out.
substantially. By 2030, the global installed capacity of
electrolyzers has the potential to grow to more than 300 GW (based on announced projects),
from only about 1 GW installed as of October 2023 [5]. When these deployments are coupled
with electricity from renewables or nuclear power, the clean hydrogen produced can offer
significant decarbonization potential across multiple sectors [3] [6] [7].
Figure 2. Electrolyzer systems are composed of stacks and BOP components. Stacks are composed of individual cells.
The size and number of cells in a stack, the number of stacks in a system, and the BOP equipment in a system can all vary
depending on the system’s configuration.
10
Current electrolyzer technologies are at different technology readiness levels (TRLs), use
different electrolyte materials (liquid, solid polymer membranes, or solid ceramics), and operate
at different temperatures, typically determined by the limits of the electrolyte material.
Electrolyzer technologies are commonly grouped into two categories based on operating
temperature: LTEs and high-temperature electrolyzers (HTEs).
LTE technologies include:
• PEMs
• LA
• Alkaline exchange membranes (AEMs).
HTE technologies include:
• Oxide-ion-conducting solid-oxide
electrolyzer cells (O-SOECs)
• Proton-conducting solid-oxide
electrolyzer cells (P-SOECs).
Figure 3 shows a classification of these key

electrolyzer types according to operating
temperature and electrolyte type. The color
Figure 3. Electrolyzer technologies as a function of
of each technology block represents the electrolyte and operating temperature. The most
current domestic commercialization level, commercially mature technologies are shown in dark
blue.
where dark blue is the most commercially
mature.
This assessment focuses on each of the five electrolyzer technologies described above. Each
technology offers unique benefits and pathways to achieve the Hydrogen Shot goal (Table 1).
The most commercially advanced technologies could more rapidly achieve manufacturing
economies of scale, which would drive down capital costs and thereby reduce overall hydrogen
cost, bringing it closer to the $1/kg-H2 target. While they are not yet at the same level of
commercialization, other technologies in the laboratory, pilot, and early commercial stages have
certain advantages and the potential to achieve even lower costs in the future than commercial
technologies.
11
Table 1. Comparison of Electrolyzer Technologies
Commercial
Technology Advantages
Status
• Low-cost materials
LA Commercial • Proven long lifetime
• Established supply chain and manufacturing processes.
• High current density at high efficiency

PEM Commercial • Differential pressure operation
• Dynamic operation capability.
Early • High electrical efficiency

O-SOEC
Commercial • Thermal energy integration.
• Low-cost materials
AEM Pilot
• Dynamic operation capability.
• High electrical efficiency

• Thermal energy integration
P-SOEC Laboratory
• Lower-cost materials and operating temperature than O-
SOEC.
The following section discusses the cost status of clean hydrogen production from the three
most commercially mature electrolyzer technologies and the major common cost drivers of
electrolytic hydrogen production. Achieving the Hydrogen Shot goal will require addressing a
unique set of challenges and RDD&D needs for each technology, which are summarized later in
this document.
12
TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The economics of clean hydrogen production via water electrolysis depend not only on the
electrolyzer cost, performance, and system design, but also on the source of clean electricity.
Some electrolyzer technologies may be better suited for integration with different clean energy
sources or end uses, which can influence the optimal operating strategy and size of the
electrolyzer system. For example, HTE technologies can take advantage of integration with
thermal energy sources, such as those at nuclear power plants, while membrane-based LTE
technologies are well suited for clean energy sources with either stable or variable energy
output (both nuclear and variable renewable energy sources).
The levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) in 2020 $ was estimated for PEM, LA, and O-SOEC (the
three most commercially advanced technologies to date) using a simplified, boundary-level set
of parameters. The Hydrogen Analysis Lite Production (H2A-Lite) model, a peer-reviewed
national-laboratory-developed model, was used to compare the technologies using a consistent
financial analysis framework [8]. Key inputs into the model, such as electrolyzer cost and
efficiency, are based on feedback from industry and national laboratory experts and are
generally consistent with other reported values, including those in the recent DOE Hydrogen
Program Record Clean Hydrogen Production Cost Scenarios with PEM Electrolyzer
Technology, when the dollar-year basis is accounted for appropriately [9]. The target-level
approach considers a broad range of electricity prices and capacity factors from current and
future plausible scenarios resulting in a range of LCOH estimates.
As the Hydrogen Shot is directed at hydrogen production cost, the LCOH estimates in this
document are focused on the hydrogen production component of the overall hydrogen
production cost. Depending on the end use requirements (e.g., the need for a consistent
hydrogen production rate, or capacity factor of the electricity source), there are other
components (e.g., hydrogen storage) that will be needed that will add cost. In general, more
hydrogen storage will be needed for systems with lower capacity factors to compensate for
reduced hydrogen production at varying time intervals. There are other ongoing analyses that
are investigating hydrogen cost for complete systems from the electricity source to the end use
[10].
The LCOH can vary dramatically based on current technologies’ capital cost and performance,
and when electricity is supplied from different sources, such as the U.S. electrical grid, land-
based wind, conventional nuclear power, or hybrid renewable energy systems [9]. Figure 4
shows the projected LCOH using electricity from the current U.S. electrical grid (with limited
renewable penetration), as well as conceptual scenarios for 2026 and 2031 for hydrogen
production by different electrolyzer technologies using a projected future grid and different
renewable and nuclear resources. The 2026 and 2031 target scenarios shown in the figure
include projected electrolyzer technology and cost improvements over the current status, as well
as aggressive reductions in the cost of renewable electricity generation. A detailed description
of the analysis methods, key input parameters, references, and tabulated results for Figure 4
can be found in the Appendix.
13
Figure 4. Current and future LCOH from PEM, LA, and O-SOEC electrolyzers in 2020 $ per kilogram H2 for a range of
scenarios based on different electricity sources. In the current case, error bars illustrate high and low LCOH due to a range
of electrolyzer capital costs; in the future scenarios, error bars illustrate a range of costs based on different assumptions
about the electricity source (e.g., future grid, wind, solar, nuclear, or hybrid wind and solar). See the Appendix for
description of assumptions and corresponding cost data.
14
For all electrolyzer types, the grid cases in Figure 4 (with varying degrees of renewable
penetration, including a range of electricity pricing from $0.06/kilowatt-hour (kWh) to $0.10/kWh,
and assuming a 97% capacity factor) 2 result in the highest LCOH, due in part to the inclusion of
transmission costs in the electricity prices. The hybrid renewable energy system cases included
on-site electricity generation using both solar and wind power, assuming costs are reduced to
$0.012/kWh with tax credits, and an upper-end capacity factor of 74%). 3 The cases based on
only direct coupling with the best available wind resources (with on-site electricity costs ranging
from $0.017/kWh to $0.023/kWh in 2031, and a high-end capacity factor of 57%) still offer cost
improvements relative to the grid cases, due to the low electricity generation costs and minimal
or no transmission costs. 4 For reference, current best available wind resources are
~$0.026/kWh and 51% capacity factor, highlighting the need for continued development of
renewable energy technologies to enable the Hydrogen Shot goal [11].
When current technology (see appendix for assumed capital costs) and grid electricity are used,
the analysis shows that LA electrolyzers have the potential to produce the lowest-cost
hydrogen—at approximately $5.80/kg, compared with PEM at approximately $6.70/kg and O-
SOEC at approximately $7.60/kg. 5 This cost advantage can be attributed to LA electrolyzers’
lower capital cost, a consequence of today’s high-volume manufacturing and the relatively
inexpensive materials used. In future years, PEM and LA capital costs will likely become more
comparable, as the manufacturing rate of PEM technology continues to grow [3]. Compared
with both PEM and LA, analysis shows future O-SOEC technology benefiting from higher
electrical conversion efficiencies in cases where heat integration is available (e.g., at a nuclear
power plant), helping to reduce the LCOH, in addition to significant reductions from increased
manufacturing scale [12].
One key assumption made in this high-level techno-economic analysis is that each electrolyzer
technology is capable of load-following dynamic power generation in the renewables (wind) and
hybrid system scenarios. The demonstrated ability for PEM, LA, and O-SOEC electrolyzers to
load follow in such configurations currently varies among the technology types, with PEM
demonstrating the ability to load follow based on demonstrations to date [13]. Testing durability
under dynamic loading in all electrolyzer technologies, as part of broader active research to
2
The current grid scenarios are based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and the future grid scenarios for
2026 and 2031 include corresponding levels of renewable penetration based on projections from a DOE study for achieving a 100%
clean electricity grid by 2035. See the Appendix for further details and references. It should be emphasized that these cases are
included for reference; they all entail different degrees of grid carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and therefore the hydrogen produced
does not qualify as clean.
3
The hybrid renewable energy scenarios in 2026 and 2031 are based on a preliminary study of complimentary wind and solar
resources. These include advanced electrolyzer technologies collocated with both wind and solar resources found in parts of Texas,
with aggressive reductions in the on-site electricity generation costs, potentially leveraging regional renewable tax credits. Different
hybrid scenarios studied include the case of equal sizing (100 MW) for each of the three components, as well as the case of an
electrolyzer capacity of 100 MW that matches the total wind and solar capacity (200 MW). See the Appendix for further details and
references.
4
The renewable and hybrid scenarios in this report do not include battery or hydrogen storage as a potential mitigation strategy
addressing intermittency; more comprehensive analysis of regionally dependent scenarios is ongoing, including cost optimization
based on various combinations of wind and solar energy with storage. Results will be included in future report updates.
5
Uninstalled capital cost, system efficiency, and replacement interval are consistent with the range of values in [3], [27], and [35].
15
optimize operating vs. capital costs, will contribute to meeting long-term goals for variable
renewable energy resources.
It is expected that the future market could be served by a mix of electrolyzer technologies as
each technology develops further. Specific deployment choices will likely be based on the match
between an application’s needs, including both end use and clean electricity source, and the
electrolyzer’s properties, operating capabilities, and cost. While the scenarios in Figure 4 offer
potential pathways for meeting LCOH cost targets, these scenarios depend on local availability
of low-cost clean energy resources capable of providing high capacity factors, requiring
significant electricity cost reductions and will require accelerated levels of technology and
integrated systems RD&D focused on addressing key cost drivers for electrolyzers.
The factors summarized in Figure 5 drive the cost of electrolytic hydrogen and are covered in
much greater detail in subsequent sections of this document. Achieving the clean hydrogen cost
target of $1/kg through electrolysis will require continued RDD&D to:
1. Reduce capital cost, improve efficiency and performance, and increase lifetimes
through scientific breakthroughs and technology advancements.
2. Improve manufacturing processes and increase manufacturing throughput to
reduce manufacturing costs and achieve economies of scale that drive down
electrolyzer costs.
3. Optimize integration of electrolyzers with low-cost, clean electricity sources,
including through direct coupling.
As shown by the large range of LCOH in Figure 4, the cost of clean electricity and the operating
capacity factor6 of installed electrolyzers will play a large role in the overall cost of clean
hydrogen production from electrolyzers. The DOE Hydrogen Program continues to explore
integrated systems that optimize electricity price and capacity factor.
Also of note is that since the Hydrogen Energy Earthshot was launched, supply chain issues,
higher electrolyzer system installation costs, and inflation have increased costs, making the goal
of $1/kg H2 more challenging to achieve.
6
Capacity factor is defined here as annual average input energy divided by nameplate capacity if operated during all hours of the
year.
16
Figure 5. Key cost drivers for clean hydrogen production using electrolysis.
Figure 6. Waterfall charts illustrating potential pathways to achieve the Hydrogen Shot target for LTE (PEM) and HTE (O-
SOEC).
The waterfall charts in Figure 6 illustrate example pathways to achieve the Hydrogen Shot goal
for LTE (PEM) and HTE (O-SOEC), respectively. See the appendix for further details, model
assumptions and references. Similar to Figure 4, the 2026 and 2031 technology cases reflect
improvements in electrolyzer cost, durability, and performance over the current technology case
[14]. The first bar in each chart represents estimated LCOH based on today’s electrolyzer
technology manufactured at low volumes and using average grid electricity pricing based on
data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. For both PEM and O-SOEC, the cost
17
reductions needed for achieving the $1/kg-H2 goal require a combination of continued
electrolyzer technology advances (in performance, durability, and cost), improvements in
manufacturing technologies and processes, achieving manufacturing economies of scale, and
optimizing integration with low-cost, clean electricity using regionally specific resources such as
solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, and nuclear power. 7
The grid cases for both PEM and O-SOEC are included for reference, but these do not qualify
as clean hydrogen production cases due to the limited amount of clean energy resources in
today’s grid. DOE-supported studies analyzing scenarios for 100% clean electricity by 2035
project that clean electricity will cost approximately $60–$80/megawatt hour (MWh) on average
across the United States, in part due to added transmission costs [15]. Even with optimized
technology and economies of scale, achieving $1/kg H2 for PEM or O-SOEC electrolysis will
require electricity costs less than approximately $20–$30/MWh with >90% capacity factor.
Therefore, except for specific regional opportunities where renewable or nuclear power is sold
at these low electricity rates and high capacity factors, grid-connected electrolysis will not
generally achieve the Hydrogen Shot target. Other cases included in Figure 6 leverage the
lower costs enabled by optimal integration of electrolyzers with diverse renewable and nuclear
power generation.
Regional opportunities based on collocation and tight integration of electrolysis with renewable
or nuclear generation—with reduced or eliminated electricity transmission costs—offer potential
pathways to meeting the Hydrogen Shot goal. The PEM example in Figure 6 illustrates that
direct coupling with wind energy using today’s technology offers reduced LCOH compared with
the grid case. 8 Still, the cost savings are limited by the capacity factor of the renewable resource
(around 50% in regions with good wind resources), which results in reduction of electrolyzer
utilization and need for hydrogen storage to ensure customers are delivered hydrogen when
needed). In certain regions, hybrid energy systems with optimized integration with both solar
and wind energy can have increased effective capacity factors (as high as about 75%) that in
conjunction with technology advances and economies of scale offer a pathway to the Hydrogen
Shot goal. The O-SOEC example illustrates that this goal can be met with continued technology
and manufacturing improvements along with direct coupling and thermal integration with the
current fleet of nuclear power plants where they currently produce electricity with a 95%
capacity factor [16]. To meet the cost goal, the plants would need to continue to produce
electricity at levelized costs less than approximately $30/MWh; and a full accounting of both
direct and indirect emissions will also be needed. Unlike with renewable integration, capacity
factors can be near 100% in these cases, which is favorable to continuous hydrogen production
at reduced cost. However, dynamic operation of the electrolyzer may be advantageous to allow
varying rates of hydrogen production—for example, to ramp down the use of electricity for
hydrogen production in favor of selling that electricity to the grid at times when market prices are
favorable.
7
Note that the 2031 technology cases in each chart reflect electrolyzer technology advances projected by 2031 coupled with current
conceptual designs for integration with renewable or nuclear power, which by themselves approach but do not reach the $1/kg-H2
target. Attaining the goal will require additional optimization of the integrated energy systems through continued RD&D innovations.
8
For further details on the projected LCOH of grid- and renewable-connected PEM electrolysis, see [9], noting that results in this
record are presented in inflated 2022 $ compared to those in this document presented in 2020 $, for reasons described in the
Introduction.
18
GHG EMISSIONS AND WATER CONSUMPTION
To assess the decarbonization potential for all electrolyzer technologies, techno-economic
analysis must be coupled with life cycle analysis to address emissions, water usage, and other
environmental concerns related to hydrogen production. This section discusses the
environmental impacts of hydrogen production via electrolysis, using different clean energy
sources.
The overall GHG emissions associated with hydrogen produced via electrolysis will be
determined primarily by the electricity source and the upstream emissions that result from
manufacturing processes. Currently, most analyses of GHG emissions from hydrogen
production are conducted using a well-to-gate system boundary, which includes emissions
associated with feedstock gathering, extraction, processing, and delivery to a hydrogen
production facility (in the case of electrolysis, the feedstock is water, so associated emissions
are minimal). It also includes the emissions associated with the hydrogen production process,
inclusive of the electricity used by the hydrogen production facility. 9 Notably, this method does
not consider embodied emissions from the manufacturing of the electrolyzer or the clean energy
equipment (e.g., solar panels or wind turbines). More detailed life cycle analysis with different
system boundaries that include embodied emissions is currently underway [17]. The findings of
this analysis will be included in future versions of this report. A key aim of such analytical efforts
is to ensure that neither benefits nor penalties are counted twice in the overall carbon footprint
determination.
When the U.S. average grid mix is used as the electricity source for electrolysis, the direct GHG
emissions calculated using Argonne National Laboratory’s Greenhouse Gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (GREET) model are significant, at approximately 24
kg CO2e/kg H2 (CO2e is carbon dioxide equivalent). In contrast, when using electricity directly
from nuclear, wind and/or solar, the model calculates near-zero well-to-gate direct GHG
emissions [18]. 10 When the GHG emissions from manufacturing of renewable energy systems
(e.g., solar panels or wind turbines) are included, direct GHG emissions can still be low, as low
as 1 kg CO2e/kg H2, depending on the specific sources of the manufactured equipment [19]. 11
For electrolysis directly coupled with nuclear power, when using a conventional light water
reactor, GHG emissions related to the uranium supply chain activities, which include mining,
transportation, and enrichment, can also be modest, at approximately 0.1 kg CO2e/kg H2,
depending on the electricity needs of the electrolyzer [20]. Producing clean hydrogen via
electrolysis will clearly rely on the use of clean electricity sources, including a decarbonized grid
and direct coupling to sources such as solar, wind, and nuclear power. However, all upstream
emissions sources will need to be accounted for.
Water consumption requirements for electrolyzers depend on the electrolyzer and electricity
source. Direct water consumption (the water consumed during electrolyzer operation, not
including water used for cooling) is about 4 gallons per kilogram of hydrogen depending on the
9
These include direct emissions in the case of direct coupling with a power generation source, as well as indirect emissions
associated with grid-connected cases; all emissions must be accounted for in a comprehensive life cycle analysis.
10
This does not account for induced grid emissions.
11
This does not account for induced grid emissions.
19
electrolyzer type and system size [21]. Additional consumption is required upstream of the point
of hydrogen production to purify water and produce electricity. Including this upstream water
consumption yields additional consumption of 3–65 gal H2O/kg H2, and this is highly dependent
on the electricity source and electrolyzer system. The highest total water consumption occurs
with geothermal- or nuclear-powered electrolyzers (about 69 gal H2O/kg H2 and 30 gal H2O/kg
H2, respectively); though in the future, many of the advanced nuclear reactors will have a much
smaller need for water. 12 As little as 7 gal H2O/kg H2 are required for electrolyzers operating on
solar or wind electricity sources [22].
12
Advanced nuclear reactors will have a higher operating temperature, meaning more heat is converted into electricity, and they will
be able to use dry cooling in areas where water is scarce. Some nuclear plants are also currently used for desalination and treating
brackish water beyond power plant needs.
20
OVERVIEW OF RD&D NEEDS TO ACHIEVE
HYDROGEN SHOT GOALS
Current status and technical targets for PEM, LA, and O-SOEC stacks and systems have been
developed to guide electrolyzer RD&D efforts toward the Hydrogen Shot goal (Table 2). Status
and target values were developed in collaboration with national laboratories and industry
partners and are consistent with ranges reported in the literature (see the Appendix). There are
many combinations of performance and cost targets (efficiency, lifetime, and capital cost) that
can achieve $1/kg H2; the ones listed here can be considered a starting guidepost for
technology developers. The higher-TRL electrolyzers (PEM, LA, and O-SOEC) are targeting to
meet the interim target of an LCOH of $2/kg by 2026 and the ultimate target of $1/kg H2 by
2031. 13 AEM electrolyzers are aiming to achieve targets similar to PEM, and P-SOEC
electrolyzers are expected to achieve targets similar to O-SOEC, though timelines for meeting
cost goals will vary depending on investments. While the lower-TRL technologies may not
achieve $1/kg H2 by 2031, investments in these technologies may eventually lead to even lower
hydrogen production costs, as some approaches have advantages over current commercial
technologies.
13
For a full description of assumptions to reach these LCOHs, see [14].
21
Table 2. Status and DOE Intermediate and Ultimate Technical Targets for Mature LTE and HTE Technologies 14
Parameter Units PEM LA O-SOEC

Interim Ultimate Interim Ultimate Interim Ultimate
Status Status Status
Targets Targets Targets Targets Targets Targets
Total mg/cm2 3.0 0.5 0.125 - - - - - -

platinum
group metal
(PGM) g/kW 0.8 0.1 0.03 - - - - - -
content 15
2.0 3.0 0.5 1.0

A/cm2 3.0 A/cm2 2.0 A/cm2 0.6 A/cm2 1.2 A/cm2 2.0 A/cm2
Performance A/cm2 A/cm2 @ A/cm2 A/cm2
@V/cell @ 1.6 V @ 1.7 V @ 1.28 V @ 1.28 V @ 1.28 V
@ 1.9 V 1.8 V @ 1.9 V @ 1.8 V
Stack
Electrical
kWh/kg H2 51 48 43 51 48 45 34 34 34
efficiency
Operation
Lifetime 40,000 80,000 80,000 60,000 80,000 80,000 20,000 40,000 80,000
hours
Average
degradation mV/kh 4.8 2.3 2.0 3.2 2.3 2.1 6.4 3.2 1.6
rate
Capital cost $/kW 450 100 50 250 100 50 300 125 50
Energy
kWh/kg H2 55 51 46 55 52 48 47 44 42
System
efficiency 16
Uninstalled
$/kW 1,000 250 150 500 250 150 2,500 500 200
capital cost
14
Target table reproduced from [14].
15
Total PGM content includes both electrodes combined.
16
For O-SOEC, energy efficiency includes both electrical and thermal energy inputs.
22
Manufacturing at high volume to achieve economies of scale, lower-cost manufacturing
processes, and technology advances across the material, cell/stack, and system levels
(including BOP components) are all critical to meet the targets outlined above. Figure 7 shows
key aspects of each technology that would benefit from RD&D to address capital cost, durability,
or efficiency challenges facing current technologies. The remainder of this document describes
the current status and highlights opportunities for development in electrolyzer manufacturing,
properties and performance, and integration with clean energy.
Figure 7. Overview of R&D strategies that address cost reduction opportunities.
23
MANUFACTURING: STATUS AND COST
REDUCTION POTENTIAL
The global manufacturing capacity for all electrolyzer
technologies was about 10 GW per year in 2023 [23]. Manufacturing Throughput
Projected growth in demand in 2025 and beyond will
require significant manufacturing expansion, and—by one • Automation
report—expansions could reach 155 GW per year by 2030 • Increased line speed
[5]. In 2020, 85% of manufacturing capacity was for LA • Quality assurance/quality
electrolyzers, less than 15% was for PEM electrolyzers, control
and a very small fraction was for O-SOEC and AEM
electrolyzers. Most electrolyzer manufacturing today occurs
in Europe and China. While limited electrolyzer manufacturing exists in the United Staes today,
plans for expansion by several domestic manufacturers are underway [24]. Recently, DOE
made an investment of more than $300 million in electrolyzer manufacturing RD&D to reduce
manufacturing costs and enable greater economies of scale through manufacturing innovations,
including automated manufacturing processes, design for processability and scale-up, quality
control methods to maintain electrolyzer performance and durability, reduced critical mineral
loadings, and design for end-of-life recovery and recyclability [25].
Low-cost and high-throughput manufacturing of electrolyzer components, cells, stacks, and

systems is key to achieve $1/kg H2 across all electrolyzer technologies. As an example, a
manufacturing cost curve for an electrolyzer is shown in Figure 8, which highlights the capital
cost reduction potential through manufacturing at greater than gigawatt-scale volumes using
currently available methods, and the potential for further cost reduction using advanced high-
throughput methods. These manufacturing economies of scale generally apply to all electrolyzer
technologies, though the exact cost curves and cost reduction potential differ.
Figure 8. Schematic of capital cost as a function of manufacturing production rate using currently available methods
(solid) and advanced high-throughput methods (dashed).
Scaling up manufacturing of newly developed materials requires either adjusting currently used
manufacturing processes or designing and implementing new processes. While optimizing
24
performance is a key design parameter for advanced materials, other considerations such as
manufacturing scalability, end-of-life recovery, and use of environmentally friendly processing
methods are also critical in achieving cost-effective and clean electrolysis.
Economies of scale can be achieved by reducing processing time to increase manufacturing

rates, but specific approaches to reducing processing time differ for each electrolyzer
technology given their different materials and cell designs. For PEM electrolyzers, roll-to-roll
manufacturing is one strategy to facilitate fast manufacturing of catalyst-coated membranes and
substrates. For LA electrolyzers, development or validation of manufacturing techniques for
zero-gap and emerging cell designs is crucial for reducing processing times while still meeting
performance goals. For O-SOEC, reducing the time, temperature, and number of thermal
processing steps in sintering and interconnect material processing, as well as replacing batch
with continuous processes, will be essential for achieving faster production rates and therefore
higher-volume manufacturing and reduced cost.
For all electrolyzer technologies, automating cell/stack assembly and reducing the number of
manufacturing steps can improve line throughputs and reduce costs. Challenges remain to
implement quality control mechanisms for high-throughput processes, especially for large cell
areas used in LTEs. The ongoing and rapidly advancing integration of manufacturing
technologies and digitization (known as “Industry 4.0” or the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”) has
the potential to vastly improve manufacturing capability and efficiency [26]. These new
techniques can involve automating traditional manufacturing processes using any number of
combinations of tools including robotics, Internet of Things, big data analytics, artificial
intelligence, and autonomous systems. The primary challenge is to develop the high-throughput
processes; once they have been established, expanding manufacturing capacity in the United
States may occur more rapidly.
25
ELECTROLYZER TECHNOLOGIES: STATUS AND
COST REDUCTION POTENTIAL
Achieving electrolyzer manufacturing economies of scale is
necessary but not sufficient for achieving the goal of Key Electrolyzer Properties
producing hydrogen for $1/kg—further advances in
electrolyzer technology will be needed. RDD&D is needed • System lifetime
to reduce material and equipment capital costs, improve • System performance and
efficiency and performance, and extend the lifetime of efficiency
electrolyzer stacks and systems. This section summarizes • Material, component, and
the current status and unique technical challenges facing equipment costs
each electrolyzer technology.
PEM Electrolyzers
Historically developed for use in underwater vessels

and spacecraft for oxygen generation and applications
requiring a small amount of hydrogen (e.g., gas
chromatographs), PEM electrolyzers are now being
developed for large-scale hydrogen production.
Commercial stacks are typically 0.1–2.5 MW and can be
combined to form multimegawatt (10–100-MW) systems
[27]. The solid polymer membrane electrolyte allows for
high-current-density operation with good efficiency that
enables smaller system footprints compared to LA
electrolyzers. The membrane also helps mitigate
hydrogen gas crossover into the oxygen stream and
allows for generation of hydrogen at differential
pressure (e.g., 30 bar). The PEM electrolyzer design is
amenable to fast, dynamic response, making it ideal for
integrating with variable power sources such as wind
and solar. The main drawback is the acidic operating Figure 9. Schematic of PEM electrolyzer cell.
environment, which limits the materials that can be used

and currently requires the use of PGM catalysts and
coatings.
SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS
Recent analysis has estimated the uninstalled capital cost of PEM electrolyzer systems at
today’s manufacturing volumes to be $700–$1,100/kW [9] [28]. 17 At such capital costs, the
LCOH ranges from $6.00 to $7.20/kg H2 assuming grid electricity and high capacity factors
(Figure 4). Reducing the capital cost of the electrolyzer system can make a substantial impact
17
Note that uninstalled capital cost applies a markup to the manufactured system cost.
26
on the LCOH and can enable these systems to operate at lower capacity factors, a key aspect
of integrating electrolyzers with low-cost renewable power.
Capital cost reductions in the near term are expected to be driven by improved processes
enabling increased manufacturing volumes to achieve economies of scale (as discussed
above). However, to achieve the $1/kg-H2 target, advanced stacks and systems with improved
performance, efficiency, and lifetime are needed in addition to reducing capital cost (Table 2).
As shown in Figure 10, for a 1-MW system manufactured at a rate of 1 GW per year, the stack
constitutes about 30% of the system cost, with the greatest single contributor to the stack cost
being the oxygen-evolution-reaction (OER) electrode, which includes the iridium catalyst. The
membrane is another expensive component in the stack. RD&D efforts targeted at these high-
cost components are important to reduce overall capital costs, though those efforts must also
consider trade-offs with system lifetime and efficiency, parameters that impact operating and
maintenance costs. Priority RD&D opportunities for PEM electrolyzers are highlighted in Table 3
and discussed in greater detail below.
Figure 10. PEM electrolyzer system and stack cost breakdown assuming a 1-MW stack, 1-MW system, and 1-GW/yr
manufacturing rate [28]. Note: HER refers to the hydrogen evolution reaction.
RD&D APPROACHES FOR COST REDUCTION
Materials and Components
PEM electrolyzer technology is proven and has been utilized in niche applications, such as
submarines, for many years; however, these commercial electrolyzers have been
overengineered with a focus on reliability over cost and efficiency. This overengineering
includes the materials and components used in commercial systems today, such as high
amounts of platinum and iridium catalysts and thick membranes.
27
Table 3. Cost Reduction Opportunities for PEM Electrolyzers
Cost Reduction
Approaches
Opportunity
• Reduced precious metal catalyst loading
• Thinner membranes
Capital cost
• Manufacturing at scale
reduction
• Direct integration with renewables
• Standardize BOP, including power electronics.
• Thinner, engineered membranes

Performance and
• Engineered interfaces
efficiency
• High intrinsic catalyst activity and utilization
improvement • Optimize porous transport layer (PTL) design for mass transport.
• Develop accelerated stress tests

Longer lifetime • Optimize membrane/catalyst layer/PTL interfaces
• Improve and validate durability under dynamic operating conditions.
One of the single most expensive components in the PEM electrolyzer stack is the iridium
catalyst in the anode catalyst layer. Iridium is an expensive precious metal and suffers from a
volatile market price, sensitive to disruptions in the supply chain and growing demand. Today’s
electrolyzers utilize about 2 mgIr/cm2 (or 0.5–0.8 gIr/kW assuming 1.9 V to operate at 2 A/cm2)
[27] [28]. Current research efforts explore how reducing the iridium loading by roughly an order
of magnitude impacts the efficiency and durability of the stack. Near-term DOE targets for total
PGM loading are 0.5 mg/cm2, including both platinum and iridium [14]. Ongoing research is
examining ways to replace iridium catalysts with transition metal alternatives, but that research
is further from commercialization [29]. Developing a less expensive anode catalyst layer with
high performance, durability, and efficiency is a critical area of research to achieve the
Hydrogen Shot goal.
The membranes in commercial PEM stacks use perfluorinated polymers that are highly stable
and have high proton conductivity. Such polymers have historically been employed in PEM fuel
cells and chlor-alkali electrolyzers. However, membranes used in commercial PEM electrolyzer
stacks today are fabricated thick enough to reduce hydrogen crossover and provide needed
reliability. Developing novel membranes with properties optimized for electrolyzer operation,
including reducing the membrane thickness by a factor of 3–4, will significantly improve the
stack efficiency (by reducing resistive loss through the membrane) and decrease cost (by using
less material). Membranes may need to be engineered to include gas recombination catalysts
or reinforcement to achieve efficiency and durability targets. Furthermore, due to environmental
concerns about “forever chemicals,” government and industry are investing in research to
reduce or eliminate the use of perfluorinated polymers in membranes. This research focuses on
the development of suitable hydrocarbon membranes that will provide the needed reliability in a
commercial electrolyzer.
PTLs influence stack performance and durability due to their mass transport properties and
electrical resistance in PEM electrolyzer cells. PTL architectures need to be fully optimized for
electrolyzers. In addition, current PTLs made of titanium require precious metal coatings at
28
interfaces to prevent titanium oxidation, which leads to increased resistance and decreased
efficiency. Significant cost reductions can be achieved by reducing material cost (without
sacrificing performance, durability, or efficiency) and optimizing the PTL structure.
Cells and Stacks
As precious metal catalyst loadings are reduced, in order to maintain high performance and
durability, it will be essential to have an optimally efficient and durable interface between the
electrode structure and both the PTL and membrane.
A major unknown inhibiting the commercialization of next-generation electrolyzer technology is

whether advanced materials and components can provide the lifetimes required to meet the
technical targets in Table 2. This question is especially important when considering the dynamic
operating and start/stop conditions arising from the coupling of an electrolyzer to renewable
energy sources. The effect of turning the electrolyzer system on and off repeatedly over time
also has not been adequately studied for its impact on stack durability. Realistically, lifetime
testing for 5 years to prove durability is not feasible and would significantly delay the
introduction of new materials and technologies. Hence, an improved understanding of
electrolyzer degradation mechanisms can be used to project anticipated lifetime and develop
stress tests that accelerate these degradation processes, allowing durability testing to be
completed in a matter of weeks or months instead of years.
Systems
BOP components represent a significant portion of overall system capital costs, especially as
the cost of stacks comes down as stack manufacturing volumes increase and benefit from
economies of scale. The BOP includes power electronics, heaters, pumps, and gas processing
units. Of the BOP components, electrolyzer manufacturers have indicated that there is
significant opportunity to reduce the cost of power electronics [30]. For example, standardized
modular units reduce the need for custom designs and take advantage of economies of scale.
This concept of standardization could apply to other BOP components as well. Modularizing the
BOP or increasing the manufacturing capacity of BOP components may also lead to cost
reductions.
In order to fully realize the potential for PEM electrolyzers to produce low-cost, clean hydrogen,
it will be critical to improve their integration with variable renewable energy sources. PEM
electrolyzers can quickly respond to changes in load, making them well suited to operate on
variable or intermitted power [31]. However, there is a need for more demonstrations of PEM
electrolyzers directly coupled to renewable energy sources (i.e., with minimal power conversion
steps from the renewable energy source to the electrolyzer, without a grid interconnection).
Additional demonstrations will improve our understanding of the electrical BOP equipment
needs, operating strategies, and stack durability requirements.
29
LA Electrolyzers
LA electrolyzers are the most mature electrolyzer

technology today in terms of commercial
availability and deployed capacity. Historically, the
development of LA electrolyzer technology was
driven by hydrogen demand for ammonia
production in regions with low-cost hydroelectric
power. Given the relatively steady availability of
hydroelectricity, these systems were designed to
operate on multimegawatt power continuously at
steady state. Typical stack unit sizes range from
0.5 to 5 MW, and these can be combined into
larger systems, with some current system
installations greater than 100 MW [27] [32]. Today,
LA electrolyzers are being deployed to produce
hydrogen for a wider range of applications,
including mobility and power generation. Still, the Figure 11. Schematic of an LA electrolyzer cell.
relatively large footprint and continuous operating
needs of these conventionally designed systems
remain issues that can be improved [33].
Traditional LA electrolyzers are designed to circulate concentrated alkaline electrolytes (e.g., 7-

M KOH) instead of water to conduct ions between electrodes made primarily of nickel. A
separator material, which is permeable to the electrolyte, mitigates hydrogen and oxygen
crossover between the anode and cathode compartments, and the gaseous products are
produced at near-atmospheric pressures. Historically, relatively large gaps between the
electrodes resulted in a large ohmic resistance, and therefore it was economical to operate at
low current density because it avoided high voltages, and hence low efficiencies. Zero-gap cells
have been designed to address this issue by minimizing the distance between electrodes, but
further improvements are still possible. Additionally, LA electrolyzer designs generally have not
been amenable to dynamic operation (e.g., load-following solar or wind power) because they
are vulnerable to both mechanical and chemical degradation under such variable operating
conditions, and dynamic operation while using a hydrogen compressor is challenging. Despite
limitations in current density and operating conditions, the alkaline operating environment allows
for the use of low-cost materials such as stainless steel and non-precious-metal catalysts. As a
result, while capital costs of LA electrolyzers are lower than their PEM counterparts, they are
less efficient at higher current densities, so efficiency suffers at higher rates of hydrogen
production.
The capital cost of LA electrolyzer systems varies significantly depending on the manufacturer,
ranging from $500/kW to more than $1,500/kW uninstalled cost, although most costs are in the
$500–$750/kW range [3] [34] [35]. Such a low capital cost results in a low LCOH today using
grid electricity ($5.00–$5.50/kg H2, Figure 4). A recent design for manufacturing and assembly
30
cost analysis of a 4-MW stack and 50-MW BOP module was conducted to determine how each
component contributed to the overall cost of the stack and system (assuming a 1-GW/yr
manufacturing rate and current electrolyzer design, Figure 12) [34]. The cost breakdown of the
stack reveals that bipolar plates and cell frames are the largest contributors to stack capital
costs. This result is consistent with the fact that catalyst materials in LA stacks are less costly
than those in PEM stacks. Additionally, this analysis revealed that the BOP accounts for about
52% of the overall system capital cost, of which power electronics (“Electrical BOP” in Figure
12) are the most expensive element.
Figure 12. LA electrolyzer system (left) and stack (right) cost breakdown assuming a 1-GW/yr manufacturing rate, 4-MW
stack, and 50-MW BOP module [34].
The system cost breakdown provides valuable insights for strategies to reduce capital costs.
However, it is important to note that the high manufacturing capacities in place today for mature
LA technologies result in a low system capital cost compared with other electrolyzer
technologies [5].
As a result of the relatively low system capital cost, improving system performance and
efficiency while maintaining durability can drive significant cost reductions and progress toward
the $1/kg goal. In addition, enabling variable and intermittent operation may be a significant
driver of hydrogen cost reduction to enable LA electrolyzers to access low-cost electricity.
These performance improvements will require RD&D of materials; interfaces; cell, stack, and
system designs; and fabrication techniques. Specific RD&D needs and priorities are described
further below and summarized in Table 4.
31
Table 4. Cost Reduction Opportunities in LA
Cost Reduction
Approaches
Opportunity
• Novel components (e.g., separators) and cell/stack designs for high-
current-density operation while maintaining efficiency.
Capital cost reduction
• Standardized BOP, including power electronics.
• Manufacturing-advanced multimegawatt systems at scale.
• Engineered interfaces with high catalyst utilization.

• Novel separator materials and catalysts.
Performance and
• Improved component integration strategies.
efficiency improvement
• Bubble management.
• Novel cell/stack design.
• Novel materials.
Longer lifetime • Cell designs.
• Dynamic operation considerations.
Discussion at a recent experts’ meeting on advanced LA electrolyzers revealed that separator

materials and catalysts have received little attention in recent decades [36]. Innovation in
separator materials is necessary to reach higher current densities at lower voltages, which can
drive down the capital cost (on a dollar-per-kilowatt or dollar-per-kilogram basis) and reduce
operating costs via more efficient electrical operation. Ideal separator materials must be
mechanically and chemically stable and tested at commercially relevant temperatures and
pressures. While thinner separators can reduce resistance, and hence improve efficiency,
mechanical stability can become a challenge, especially if operating the cell at elevated
pressure. A balance is required between these two factors.
Electrodes in commercial LA cells commonly consist of a nickel catalyst coated onto a low-
surface-area substrate (e.g., nickel-coated steel). The result is an extremely durable electrode
but with relatively low performance. To achieve higher performance/efficiency, there remains a
need for catalysts with higher intrinsic activity and for electrode structures with high surface area
and catalyst utilization that are amenable to cell integration. To that end, understanding the
relationship between structure, activity, and stability—and how different manufacturing
processes affect structure—could lead to performance and efficiency improvements. Dynamic
operation and advanced cell designs are also important considerations when developing
catalysts and electrodes for next-generation LA electrolyzer technology.
Cells and Stacks
Next-generation LA electrolyzer cells will likely have a different architecture than traditional LA
electrolyzer cells. Already, developments in cell design have included “zero-gap” architectures
that improve performance by minimizing the distance between the electrodes and the separator.
A high-priority focus area is on developing advanced cells that demonstrate chemical and
mechanical stability under variable operation with high efficiency. Such designs must overcome
32
numerous challenges, particularly during operational periods at low current density. Such
challenges include minimizing shunt currents and managing electrolyte levels. Additional
opportunities for improvement include cells that can operate at higher pressures, which can help
reduce downstream compression costs for hydrogen, and novel components that can withstand
operating pressures near 30 bar.
Innovation in interface engineering and the integration of components into electrodes and cells
could lead to improved efficiency, improved durability, and reduced cost. Interfaces and cell
integration will become more critical with advanced cell designs. Leveraging PEM electrode
developments, such as coating catalysts onto the separator material, could help achieve
improved interfaces and higher manufacturing throughput. However, to design for improved
performance, efficiency, and durability, additional research is needed to understand the
interfaces in LA electrolyzer cells, which could include characterizing bubble and current
distribution within the cell. As the dimensions of the cell increase from lab scale to commercial
scale, it is also critical to characterize next-generation cells and stacks to determine degradation
mechanisms.
Commercial LA cells and stacks have a very long lifetime; however, the impact of advanced
materials, new cell and stack designs, and dynamic operating conditions on durability are
unknown. Similar to PEM electrolyzers, developing accelerated stress tests to understand
degradation mechanisms and determine lifetime in a much shorter time frame is important to
expedite commercialization of next-generation technology.
Systems
Similar to PEM electrolyzers, the BOP equipment represents a significant fraction of the overall
system capital cost for LA electrolyzers (Figure 12), and the cost of power electronics are the
dominant factor in BOP costs. Reducing the capital cost of the BOP equipment could include
approaches such as process intensification and modularizing and standardizing components.
For LA electrolyzers, reducing the need for BOP equipment for electrolyte management, such
as eliminating the potassium hydroxide scrubber through innovative cell designs, could also
reduce capital costs.
Systems for advanced LA electrolyzers could also be designed for dynamic operation. In
traditional LA electrolyzers, rapid changes in current density and gas production create
challenges for differential pressure control and electrolyte level control systems that can lead to
safety hazards. Mitigating shunt currents in the system also becomes increasingly important
when operating at low current densities. Innovative system designs that can overcome these
challenges can result in more durable LA electrolyzers when coupled to variable clean energy
sources.
33
O-SOECs
O-SOECs operate at high temperatures, and they

exhibit a higher electrical efficiency compared with
LTEs. However, their shorter lifetimes and higher
capital costs have hindered market entry and kept
manufacturing volumes low. Their high-temperature
operation (700°C–850°C) enables higher electrical
efficiencies due to the improved kinetics of splitting
water at higher temperatures. However, the high
temperatures are also a major driver of lower cell
durability and shorter stack lifetime. Thermal
integration with a range of heat sources, including
nuclear reactors and other industrial processes (e.g.,
steel production), can provide efficiency and cost
benefits.
O-SOECs have benefitted from decades of R&D of

solid-oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), which have more
extensive commercial deployment worldwide. The Figure 13. Schematic of an O-SOEC.
technology is based on a solid ceramic electrolyte
that conducts oxide ions at high temperatures. Many of the cell and stack components
developed for SOFCs—including the metal interconnects and seals—can be leveraged for O-
SOEC development. Additionally, given the similarities between SOFC and O-SOEC stacks,
solid-oxide technologies have the potential to run as “reversible fuel cells”—to either generate
electricity using hydrogen or generate hydrogen using electricity, with the same stack. This
feature could make them an attractive technology for long-duration energy storage. O-SOECs
have a lower TRL compared with PEM and LA electrolyzers, but early demonstrations (1–5-MW
systems) have begun in the United States [33].
There are far fewer publicly available data on the current cost of O-SOEC electrolyzers than for
LTE technologies, which may be due to their lower levels of deployment. Leaders in O-SOEC
technology development and evaluation at Idaho National Laboratory estimate their current
uninstalled capital cost to be $2,000–$2,500/kW (2020 $). Under this assumption, current O-
SOEC technology can produce hydrogen at a cost of $7.00–$8.00/kg using grid electricity and
natural gas for heat (Figure 4). The natural gas for heat scenario was used to estimate current
costs, as this is most representative of the current status. O-SOECs have high operating
temperatures that require higher-grade heat, which can be provided from either a natural gas
boiler or waste heat from a nuclear power plant or other high-temperature systems [12].
Recent design for manufacturing and assembly analyses have found that the capital cost of
about $950/kW for O-SOEC systems could be achievable when stacks and systems are
manufactured at the gigawatt scale with today’s technology [37]. This finding is significantly
lower than today’s observed uninstalled cost ($2,000–2,500/kW) due to the specific scenario
34
studied: 1-GW/year stack manufacturing is considerably higher than most commercial
production volumes today, and the 1-GW system size is much larger than typical system sizes
available today, which are generally less than 1 MW [5]. Nonetheless, the design for
manufacturing and assembly results provides useful information about the costs of equipment
and components of the stacks and systems.
The cost breakdown shown in Figure 14 is based on a 1-GW system (sized to match a single
nuclear reactor) with 50-kW stacks produced at a manufacturing rate of 1 GW/year. The BOP
represents about 85% of the overall system capital cost, while the stack represents only about
15%. At a lower stack manufacturing rate (50 MW/year), the stack contribution is higher, about
25% of the overall system cost [37]. Of the stack components, interconnect (bipolar plate)
materials and supporting stack infrastructure (end plates) are the biggest contributors to overall
cost.
Figure 14. O-SOEC stack and system cost breakdown based on a 1-GW system and a 50-kW stack, with a manufacturing
rate of 1 GW/year [12].
Key cost reduction pathways include extending the lifetime of O-SOEC cells and stacks,
developing a robust supply chain for BOP components, and decreasing stack and BOP capital
costs. Achieving economies of scale in O-SOEC stack and system manufacturing will also be
critical to meeting the capital cost target (Table 2). Here, we describe specific opportunities at
the component, cell, and system levels.
35
Table 5. O-SOEC Cost Reduction Opportunities
Cost Reduction
Approaches
Opportunity
• Develop low-cost interconnect materials and fabrication processes.

• Enable lower-temperature operation to reduce thermal management costs.
Capital cost
• Standardize BOP, including power electronics and heat recuperators.
reduction
• System design and optimization for low capital costs.
• Develop high-throughput manufacturing techniques.
• Decrease cell resistance.

Performance and
• Improve material contact.
efficiency
• Improve thermal integration.
improvement
• Enable dynamic operation to access low-cost electricity scenarios.
• Reduce operating temperature.

• Reduce electrode contamination and degradation.
• Reduce degradation of interconnects.
Longer lifetime
• Improve material stability with temperature cycling.
• Develop accelerated stress tests to identify additional opportunities to
improve lifetimes.
Degradation of cells and stacks is a key reason for the shorter lifetimes of O-SOECs compared
with the lifetimes of PEM and LA electrolyzers. Degradation generally would be reduced if lower
operating temperatures were possible without affecting overall performance. Higher
temperatures lead to accelerated degradation of interfaces in the cells, which can result in
reduced performance of electrodes and/or electrolyte. Another source of degradation is the
presence of impurities, which can come from glass seals and the inlet gas stream [38]. This
process is also accelerated at higher temperatures. These impurities block active sites on both
electrodes. Developing novel seal materials with less volatile components and scrubbing the
inlet stream of impurities would help mitigate this source of degradation.
In the hydrogen electrode, nickel depletion from the electrode-electrolyte interface and migration
to the support layer is another source of degradation. The reason for this migration is unclear
and requires further research. The oxygen electrode is a perovskite material, typically
lanthanum strontium ferrite cobaltite (LSFC), and other perovskite oxides are being investigated
as well. This high-performing electrode can suffer from degradation when directly in contact with
the yttria-stabilized zirconia electrolyte. To mitigate oxygen electrode degradation, a barrier
layer of gadolinium-doped ceria is commonly placed between the electrolyte and the electrode.
Improvements to the oxygen electrode include focusing on controlling the LSFC oxidation state,
particularly at the interface.
Lastly, there is some evidence that high oxygen pressure within the electrolyte itself can result
in crack formation between the electrolyte and the oxygen electrode, which can also reduce life
36
spans. The cause of the high oxygen pressures is not well understood, but improvements to the
performance of the oxygen electrode may reduce this issue.
Cells and Stacks
Metal interconnects complete the cell circuit and keep adjacent cells in the stack separate from
each other. Most research on metal interconnects has been performed on SOFCs, but it is
expected that the issues related to the interconnect are applicable to O-SOECs as well. High-
chromium-containing alloys are a common interconnect material, and they benefit from the
formation of chromium oxides, which prevent breakaway oxidation while remaining electrically
conductive. However, they are also prone to chromium volatilization, which causes
contamination that reduces the stack’s durability. Degradation also occurs due to oxidative and
reductive gas exposure at high temperature. The addition of protective coatings for the
interconnects is being investigated, particularly for the oxygen electrode side.
Silica glasses are a common seal material used in O-SOEC stacks. As described above, the
seals are a potential source of contamination that contribute to stack degradation. These seals
are a carryover from SOFC stacks, which suggests that there may be opportunities to reduce
degradation by using seals optimized for O-SOEC operation, including under high steam
concentration. The seals also contribute to limitations in the thermal cycling of these high-
temperature stacks. Therefore, a low-cost, easily processable seal material that can withstand
many thermal cycles would be advantageous.
As in the case of next-generation PEM electrolyzers that use new, low-cost materials,
commercialization of O-SOEC technology will be hindered by the need to demonstrate improved
lifetimes (e.g., 5 years). It will be important to complete lifetime testing in weeks or months
instead of years. Hence, one of the biggest needs for O-SOEC technology development is to
greatly improve the understanding of electrolyzer degradation mechanisms, which may require
development of stress tests that effectively accelerate relevant degradation processes.
Systems
Thermal cycling during startup and shutdown periods exacerbates degradation, leading to
shorter lifetimes. Changes in temperature expand and contract all stack components. If the
thermal and chemical expansion of the various components are not adequately matched, the
ceramic cells can fracture, resulting in stack failure. O-SOEC stacks can rapidly respond to
changing loads; however, the impact on lifetime is unknown, and the ability for the overall
system to respond rapidly needs to be further investigated. Larger system demonstrations can
help to understand the ability of the overall system to respond to load cycling, as well as the
impact of load cycling on system lifetimes.
The high operating temperatures of O-SOECs enables extremely efficient use of electricity to
produce hydrogen, and this efficiency can be further improved through integration with an
external heat source. Designing systems that are well thermally integrated with heat sources is
important to maximize the overall efficiency for hydrogen production and make the most of the
available external heat source. Demonstration of O-SOEC systems that are highly integrated
37
with external heat sources (e.g., heat from nuclear reactors, process heat from manufacturing)
is key to maximizing the high electrical efficiency advantages of O-SOECs.
BOP components represent a significant fraction of capital costs for O-SOECs, and this
contribution to overall cost is expected to grow as stack costs come down through economies of
scale. The BOP includes power electronics, steam generators, high-temperature heat
exchangers, pressure vessels, pumps, and water and gas processing units. Of these
components, power electronics are the most expensive. As with other electrolyzer types,
developing a standard off-the-shelf modular unit is one approach to reduce the cost of power
electronics. For power electronics or other BOP components, applying principles of process
intensification to reduce the number of components may also lead to overall cost reductions. In
addition, the stack operating temperature directly impacts the cost of the BOP. Based on current
standards, at temperatures above about 650°C, more expensive nickel-based steel alloys are
needed for some of the heat exchangers and piping in an O-SOEC, while lower temperatures
would allow for the use of less expensive metals. Additional research on non-nickel-based
materials for high-temperature operation may reduce the cost of the BOP without sacrificing
thermal efficiency.
AEM Electrolyzers
AEM electrolyzers are a promising, lower-TRL

hydrogen production technology. AEM electrolyzers
operate at low temperature and use a solid polymer
membrane to transport hydroxide ions between
electrodes (Figure 15). The AEM electrolyzer design
aims to combine the advantages of both PEM and
LA electrolyzers: the alkaline environment enables
the use of non-precious-metal catalysts and less
expensive metal bipolar plates, and the membrane
enables differential pressure operation and operation
at higher current densities than traditional LA
electrolyzers. Due to the inherent alkalinity in the
membrane, pure water can be fed to the electrolyzer
instead of alkaline electrolyte, although current
technology performs better and has higher durability
with an alkaline electrolyte feed. Research efforts are
underway to optimize the electrolyte feed
configuration and other components for high Figure 15. Schematic of AEM electrolyzer cell.
efficiency and durability.
STATUS AND R&D COST REDUCTION APPROACHES
A more thorough techno-economic analysis is ongoing to estimate the potential manufactured

system cost of AEM electrolyzers produced at scale. Although they are still at low TRL and not
produced commercially today, preliminary results suggest that AEM stacks may cost about
$200/kW when manufactured at relatively low production volumes (about 20 MW/year) and
ultimately have the potential to be even less expensive once higher manufacturing volumes
38
(about 300 MW/year) are achieved [39]. This potential for low capital cost is mainly due to lower
material costs in AEM stack designs (e.g., using non-precious-metal catalysts like stainless
steel and inexpensive membranes).
The potential of this technology has been demonstrated, but to compete with existing
technologies, AEM electrolyzers still require significant development to improve stability and
performance while maintaining their low cost. AEM electrolyzers could ultimately achieve
system costs lower than what is projected for PEM electrolyzers due to the lower material costs,
assuming similar efficiency and durability targets can be met. The commercial development of
AEM electrolyzers will likely benefit from the system design (including BOP) and high-
throughput manufacturing techniques developed for PEM electrolyzers, capitalizing on cost
reductions achieved in processes and equipment that are common to both electrolyzer types.
A summary of priority R&D areas for AEM electrolyzers is included in Table 6, with more
detailed descriptions provided below.
Table 6. Priority R&D Opportunities for AEM
Technology Area Priority R&D Opportunities

• Durable membranes and ionomers with high conductivity.
Materials and components • PGM-free electrodes with high catalyst activity, utilization, and
durability.
• Understanding the role of supporting electrolyte and degradation.

Cells and stacks • Opportunities to eliminate electrolyte.
• Component integration strategies.
R&D of chemically and thermally stable membranes and ionomers with high ionic conductivity
could enable the longer stack lifetimes required for deployment of reliable AEM electrolyzers.
Ionomers are the polymeric backbone of the membrane and serve as the catalyst binder in the
electrode. The ionomer provides the ion-conducting properties both as electrolyte for the cell
and as ion transport to and from the active catalyst sites. These materials can degrade in both
the membrane and the catalyst layer (e.g., via oxidation reactions) and reduce the lifetime of the
cell. Key design parameters for alkaline exchange ionomers and membranes include fast
hydroxide ion transport, low chemical degradation rates, and thermal stability. More research is
needed to understand the impacts of the electrolyte on membrane and ionomer stability.
Improvements in cell and stack efficiency can be achieved through enhanced catalyst activity,
greater catalyst utilization, and optimized electrolyte conditions. The catalytic needs for AEM
electrolyzers are similar to those of LA electrolyzers. There are several PGM-free materials
currently being researched to serve as the hydrogen and oxygen catalysts [40]. As with LA
electrolyzers, nickel or nickel alloys are common catalyst materials, but other catalyst classes
are being investigated as well. There has been limited testing of PGM-free catalysts in full cell
configurations. Incorporating the catalyst into an electrode structure that also contains an
39
ionomer has been challenging due to catalyst delamination and/or ionomer loss. Understanding
the durability of electrodes as a function of ionomer, catalysts, the ionomer/catalyst interface,
and supporting electrolyte is a significant challenge that requires additional research to improve
AEM electrolyzer durability and performance.
Cells and Stacks
One potential advantage of AEM electrolyzers compared with LA electrolyzers is the use of pure
water electrolyte instead of concentrated alkaline electrolyte. However, performance and
durability can be significantly improved when a low concentration of supporting electrolyte (e.g.,
<0.5-M KOH or Na2CO3) is added to the water feed. A better fundamental understanding of the
impact of supporting electrolyte on AEM cell, component, and material performance and
durability is needed to determine if this performance and durability gap between pure water and
supporting electrolyte operation can be closed. Following such studies, the trade-offs between
performance (i.e., efficiency and durability) and cost (i.e., feedstock and maintenance) can be
better quantified. Ultimately, the decision on whether to feed pure water or a low-concentration
electrolyte to the electrolyzer will be based on overall economics across the lifetime of the
electrolyzer.
To achieve commercial viability, AEM electrolyzers will need carefully optimized improvements
in membrane electrode assembly fabrication. A catalyst-coated membrane technique, similar to
that used in PEM electrolyzers, is one approach for fabrication. However, there are a host of
issues in applying this method to AEM electrolyzers. The hot-pressing technique used in PEM
electrode design cannot be used for current AEM electrolyzer materials because it can damage
the membrane and/or electrodes. Catalyst-coated, membrane-based cells can suffer from
delamination of the catalyst layer, membrane degradation, ionomer degradation, drying of the
membrane due to gas phase evolution, and loss of electrical contact with current collectors.
Improved interface engineering between the membrane and catalyst layers, as well as
optimization of the electrode structure and components, could alleviate these issues.
40
P-SOECs
P-SOECs are being developed as a lower-

temperature (450 Celsius [°C]–650°C) alternative to
O-SOECs. The combination of lower operating
temperatures and proton conduction provide cost
advantages over O-SOECs. Lower temperatures are
made possible by the lower activation energy of
proton-conducting ceramic electrolytes compared
with oxide-ion-conducting electrolytes. P-SOECs also
have the potential for high efficiencies, similar to O-
SOECs. However, significant advances are needed to
move this low-TRL technology from the R&D phase to
commercial readiness.
STATUS AND R&D COST REDUCTION

Figure 16. Schematic of a P-SOEC.
APPROACHES
Preliminary results indicate the costs associated with P-SOEC stacks can be similar to those of
O-SOECs, given their similar cell design and energy efficiency [39]. P-SOECs have the potential
for lower capital costs than their O-SOEC counterparts because their lower operating
temperature enables the use of less expensive metals in both the stack and BOP. Additionally,
P-SOECs can directly produce dry hydrogen, removing the need for an additional hydrogen-
drying system and providing opportunities to pressurize within the stack. Pressurizing within the
stack can simplify the system design and reduce the overall cost of operation. The main barriers
to commercial development of P-SOECs are the challenge of achieving both the needed
material strength and high protonic conductivity (which are inversely related), and, similar to O-
SOECs, the high cost of thermal treatment to make dense electrolyte powders. Additional R&D
will be needed in these areas to produce stable, efficient P-SOECs at low cost.
Given the relatively low TRL and lack of commercial P-SOECs today, this technology may not
be manufactured at a large enough scale to significantly contribute to commercial production of
hydrogen that meets the Hydrogen Shot target by 2031. However, if P-SOECs can meet similar
performance, efficiency, and durability targets as O-SOECs (Table 2), it is anticipated that P-
SOECs could ultimately achieve system costs lower than what is projected for O-SOECs. This
is largely due to lower material costs (e.g., the potential to use conventional stainless steels
instead of costly nickel-based superalloys or ceramic components) and simplified BOP. P-
SOECs will also benefit from the development, manufacturing, and commercialization of O-
SOECs due to similarities in system design, cell design, and some materials. A summary of
priority areas for R&D of P-SOEC electrolyzers is shown in Table 7, with more detailed
descriptions provided below.
41
Table 7. P-SOEC Priority RD&D
Technology
R&D Opportunities
Area
• Stable, efficient, mechanically robust electrolyte
Materials and
capable of scale-up.
components
• Improved oxygen electrode.
Cells and • Development of lower-cost metal interconnects.
stacks • Novel engineering solutions and fabrication methods.
Electrolytes for P-SOECs must have high proton conductivity, low electronic conductivity, and
sufficient mechanical properties and stability to withstand high-humidity atmospheres with either
strong reducing or oxidizing effects. The leading candidates for these electrolytes are doped
BaZrO3 and BaZr1-xCexO3 perovskite oxides. The former is relatively stable in steam
environments; however, it has a relatively low proton conductivity and can suffer from poor
sinterability and mechanical properties. The latter is an improvement on the BaZrO3-based
material for sinterability and improved protonic conductivity but has limited stability in a high
steam environment. Also, under some operating conditions relevant to P-SOEC electrolyzer
operation (steam concentration, current density/voltage, and temperature), these materials,
especially those with ceria, exhibit significant electronic conduction through the electrolyte,
resulting in a decrease in cell and stack electrical efficiency. Additionally, these materials are not
as mechanically strong as O-SOEC electrolytes. Materials R&D is needed to find the required
combination of electrical, mechanical, and chemical properties to arrive at an electrolyte
material that displays high performance, high efficiency, and long lifetime under the range of
electrolyzer operating conditions of interest (e.g., less than 600°C, high steam concentration).
Cells and Stacks
Another approach to overcoming the challenges with the proton-conducting electrolyte is to

engineer around the materials-based limitations. Possible approaches include depositing a very
thin layer of a different compatible proton-conducting electrolyte on the BaZr1-xCexO3 electrolyte
that is stable in steam, adding a sintering aid to decrease the sintering temperature of BaZrO3,
and engineering the interfaces to improve electrochemical performance and durability. Also,
new fabrication techniques that facilitate the manufacture of larger cells are needed to
overcome the poor mechanical properties of some of these materials.
As with O-SOECs, chromium poisoning from the metal interconnects is a concern, even at
reduced temperatures. It is expected that the poisoning of the electrolyte and oxygen electrode
with chromium species would reduce the lifetime of P-SOECs, perhaps even more significantly
than in O-SOECs, due to the higher volatility of chromium species in the “wet” oxidizing
environments unique to P-SOECs. However, few studies have investigated the effect of
chromium on P-SOECs. Lower-cost metallic interconnects could also be an option to
significantly reduce costs, but more research needs to be done to understand the corrosion and
oxidation behavior in typical P-SOEC operating conditions and how this might affect lower-cost
metals.
42
ENERGY SYSTEM INTEGRATION: STATUS AND
COST REDUCTION POTENTIAL
To produce clean hydrogen, electrolyzers must be able to
use electricity generated from renewable or nuclear energy Key Factors for Energy
sources. As the grid is decarbonized with renewable and System Integration
nuclear energy, electrolyzers could tie directly to the grid to
produce clean hydrogen. However, electricity price • Integration with clean
forecasts for a decarbonized grid are significantly higher energy sources
than what is needed for electrolyzers to achieve the • Electricity price
Hydrogen Shot [15]. While it may not be possible to • Capacity factor
achieve the Hydrogen Shot using electricity purchased • Installation costs
from the grid, there may be economically viable
opportunities for electrolyzers to use grid electricity. For example, renewable electricity that
would otherwise be curtailed can be used to produce hydrogen for long-duration energy
storage, thereby providing additional revenue to renewable generators and increasing the value
of renewable electricity sources to the grid [41].
In addition to helping to meet the Hydrogen Shot goal, tying electrolyzers directly to renewable
energy sources can also provide other advantages. For example, electrolyzers can be coupled
to wind farms awaiting grid interconnection (which can involve delays of months or years) to
start utilizing the available clean electricity immediately and avoid the costs associated with
unused capital-intensive assets. The direct coupling of power from wind turbines or solar panels
to electrolyzers can also eliminate some electrical BOP equipment, reducing the overall system
cost.
However, there are challenges that must be overcome to realize the full benefits of directly
coupled electrolyzers. For example, an electrolyzer directly coupled to a variable renewable
power source is likely to have a limited capacity factor, determined by the availability of
renewable energy. Low capacity factors will drive up the cost of hydrogen, even more so with
electrolyzers that have high capital cost. In addition, more research is needed to understand
and quantify the impact of variable power load profiles on electrolyzer performance and lifetime.
This is an active area of research supported by the DOE Hydrogen Program [42]. Potential
solutions to these challenges could include:
• Hybrid energy systems with multiple clean energy sources and backup energy
storage systems can increase the electrolyzer’s capacity factor. In addition, there are
opportunities for more complex, fully integrated hybrid systems to produce lower-cost
hydrogen. For example, nuclear-renewable-hydrogen hybrid systems can provide grid
services and coproduce low-cost, clean hydrogen (which can be used directly as a fuel
or as a feedstock in the production of e-fuels) [43]. System-level decisions, such as the
inclusion of load-leveling batteries, can also influence electrolyzer operation
requirements (e.g., ramp rate, minimum turndown) that ultimately impact electrolyzer
durability and replacement costs. Holistic system techno-economic analyses are
important in quantifying those trade-offs and the overall impact on the cost of hydrogen.
43
• Optimizing operating strategies, such as turning down the electrolyzer rather than
turning it off, to reduce wear related to startup and shutdown processes [10].
• Redesigning renewable energy technologies, such as wind turbines, for optimal

hydrogen production instead of optimal electricity production [44].
The DOE Hydrogen Program is investigating a number of scenarios to better understand the
impact on overall system economics of the variable renewable power load profiles involved in
direct coupling. The program is also conducting ongoing analysis to quantify potential cost
reductions and other benefits associated with direct coupling of electrolyzers to renewable
power and integration with thermal energy sources at existing nuclear power plants [45] [46].
While RD&D efforts to reduce hardware costs (for stack and system) and operating costs of
electrolyzers are important to enable commercial deployment, it is also important to look beyond
hardware and operations costs and consider balance-of-system costs, or “soft” costs,
associated with electrolyzer deployment, installation, and overall integration into the energy
system. Soft costs include all expenses that can contribute to the total cost of ownership of the
electrolyzer system, except for electrolyzer system hardware, feedstock, electricity, operations,
and maintenance. Examples include site preparation (e.g., concrete pads, water and electrical
hookups), land, permits, commissioning, and delivery. These costs today are nontrivial and can
be comparable to system capital costs. Some soft costs may decrease as the industry matures
and more large-scale (>100-MW) electrolyzer systems are installed. Optimizing system designs
to minimize installation complexity, potentially through modularization and/or standardization,
will also help reduce these costs. As hardware and operating costs continue to decrease, soft
costs are becoming increasingly important to the economics of electrolytic hydrogen production
[47].
Current analysis tools for electrolyzer technologies, such as DOE’s H2A tool, estimate soft costs
assuming a certain percentage of capital expenses, following guidance provided by the
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International [8]. However, it is important
to differentiate between types of electrolyzer technologies, system sizes, end uses, and site
locations, because those factors could significantly affect the soft costs. With a growing number
of electrolyzer installations both domestically and internationally, more real-world soft cost data
are becoming available. Quantifying soft costs from past and current installations will not only
improve general understanding of electrolyzer economics, but also provide insight into potential
impediments to deployment. Potential approaches to reducing soft costs for electrolyzer projects
may include providing technical assistance to state and local governments to accelerate
planning, siting, and permitting activities; developing modularized, designed-for-installation
systems to reduce construction, installation, and engineering costs; and creating training
materials and programs that support the growth of a skilled workforce.
44
CONCLUSION
The use of water electrolyzers for hydrogen production will be critical to meeting DOE’s
Hydrogen Shot goal. This technology assessment pulls from numerous resources to summarize
the current state of the field in terms of cost, commercial and manufacturing readiness,
performance, lifetime, and deployment, while highlighting opportunities for advances through
RDD&D across several different types of electrolyzers: PEM, LA, O-SOEC, AEM, and P-SOEC.
With well-focused, sustained investments in RDD&D, and based on specific scenarios

integrating with renewable and/or nuclear power generation, the three most commercially
mature electrolyzer technologies—PEM, LA, and O-SOEC—show the potential to achieve the
Hydrogen Shot goal and realize an LCOH of $1/kg within a decade. In the longer term, the two
lower-TRL technologies—AEM and P-SOEC—have potential advantages over these three with
successful further technology developments. The techno-economic analysis conducted here
utilized technical inputs from a number of sources referenced throughout this document, using
published electrolyzer technical targets. It is based on clean energy scenarios representing the
current grid, current clean energy resources, and future projections of hybrid clean energy
systems. Other factors that influence cost, such as the sale of byproducts or the Clean
Hydrogen Production Tax Credit (45V), were not considered in this analysis but could further
reduce the LCOH.
The five electrolyzer technologies included in this assessment are on different technology
development timelines and at different levels of commercialization. Furthermore, the different
technologies will be more competitive in some end uses and with certain clean energy
resources than others. With government and industry projections of significant growth in
demand for clean hydrogen for multiple end uses, it is likely that there will be viable and
important roles for all of these technologies. And with such a diverse array of applications for
hydrogen across multiple sectors, each with their own particular needs, it appears unlikely that
only one or two electrolyzer technologies will completely dominate the market.
The key RDD&D opportunities to achieve the Hydrogen Shot goals can be bundled into three
main areas: technology advancements, manufacturing and economies of scale, and clean
energy system integration. Efforts in all three areas are needed; innovations in one alone will
not be sufficient to reduce the cost of hydrogen to $1/kg. Achieving the Hydrogen Shot goal will
require a strategic allocation of resources and efforts across these areas. DOE’s Hydrogen
Program, as well as the Hydrogen Interagency Task Force, are well positioned to address these
broad RD&D needs to enable cost-effective, clean H2 production in the years to come, and to
play an important role in achieving national climate and energy goals [48].
45
REFERENCES
[1] DOE, "Hydrogen Shot Technology Assessment: Thermal Conversion Approaches,"

December 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-
analysis/details?id=38898e1c-4e2a-4677-81dd-4fa5812c73f3.
[2] DOE, "U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap," 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/library/roadmaps-vision/clean-hydrogen-strategy-
roadmap.
[3] DOE, "Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen," March 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/20230320-Liftoff-Clean-H2-vPUB.pdf.
[4] Executive Order 14008, "Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad," January 2021.
[Online]. Available: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/01/2021-
02177/tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-ab.
[5] Hydrogen Council, "Hydrogen Insights 2023," 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://hydrogencouncil.com/en/hydrogen-insights-2023-december-update/.
[6] DOE, "Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap," September 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/industrial-technologies/doe-industrial-decarbonization-roadmap.
[7] DOE, "The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization," January 2023.
[Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/the-us-national-
blueprint-for-transportation-decarbonization.pdf.
[8] NREL, "H2A-Lite," 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/h2a-lite.html.
[9] DOE, "Clean Hydrogen Production Cost Scenarios with PEM Electrolyzer Technology,"
2024 May 20. [Online]. Available:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/24005-clean-
hydrogen-production-cost-pem-electrolyzer.pdf..
[10] J. King, "Hybrid Energy System to H2 to Green Steel/Ammonia," 6 June 2023. [Online].
Available:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/review23/sdi001_h
ammond_2023_o-pdf.pdf.
[11] NREL, "2023 Electricity ATB Technologies and Data Overview," 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2023/index.
[12] D. S. Wendt, "High Temperature Steam Electrolysis Process Performance and Cost
Estimates," March 2022. [Online]. Available: doi:10.2172/1867883.
[13] D. Leighton, "ARIES / Flatirons Facility - Hydrogen System Capability Buildout," 8 May
2024. [Online]. Available:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/review24/ta048_lei
ghton_2024_o.pdf?sfvrsn=1bc055ce_3.
[14] DOE, "Water Electrolyzer Technical Targets," 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-related-links#targets.
46
[15] P. Denholm, "Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035,"
August 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/100-percent-clean-
electricity-by-2035-study.html.
[16] J. Remer, "Process for Significant Nuclear Work Function Innovation Based on Integrated
Operations Concepts," August 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://lwrs.inl.gov/content/uploads/11/2024/03/ProcessSignificantNuclearWorkFunctionInn
ovation.pdf.
[17] A. A. Elgowainy, "Electrolyzers for Hydrogen Production: Solid Oxide, Alkaline, and Proton
Exchange Membrane," ANL, Elgowainy, A., et al. Electrolyzers for Hydrogen Production:
Solid Oxide, Alkaline, and Proton Exchange Membrane. Argonne National Laboratory,
ANL/ESIA-22/3 (2022)., 2022.
[18] A. A. Elgowainy, "Hydrogen Life-Cycle Analysis in Support of Clean Hydrogen Production,"
ANL, 2022.
[19] Hydrogen Council, "Hydrogen decarbonization pathways: A life-cycle assessment,"
January 2021. [Online]. Available: https://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/Hydrogen-Council-Report_Decarbonization-Pathways_Part-1-
Lifecycle-Assessment.pdf.
[20] ANL, "GREET," December 2023. [Online]. Available: https://greet.es.anl.gov.
[21] WaterSMART Solutions Ltd., "Water for the Hydrogen Economy," November 2020.
[Online]. Available: https://watersmartsolutions.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Water-for-
the-Hydrogen-Economy_WaterSMART-Whitepaper_November-2020.pdf.
[22] E. Connelly, "Resource Assessment for Hydrogen," July 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/77198.pdf.
[23] IEA, "Global Hydrogen Review 2023," December 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2023#overview.
[24] DOE, "H2 Matchmaker," April 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2-matchmaker.
[25] DOE, "Biden-Harris Administration Announces $750 Million to Support America’s Growing
Hydrogen Industry as Part of Investing in America Agenda," 13 March 2024. [Online].
Available: https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-750-
million-support-americas-growing-hydrogen.
[26] SAP, "What is industry 4.0?," [Online]. Available:
https://www.sap.com/products/scm/industry-4-0/what-is-industry-4-0.html. [Accessed
January 2024].
[27] Fraunhofer Institute, "Cost Forecast for Low Temperature Electrolysis – Technology Driven
Bottom-up Prognosis for PEM and Alkaline Water Electrolysis Systems," October 2021.
[Online]. Available: https://publica-rest.fraunhofer.de/server/api/core/bitstreams/459031bc-
d874-4a24-b2af-5300add8a045/content.
[28] A. Badgett, "Updated Manufactured Cost Analysis for Proton Exchange Membrane Water
Electrolyzers," 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/87625.pdf.
[29] DOE, "ElectroCat," 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.electrocat.org/.
47
[30] DOE, "H2-PACE: Power And Control Electronics for Hydrogen Technologies Meeting,"
December 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2-pace-power-
and-control-electronics-hydrogen-technologies-meeting.
[31] K. Nagasawa, "Electrolyzer Grid Integration Study," November 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2020/12/f82/h2iq-webinar-november2020.pdf.
[32] Y. M. Acevedo, "Hydrogen Production Cost with Alkaline Electrolysis," October 2023.
[Online]. Available: doi:10.2172/2203367.
[33] IEA, "Hydrogen Project Database," October 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/hydrogen-projects-
database#overview.
[34] B. James, "Liquid Alkaline Techno-economic Review," January 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/7-TEA-
Liquid%20Alkaline%20Workshop.pdf.
[35] IRENA, "Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction: Scaling up Electrolysers to Meet the 1.5⁰C
Climate Goal," December 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Dec/IRENA_Green_hydrogen_cost_2020.pd
f?rev=95b8c10569874148a44e1d17b301d263.
[36] DOE, "Advanced Liquid Alkaline Electrolysis Experts Meeting Report," January 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/advanced-liquid-alkaline-
electrolysis-experts-meeting.
[37] J. Prosser, "Cost Analysis of Hydrogen Production by High-Temperature Solid Oxide
Electrolysis," Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 4, pp. 207-227, March 2023.
[38] S. D. Ebbesen, "Poisoning of Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells by Impurities," Journal of The
Electrochemical Society, vol. 10, no. 157, pp. B1419-B1429, 2010.
[39] B. James, "Final Report: H2 Production Pathways Cost Analysis (2016 - 2021),"
December 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2172/2280867.
[40] H. A. Miller, "Green hydrogen from anion exchange membrane water electrolysis: a review
of recent developments in critical materials and operating conditions," Sustainable Energy
Fuels, no. 5, pp. 2114-2133, 2020.
[41] A. Badgett, "Chapter 10 - Economic considerations for hydrogen production with a focus
on polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis," Electrochemical Power Sources:
Fundamentals, Systems, and Applications, pp. 327-364, 2022.
[42] DOE, "H2NEW," 2024. [Online]. Available: https://h2new.energy.gov/.
[43] DOE, "Hybrid Energy Systems: Opportunities for Coordinated Research," April 2021.
[Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77503.pdf.
[44] C. Bay, "Optimal Wind Turbine Design for H2 Production," 7 June 2023. [Online].
Available:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/review23/ta061_ba
y_2023_o-pdf.pdf.
[45] A. Barker, "U.S. Wind to Hydrogen Modeling Analysis, Testing, and Collaboration," June
2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review22/ta060_sprik_2022_o.pdf.
48
[46] DOE, "DOE Awards $22.1 Million to Advance Promising Nuclear Technologies," May
2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-awards-221-million-
advance-promising-nuclear-technologies.
[47] DOE, "Electrolyzer Installation Webinar," 27 Sept 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/electrolyzer-installation-webinar.
[48] DOE, "Hydrogen Interagency Task Force," 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/interagency.
[49] DOE, "H2A," November 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/h2a-
production-models.html.
[50] EIA, "Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector," 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_02_10.html.
[51] Energy Information Administration, "Form ETA-860 detailed data with previous form data
(EIA-860/860B)," 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/.
[52] Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, "Wind Power Purchase Agreement Prices," 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://emp.lbl.gov/wind-power-purchase-agreement-ppa-prices.
[53] C. Murphy, "Complementarity of Renewable Energy-Based Hybrid Systems," U.S.
Department of Energy, Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium, Vols. DOE/GO-
102023-5896, 2023.
49
APPENDIX
The Hydrogen Analysis Lite Production (H2A-Lite) model, a peer-reviewed, national-laboratory-
developed model and simplified successor to the original Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) model, was
used to determine the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) production in units of 2020 $/kg H2 for
Figure 4 [8]. The modeled systems are stand-alone, grid-connected electrolyzers with a
nominal hydrogen production capacity of about 50,000 kg/day. 18 Methods from previously
published H2A production models and reports were used to determine inputs into H2A-Lite [49].
Key assumptions summarized in the following tables are based heavily on U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) water electrolysis technical targets developed for generalized proton exchange
membrane (PEM), liquid alkaline (LA), and oxide-ion-conducting solid-oxide electrolyzer cell (O-
SOEC) electrolyzers using inputs from several key industry and national laboratory collaborators
with relevant experience in electrolyzer technology and techno-economic analysis [14].
Assumptions are also consistent with a number of previous reports. 19 All other required
parameters in H2A-Lite default to the assumptions for the “Central Grid Electrolysis (PEM)”
(PEM and LA) and “Central Grid Electrolysis (SOEC)” (O-SOEC) case studies embedded in the
model.
18
This system size is consistent with the current trend in deployed electrolyzer systems.
19
Uninstalled capital cost, system efficiency, and replacement interval are consistent with the range of values in [3], [27], and [35].
50
Table A-1. Key Parameters Used To Determine Hydrogen Levelized Cost for PEM Electrolyzers in
H2A-Lite 20
PEM – Current PEM – 2026 PEM – 2031

Parameter
Status Target Target
Nominal hydrogen production capacity 50,000 kg/day 50,000 kg/day 50,000 kg/day
Stack rated power requirement (BOL) 106 MW 100 MW 90 MW
System rated power requirement (BOL) 115 MW 106 MW 96 MW
System rated power requirement

120 MW 111 MW 100 MW
(average)
Plant startup year 2020 2020 2020
System life 30 yr 30 yr 30 yr
Uninstalled capital cost (2020 $) 21 $700–$1,100/kW $250/kW $150/kW
Total installed capital (2020 $) 22 $1,400–$2,200/kW $385/kW $210/kW
Annual fixed operating cost (2020 $/yr) 23 $70–$110/kW/yr $19/kW/yr $11/kW/yr
2 A/cm2 @ 1.9 3 A/cm2 @ 1.8 3 A/cm2 @ 1.6

Stack operating point (BOL)
V/cell V/cell V/cell
40,000 operating 80,000 operating 80,000 operating

Stack replacement interval 24
hours hours hours
Voltage degradation rate 4.8 mV/kh 2.3 mV/kh 2 mV/kh
11% of total 11% of total 11% of total

Replacement costs 25
installed cost installed cost installed cost
Stack electricity usage (BOL) 51 kWh/kg 48 kWh/kg 43 kWh/kg
System electricity usage (BOL) 55.2 kWh/kg 51 kWh/kg 46 kWh/kg
System electricity usage (average) 57.5 kWh/kg 53.3 kWh/kg 47.9 kWh/kg
System thermal energy usage - - -
Water/steam usage 3.78 gal/kg 3.78 gal/kg 3.78 gal/kg
20
Parameters for all years based on [14].
21
Uninstalled electrolyzer system capital cost in 2020 $/kW, which includes the cost of the electrolyzer stack and balance of plant
(BOP) (including markup from the manufacturer), normalized by the rated beginning of life (BOL) stack power.
22
Total installed capital cost normalized by the rated BOL stack power. Total installed capital estimated as about 2 times (Current
Status), 1.55 times (2026 Target), and 1.4 times (2031 Target) the uninstalled capital cost to represent learning in installations over
time from first-of-a-kind (Current Status) to nth-of-a-kind plants (2031 Target).
23
Fixed operating costs estimated as 5% of the total installed capital cost and normalized by the rated BOL stack power.
24
Replacement intervals given in units of operating hours will have variable replacement intervals in years depending on the
capacity factor.
25
11% of total installed cost corresponds to about 15% of direct capital cost, consistent with H2A methodology.
51
Table A-2. Key Parameters Used To Determine Hydrogen Levelized Cost for LA Electrolyzers in
H2A-Lite 26
LA – Current LA – 2026 LA – 2031

Parameter
Status Target Target
Stack rated power requirement (BOL) 106 MW 100 MW 94 MW
System rated power requirement (BOL) 115 MW 108 MW 100 MW

119 MW 113 MW 105 MW
(average)
Uninstalled capital cost (2020 $) 27 $500–$750/kW $250/kW $150/kW
$1,000–
Total installed capital (2020 $) 28 $385/kW $210/kW
$1,500/kW
0.5 A/cm2 @ 1.9 1 A/cm2 @ 1.8 2 A/cm2 @ 1.7


hours hours hours

Voltage degradation rate 4.8 mV/kh 2.3 mV/kh 2.1 mV/kh
System electricity usage (BOL) 55 kWh/kg 52 kWh/kg 48 kWh/kg
System electricity usage (average) 57.3 kWh/kg 54.3 kWh/kg 50.4 kWh/kg
System thermal energy usage - - -
26
Parameters for all years based on [14]. Additionally, range of capital cost for Current Status based on 4.5-MW stacks and 10-MW
system modules from [32].
27
Uninstalled electrolyzer system capital cost in 2020 $/kW, which includes the cost of the electrolyzer stack and BOP (including
markup from the manufacturer), normalized by the rated BOL stack power.
28
29
30
capacity factor.
31
52
Table A-3. Key Parameters Used To Determine Hydrogen Levelized Cost for O-SOEC Electrolyzers
in H2A-Lite 32
O-SOEC –
O-SOEC – O-SOEC –
Parameter Current
2026 Target 2031 Target
Status
Stack rated power requirement (BOL) 71 MWel 71 MWel 71 MWel
100 MW 93 MW 89 MW
System rated power requirement (BOL) (79 MWel, 21 (75 MWel, 18 (73 MWel, 16
MWth) MWth) MWth)
103 MW 97 MW 92 MW
(82 MWel, 21 (79 MWel, 18 (76 MWel, 16
(average)
MWth) MWth) MWth)
Uninstalled capital cost (2020 $) 33 $2,000–$2,500/kW $500/kW $200/kW
Total installed capital (2020 $) 34 $4,000–$5,000/kW $775/kW $280/kW
0.6 A/cm2 @ 1.28 1.2 A/cm2 @ 1.28 2 A/cm2 @ 1.28
hours hours hours
Voltage degradation rate 6.4 mV/kh 3.2 mV/kh 1.6 mV/kh
System electricity usage (BOL) 38 kWh/kg 36 kWh/kg 35 kWh/kg
System electricity usage (average) 40 kWh/kg 38 kWh/kg 37 kWh/kg
System thermal energy usage 38 9 kWh/kg 8 kWh/kg 7 kWh/kg
32
Parameters for all years based on [14]. For Current Status, uninstalled capital cost range is based on input from Idaho National
Laboratory and is consistent with [3].
33
Uninstalled electrolyzer system capital cost in 2020 $/kW, which includes the cost of the electrolyzer stack and BOP (including
markup from the manufacturer), normalized by rated BOL stack power.
34
35
36
capacity factor.
37
38
Natural gas assumed to be the thermal energy source in the LCOH calculation using default H2A-Lite price assumptions. In some
applications, thermal energy may be provided by industrial processes.
53
Table A-4. Financial Assumptions for All Scenarios (All Technologies, All Years)
Financial Assumptions
Real return on equity 10.89%
Debt/equity 0.62
Interest rate 5%
Modified accelerated cost

Depreciation type
recovery system (MACRS)
MACRS depreciation period 20 yr
Total income tax rate 25.74%
1.0 month of operating

Cash on hand
expenses
Dollar-year basis 2020
Financial specifications were selected to result in a ~10% nominal weighted average cost of
capital (WACC).
54
Table A-5. LCOH (2020 $/kg) for Each Electricity Scenario Shown in Figure 4
Electricity Capacity LCOH

Scenario Price Factor 39 (2020 $/kg)
(cents/kWh) (%) PEM LA O-SOEC
Current Technology Status

Grid, U.S. average industrial 7.4 97% 6.07–7.23 5.56–6.17 7.15–8.14
2026 Target Scenarios

Future grid, low estimate 6.5 97% 4.00 4.06 3.35
Future grid, high estimate 10.0 97% 5.89 5.98 4.69
Land-based wind, Class 1, 2026 advanced 2.0 54% 1.90 1.91 2.11
Land-based wind, Class 1, 2026 conservative 2.4 50% 2.17 2.19 2.34
Conventional nuclear power, low estimate 1.8 97% 1.46 1.48 1.56
Conventional nuclear power, high estimate 3.0 97% 2.11 2.14 2.02
Hybrid system, half size (with aggressive

1.2 74% 1.26 1.27 1.52
renewable generation cost reductions)
Hybrid system, same size (with renewable

1.0 40% 1.62 1.62 2.09
generation PTC)
2031 Target Scenarios

Future grid, low estimate 6.0 97% 3.17 3.33 2.66
Future grid, high estimate 7.0 97% 3.65 3.84 3.03
Land-based wind, Class 1, 2031 advanced 1.7 57% 1.23 1.28 1.21
Land-based wind, Class 1, 2031 conservative 2.3 51% 1.56 1.64 1.48
Conventional nuclear power, low estimate 1.8 97% 1.14 1.19 1.10
Conventional nuclear power, high estimate 3.0 97% 1.72 1.80 1.54
Hybrid system, half size (with aggressive

1.2 74% 0.91 0.95 0.94
Hybrid system, same size (with aggressive

1.0 40% 1.03 1.08 1.10
39
This value corresponds to “Utilization” in the H2A-Lite tool.
55
Table A-6. LCOH (2020 $/kg) for the PEM Electrolysis Pathway to H2 Shot Shown in Figure 6

Technology
Electricity Scenario Price Factor 41 (2020
Year 40
(cents/kWh) (%) $/kg)
Current Grid, U.S. average industrial 7.4 97% 6.65
Land-based wind, Class 1, 2023 moderate,

Current
without renewable generation PTC
2.6 51% 5.64
Hybrid system, half size, without renewable

Current
generation PTC
2.9 74% 4.65

2026
generation PTC
2.9 74% 2.18

2031
generation PTC
2.9 74% 1.73
Hybrid system, half size, with renewable

2031
generation PTC
1.2 74% 0.91
Table A-7. LCOH (2020 $/kg) for the High-Temperature Electrolysis Pathway to H2 Shot
Shown in Figure 6

Technology
Electricity Scenario Price Factor 42 (2020
Year
(cents/kWh) (%) $/kg)
Current Grid, U.S. average industrial 7.4 97% 7.34
2026 Grid, U.S. average industrial 7.4 90% 4.17
2026 Tight Integration with Nuclear Plant 3.0 95% 1.99
2031 Tight Integration with Nuclear Plant 3.0 95% 1.50
2031 Optimized Integration/Flexible Operation 43 2.0 95% 1.00
40
Current technology cases assume an average of high and low capital cost estimates from Table A-1.
41
42
43
Includes oxygen sales offset of $0.1/kg-H2.
56
Table A-5 shows the range of hydrogen levelized cost for PEM, LA, and O-SOEC technologies
based on the parameters in Table A-1–Table A-4 for the different electricity source scenarios
further detailed below:
• Grid: While not considered “clean,” grid cases are included here as reference points
using industrial electricity prices from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which
catalogues annual pricing across individual states and regions [50]. The average case
represents the U.S. average grid electricity price for 2022 identified by the U.S. Energy
Information Administration.
• Future grid: The future grid scenarios are based on the Examining Supply-Side Options
to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035 report [15]. The electricity prices are based
on net system costs of achieving a 100% clean electricity grid by 2035, and combine
electricity system costs, health costs, and climate costs. The 2026 scenario reflects an
approximately 65% clean grid, and the 2031 scenario reflects an approximately 85%
clean grid.
• Land-based wind: The wind case is based on installations modeled in the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory’s 2023 Annual Technology Baseline for land-based Class
1 (best) wind conditions with high-resolution, location-specific resource data [11]. This
case assumes R&D financial assumptions and does not include the renewable
generation production tax credits (PTC). Values are adjusted from reported 2021 $ to
2020 $ based on a 4.7% inflation rate. Many of the operational Class 1 wind farms in the
United States are in south-central California, western Texas, the Plains states, and
southern Minnesota [51]. Power purchase agreements have been established for some
of the Class 1 wind sites located in Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Texas,
and others. As an example, a power purchase agreement for an approximately 200-MW
wind farm in the Southwest Power Pool region (which includes Iowa, Kansas, and
Nebraska) had a price as low as about $0.016/kWh [51] [52]. While wind power
purchase agreements vary, this example shows that high-quality wind resources are
promising for low-cost hydrogen production in the near term.
• Nuclear: Assumptions for the nuclear power scenario are based on baseload power
from an existing conventional nuclear power plant that includes only operating,
maintenance, and fuel costs in the levelized cost of electricity [16].
• Hybrid wind + solar: This case reflects combined hourly generation from collocated
solar and wind energy sources in a hybrid system to produce low-cost electricity with a
high capacity factor. The location was selected based on the complementarity of solar
and wind resources, where a location with high complementarity will result in a high
capacity factor due to the fact that wind and solar production happen at different times.
The capacity factor and levelized cost of electricity assumed here were developed by the
Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium based on a published methodology [53] and
actual historical weather data for a location in Texas with high complementarity. The
“half-size” configuration is for an electrolyzer capacity sized to 50% of the total solar and
wind generation capacity (i.e., 100-MW electrolyzer and 200 MW of combined solar and
wind), while the “same-size” configuration is for an electrolyzer capacity equal to the total
solar and wind generation capacity (i.e., 200-MW electrolyzer and 200 MW of combined
57
solar and wind). Where specified, the levelized cost of electricity values include the
renewable generation production tax credit (PTC) of $17/MWh.
58

Hydrogen_Shot_1733886337

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrogen_Shot_1733886337

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrogen_Shot_1733886337

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HYDROGEN SHOT:

Water Electrolysis Technology Assessment

The Hydrogen Shot establishes a

Clean Hydrogen Technology Pathways

This Hydrogen Shot technology assessment presents a snapshot of various electrolyzer

LTE technologies include:

HTE technologies include:

Figure 3 shows a classification of these key

• High current density at high efficiency

Early • High electrical efficiency

• High electrical efficiency

Parameter Units PEM LA O-SOEC

Total mg/cm2 3.0 0.5 0.125 - - - - - -

2.0 3.0 0.5 1.0

Capital cost $/kW 450 100 50 250 100 50 300 125 50

Figure 7. Overview of R&D strategies that address cost reduction opportunities.

Low-cost and high-throughput manufacturing of electrolyzer components, cells, stacks, and

Economies of scale can be achieved by reducing processing time to increase manufacturing

Historically developed for use in underwater vessels

environment, which limits the materials that can be used

SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS

RD&D APPROACHES FOR COST REDUCTION

Materials and Components

• Thinner, engineered membranes

• Develop accelerated stress tests

Cells and Stacks

A major unknown inhibiting the commercialization of next-generation electrolyzer technology is

LA electrolyzers are the most mature electrolyzer

Traditional LA electrolyzers are designed to circulate concentrated alkaline electrolytes (e.g., 7-

SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS

RD&D APPROACHES FOR COST REDUCTION

• Engineered interfaces with high catalyst utilization.

Materials and Components

Discussion at a recent experts’ meeting on advanced LA electrolyzers revealed that separator

Cells and Stacks

O-SOECs operate at high temperatures, and they

O-SOECs have benefitted from decades of R&D of

SYSTEM COST ANALYSIS

RD&D APPROACHES FOR COST REDUCTION

• Develop low-cost interconnect materials and fabrication processes.

• Decrease cell resistance.

• Reduce operating temperature.

Materials and Components

Cells and Stacks

AEM electrolyzers are a promising, lower-TRL

STATUS AND R&D COST REDUCTION APPROACHES

A more thorough techno-economic analysis is ongoing to estimate the potential manufactured

Table 6. Priority R&D Opportunities for AEM

Technology Area Priority R&D Opportunities

• Understanding the role of supporting electrolyte and degradation.

Materials and Components

Cells and Stacks

P-SOECs are being developed as a lower-

STATUS AND R&D COST REDUCTION

Materials and Components

Cells and Stacks

Another approach to overcoming the challenges with the proton-conducting electrolyte is to

• Redesigning renewable energy technologies, such as wind turbines, for optimal

With well-focused, sustained investments in RDD&D, and based on specific scenarios

[1] DOE, "Hydrogen Shot Technology Assessment: Thermal Conversion Approaches,"