An eco-technoeconomic analysis of hydrogen production using solid oxide electrolysis cells that accounts for long-term degradation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an eco-technoeconomic analysis (eTEA) of hydrogen production via solid oxide electrolysis cells (SOECs) aimed at identifying the economically optimal size and operating trajectories for these cells. Notably, degradation effects were accounted by employing a data-driven degradation-based model previously developed by our group for the analysis of SOECs. This model enabled the identification of the optimal trajectories under which SOECs can be economically operated over extended periods of time, with reduced degradation rate. The findings indicated that the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) produced by SOECs (ranging from 2.78 to 11.67 $/kg H 2 ) is higher compared to gray hydrogen generated via steam methane reforming (SMR) (varying from 1.03 to 2.16 $ per kg H 2 ), which is currently the dominant commercial process for large-scale hydrogen production. Additionally, SOECs generally had lower life cycle CO 2 emissions per kilogram of produced hydrogen (from 1.62 to 3.6 kg CO 2 per kg H 2 ) compared to SMR (10.72–15.86 kg CO 2 per kg H 2 ). However, SOEC life cycle CO 2 emissions are highly dependent on the CO 2 emissions produced by its power source, as SOECs powered by high-CO 2 -emission sources can produce as much as 32.22 kg CO 2 per kg H 2 . Finally, the findings of a sensitivity analysis indicated that the price of electricity has a greater influence on the LCOH than the capital cost.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it