Integrated Optimisation of Energy Storage & Green Hydrogen

Overview

This paper proposes a multi‑objective optimisation framework designed to help nations meet ambitious decarbonisation goals by simultaneously planning renewable generation, energy storage and green‑hydrogen production. Using the IEEE nine‑bus test system as a baseline, the authors compare battery storage, pumped hydro storage (PHS), compressed air energy storage (CAES) and hybrid configurations. The optimisation accounts for techno‑economic constraints, emission caps and hydrogen demand, and is scalable to larger networks.

Emissions reduction versus daily storage cost
Figure 1 – Emissions reduction versus daily storage cost for five storage configurations: battery storage, pumped‑hydro storage (PHS), compressed air energy storage (CAES), and hybrid configurations combining PHS or CAES with batteries.
24‑hour net system load profile
Figure 2 – 24‑hour net system load profile showing hourly power output (MW) over a day; this profile serves as input to the optimisation model.
Simplified nine‑bus network diagram
Figure 3 – Simplified nine‑bus test network illustrating generator buses (G1–G3), load buses (B1–B9), transmission lines and locations of storage and hydrogen production units.

Key Results

Without any storage the nine‑bus system can only accommodate roughly 28.6% renewable penetration and emits about 1538tCO2 per day [1]. Introducing storage dramatically improves performance. A pumped‑hydro–plus‑battery (PHB) hybrid configuration achieves about 40% renewable penetration, reduces emissions by approximately 40.5% and lowers total daily cost to around USD 570k — about 84% of the baseline cost [1]. Battery storage alone minimises storage losses and maximises hydrogen production (≈12t/day) but is uneconomical at ≈USD 715k per day [1]. CAES and CAES‑battery hybrids do not reach the 40% penetration threshold and require additional renewable investment.

Conclusions & Future Work

The authors conclude that the PHB hybrid strikes the best balance between renewable integration, cost and emissions. Battery storage excels at producing hydrogen but requires significant cost reductions. CAES needs further renewable investment to achieve comparable penetration. Future research directions include incorporating stochastic renewable variability, real‑time grid dynamics, demand‑side management and sector coupling (e.g., integrating with water and transport systems) [1].

Result Summary Table

Configuration Renewable penetration Emissions reduction Approx. daily cost Notes
No storage ≈28.6% 0% Baseline Limited renewable integration
Battery Medium Up to ≈34% ≈USD 715k/day High hydrogen output but costly
Pumped hydro ≈34–38% ≈35% ≈USD 600k/day Cost‑effective long‑duration storage
PHB hybrid ≈40% ≈40.5% ≈USD 570k/day Best balance of cost and performance
CAES & CAES‑battery <40% ≈32–34% Variable Require additional renewables

References

  1. A.M. Asim, A.S.A. Awad, M.A. Attia, A.I. Bhuiya and colleagues, “Integrated optimisation of energy storage and green hydrogen systems,” Scientific Reports (2023).