DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Record

Record: 20001 Date: 4/16/20

Title: Reversible Fuel Cell Targets
Originator: David Peterson
Peer Reviewed by: Max Wei (LBNL), Simon Thompson, Elizabeth Connelly, Neha
Rustagi (DOE), Hossein Ghezel-Ayagh (FuelCell Energy), Chris Capuano (Nel),
Josh Mermelstein (Innovative Fuel Cell Solutions)
Approved by: Dimitrios Papageorgopoulos Date: 6/23/20
and Sunita Satyapal

Item
Perfor ance, cost, and durability targets for unitized reversible fuel cells for electric energy storage
applications, which were co piled with stakeholder input, are presented in Tables 1 and 2. These include
targets for both low- and high-te perature technologies at both the cell/stack and syste level with the
sa e stack operating in both fuel cell and electrolyzer odes. Key 2030 s stem-level reversible fuel cell
targets established by DOE’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office based on extensive stakeholder
engage ent and industry input, include the following: $1,800/kW (uninstalled capital cost, on a power
basis), $250/kWh (uninstalled capital cost, on an energy capacity basis), roundtrip efficiency of 60% (high
te perature) and 40% (low te perature), 40,000 hour durability (with <10% degradation at end of life),
and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) of $0.20/kWh. Ulti ate syste targets as well as cell/stack targets
and supporting Infor ation are provided below.
Table 1a: Technical Targets for High-Temperature Unitized Reversible Fuel Cells (Cell/Stack level) for
Electric Energ Storage Applications1

Cell/Stack
Characteristic Units 2020 Status 2030 Targets Ultimate Targets
Cell Perfor ance/ Roundtrip Electric
% ~ 803 85 90
Efficiency2 at 0.5 A/c 2 FC; 1 A/c 2 EL
Cell Durability/Degradation Rate4, 5 %/1000 hr <1.56 0.25 0.125

1 All targets are to be et with the sa e cell and/or stack perfor ing both fuel cell and electrolyzer functions (i.e., unitized
operation). Also, all technical targets ust be achieved si ultaneously with the sa e cell/stack, although the 2020 Status values
are not necessarily fro the sa e device.
2 Electric RTE easured as VFC/VEL at the current densities specified on the sa e single cell.
3
[Link], R. Scipioni, Q. Zhang, D. Cox, P. Voorhees, and S. Barnett, J. Mater. Che . A 8 (2020) 11,687-11,694 (Conditions: 700 oC,
50vol% H2-50vol% H2O / air). Beginning-of-life (BOL) only; does not eet durability target. All targets ust be et si ultaneously.
Note efficiencies of 90% also possible at 800 oC at specified current densities (BOL only).
4
The 2030 target is based on end of life being li ited to 10% loss in perfor ance over lifeti e (e.g., 40,000 hr for 2030).
Perfor ance loss, here, refers to loss in RTE at fixed current densities.
5
With daily cycling between fuel cell and electrolyzer odes with a ini u of 30% ti e each in electrolysis ode and fuel cell
ode. Standby and/or transient operation could be included in the daily cycling. Mini u current density of 0.25 A/c 2 for fuel
cell operation and 0.5 A/c 2 for electrolysis operation. Given the wide range of possible duty cycles depending on the energy
storage application targeted, flexibility is given for the daily cycling protocol to be used with only ini u require ents provided.
The application targeted should dictate the duty cycle details which, in any instances, should be ore aggressive than these
ini u require ents.
6
Single cell with daily cycles over 14,500 hr (Conditions: ≥0.25 A/c 2 SOFC; ≥0.50 A/c 2 SOEC); Versa Power Final Technical
Report [Link]

1
Stack Capital Cost (Based on FC Power
$/kW 500 400 300
Output)7

Table 1b: Technical Targets for High-Temperature Unitized Reversible Fuel Cell S stems for Electric
Energ Storage Applications

S stem8 2020 Status 2030 Targets Ultimate Targets

Syste Roundtrip Efficiency (includes

% 379 60 65
ther al energy input)

hr 10,0009 40,000 80,000

Lifeti e/Durability10, 11
[Cycles] [unknown] [daily] [daily]

Levelized Cost of Storage12 $/kWh 1.1113 0.2014 0.1014

Syste Capital Cost by Power14 $/kW - 1,800 1,300

Syste Capital Cost by Energy14 $/kWh 250 150

-

7
Costs based, in part, on odeled 100 kW SOFC stack cost at production volu es of 10, 100, and 1,000 MW per year using values
given in stationary fuel cell cost studies by LBNL, Battelle, and Strategic Analysis, Inc.:
- R. Scataglini, A. Mayyas, M. Wei, S. Chan, T. Lip an, D. Gosselin, A. D’Alessio, H. Breunig, W. Colella, and B. Ja es, A Total Cost of
Ownership Model for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells in Co bined Heat and Power and Power-Only Applications, 2015.
[Link] [Link]
- Battelle Me orial Institute, Manufacturing Cost Analysis of 100 and 250 kW Fuel Cell Syste s for Pri ary Power and Co bined
Heat and Power Applications, 2016.
[Link] fg_cost_analysis_pp_chp_fc_syste [Link]
- Brian Ja es and Dan DeSantis, Manufacturing Cost and Installed Price Analysis of Stationary Fuel Cell Syste s, 2015.
[Link] /assets/site_18/files/publications/sa%202015%20 anufacturing%20cost%20and%20installed%20price%20
of%20stationary%20fuel%20cell%20syste s_rev3.pdf
8 Includes co pression, H processing, and storage.
2
9
GrInHy Final Report, April 2019, RTE based on 78% (electrolyzer ode efficiency; does not include co pression/H2 processing) x
48% (fuel cell ode efficiency), [Link] /news-detail/grinhy-project-ends-with-sub ission-of-
final-report; K. Schwarze, O. Posdziech, J. Mer elstein, and S. Kroop, Fuel Cells 19, No. 4 (2019) 374.
10
With daily cycling between fuel cell and electrolyzer operating odes following si ilar duty cycles to that given in the
Cells/Stack table.
11
Lifeti e targets are consistent with FCTO MYRDD Plan stationary fuel cell durability targets:
[Link] s-stationary-co bined-heat-and-power (Table 2)
12
Syste RTE, lifeti e, and capital cost targets are consistent with achieving these LCOS values using assu ptions for the other
LCOS calculation input para eters based on industry/expert feedback. The $0.10/kWh ulti ate target is considered aggressive;
so e energy storage applications will be able to acco odate a higher LCOS.
13
Assu ptions for calculation of 2020 LCOS Status are as follows: Duty cycle: 10 hr charge, 8 hr discharge and 350 cycles/year;
electricity price: $0.04 /kWh; O&M: 3.5% of capital cost; installation costs: 33% of capital cost; capital cost: $3100/kW; 100% DOD
(depth of discharge); 0% DEG (annual degradation rate of capacity); discount rate: 8%; and fuel cell power: 250 kW. The syste
roundtrip efficiency and lifeti e used are those given as 2020 Status in the syste target tables. A 10% degradation over the
syste lifeti e is utilized and accounted for via oversizing the stack and increasing syste costs accordingly so that at end of life
the roundtrip efficiency specification is et.
14
Based on DOE’s Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR) Cost and Perfor ance Targets for Electric Energy Storage Technologies
(Table 3.4): [Link]
2
Table 2a: Technical Targets for Low-Temperature Unitized Reversible Fuel Cells (Cell/Stack level) for
Electric Energ Storage Applications1

Cell/Stack
Characteristic Units 2020 Status 2030 Targets Ultimate Targets

Cell Perfor ance/Roundtrip Electric

% 523 55 65
Efficiency at 0.5 A/c 2 FC; 1 A/c 2 EL2

Cell Durability/Degradation Rate4, 5 %/1000 hr - 0.25 0.125

Total Cell PGM Loading g/c 2 1.33 1.0 0.5
Stack Capital Cost (Based on FC Power
$/kW, 1,000 550 300
Output)6

1 All targets are to be et with the sa e cell and/or stack perfor ing both fuel cell and electrolyzer functions (i.e., unitized
operation). Also, all technical targets ust be achieved si ultaneously with the sa e cell/stack, although the 2020 Status values
are not necessarily fro the sa e device.
2
RTE easured as VFC/VEL at the current densities specified on the sa e MEA.
3
[Link]
4
Based on end of life being 10% loss in perfor ance over lifeti e (e.g., 40,000 hr for 2030 target). Perfor ance loss based on loss
in RTE at fixed current densities.
5
With daily cycling between fuel cell and electrolyzer odes with a ini u of 30% ti e each in electrolysis ode and fuel cell
ode. Standby and/or transient operation could be included in the daily cycling. Mini u current density of 0.25 A/c 2 for fuel
cell operation and 0.5 A/c 2 for electrolysis operation. Given the wide range of possible duty cycles depending on the energy
storage application targeted, flexibility is given for the daily cycling protocol to be used with only ini u require ents provided.
The application targeted should dictate the duty cycle details which, in any instances, should be ore aggressive than these
ini u s.
6
Costs based, in part, on odeled 100 kW PEM stack cost at 10, 100, and 1,000 MW per year using values given in stationary fuel
cell cost studies by LBNL, Battelle, and Strategic Analysis Inc. with PGM loadings given in the Total Cell PGM Loading etric.:
- M. Wei, T. Lip an, A. Mayyas, J. Chien, S. Chan, D. Gosselin, H. Breunig, M. Stadler, T. McKone, P. Beattie, P. Chong, W. Colella, B.
Ja es. A Total Cost of Ownership Model for Low Te perature PEM Fuel Cells in Co bined Heat and Power and Backup Power
Applications, 2014. [Link] odel-low
- Battelle Me orial Institute, Manufacturing Cost Analysis of 100 and 250 kW Fuel Cell Syste s for Pri ary Power and Co bined
Heat and Power Applications, 2016.
[Link] fg_cost_analysis_pp_chp_fc_syste [Link]
- Brian Ja es and Dan DeSantis, Manufacturing Cost and Installed Price Analysis of Stationary Fuel Cell Syste s, 2015.
[Link] /assets/site_18/files/publications/sa%202015%20 anufacturing%20cost%20and%20installed%20price%20
of%20stationary%20fuel%20cell%20syste s_rev3.pdf
3
Table 2b: Technical Targets for Low-Temperature Unitized Reversible Fuel Cell S stems for Electric
Energ Storage Applications

S stem7 2020 Staus 2030 Targets Ultimate Targets

Syste Roundtrip Efficiency % - 40 50
hr 40,000 80,000
Lifeti e/Durability8,9 -
[Cycles] [daily] [daily]
Levelized Cost of Storage10 $/kWh 1.6011 0.2012 0.1012
Syste Capital Cost by Power12 $/kW - 1,800 1,300

Syste Capital Cost by Energy12 $/kWh - 250 150

S pporting Information
Reversible fuel cells (RFC) are capable of operating in both power production (fuel cell) and energy storage
(electrolysis) odes and are a pro ising way to store large a ounts of energy at low cost. RFCs involve
the production of hydrogen via electrolysis in which electrical energy is used to split water olecules into
hydrogen and oxygen gases, with the hydrogen (and so eti es oxygen) then being stored. This water
splitting process can be thought of as the RFC equivalent to charging a battery. In the fuel cell (discharge)
ode, the stored hydrogen is then sent through the sa e electroche ical stack used for electrolysis to
generate electricity and water, thereby, reversing the previous process. In this basic configuration, RFCs
essentially act to store grid electricity as hydrogen for later conversion back to electricity. A discrete
reversible fuel cell syste uses separate electrolyzer and fuel cell stacks while the co bination of these
two processes into a single stack is co only ter ed a unitized reversible fuel cell (URFC). So e
advantages of carrying out fuel cell and electrolyzer operations in a single stack include significantly
decreased cost, s aller footprint, and syste si plification. For the purposes of this Record and the
targets developed, references to reversible fuel cells are specific to the unitized, single stack arrange ent.

The reversible fuel cell (RFC) characteristics, status, and targets in the tables were developed based on
feedback by subject atter experts. DOE and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) initially

7 Includes co pression, H2 processing, and storage.

8
With daily cycling between fuel cell and electrolyzer operating odes following si ilar duty cycles to that given in the Cells/Stack
table.
9
Lifeti e targets are consistent with FCTO MYRDD Plan stationary fuel cell durability targets:
[Link] s-stationary-co bined-heat-and-power (Table 2)
10
Syste RTE, lifeti e, and capital cost targets are consistent with achieving these LCOS values using assu ptions for the other
LCOS calculation input para eters based on industry/expert feedback. The $0.10/kWh ulti ate target is considered aggressive;
so e energy storage applications will be able to acco odate a higher LCOS.
11
Assu ptions for calculation of 2020 LCOS Status are as follows: Duty cycle: 10 hr charge, 8 hr discharge and 350 cycles/year;
Electricity price, $0.04 /kWh; O&M, 3.5% of capital cost; Installation costs, 33% of capital cost; capital cost, $2800/kW; 100% DOD
(depth of discharge); 0% DEG (annual degradation rate of capacity); discount rate, 8%; and fuel cell power, 250 kW. The syste
roundtrip efficiency and lifeti e are assu ed to be 25% and 10,000 hr. A 10% degradation over the syste lifeti e is utilized and
accounted for via oversizing the stack and increasing syste costs accordingly so that at end of life the roundtrip efficiency
specification is et.
12
Based on DOE’s Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR) Cost and Perfor ance Targets for Electric Energy Storage Technologies
(Table 3.4): [Link]
4
for ulated targets which were subsequently updated based on expert responses to a request for input. A
total of ten responses were received, split roughly evenly between high-te perature (HT) and low-
te perature (LT) expertise. Many of the sa e experts also participated in revising the updated targets
further during an RFC project review eeting. The targets included in Tables 1 and 2 then were finalized
based on these discussions.

All of the technical targets ust be achieved si ultaneously using the sa e cell/stack for operation in
both fuel cell and electrolyzer odes. However, the 2020 status values included in the tables are not
necessarily fro the sa e device or syste , though this will likely change in subsequent status updates as
the technology advances.

The targets were developed for the purpose of guiding RFC R&D advance ents in order to be co petitive
with incu bent and e erging energy storage technologies. There is a wide application space for which
RFCs potentially could be used within energy storage, and each individual application or installation could
have its own require ents based on location, grid profile, dyna ic electricity pricing, and other specifics. It
was therefore necessary to place so e constraints to bound the technology application space to provide
enough specificity to reasonably develop technical targets. Given the early stage in develop ent of any
such applications, it was decided to consider only a pure energy storage application for target
develop ent (e.g., opportunities to provide grid ancillary services and to generate and sell excess
hydrogen were not considered in the target setting). In situations where opportunities such as these
present the selves, so e of the targets could be relaxed.

The Electric Energy Storage Targets fro DOE’s Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR) were considered in
setting the syste level targets. The 2015 QTR exa ined the status of the science and technology that are
the foundation of the United States’ energy syste , together with the research, develop ent,
de onstration, and deploy ent opportunities to advance the . Included in it was a separate Technology
Assess ent specific to Electric Energy Storage with the targets included therein (Table 3.C.2) provided
below in Table 3 as a reference ([Link]
[Link]). This Technical Assess ent explored a wide range of energy storage
technologies (e.g., batteries, pu ped hydro, fly wheels, co pressed air energy storage, hydrogen energy
storage, etc.) in nu erous power syste applications, which cover a wide range of storage capacities,
power ratings, duty cycles (e.g., discharge duration and nu ber of annual cycles), and other operating
para eters. Past studies13 indicate that hydrogen energy storage will be ost co petitive at larger
storage capacities with longer duty cycles; hence, that is where ost of the effort for this RFC taget setting
process was focused.

13 [Link] Sch idt, et al., Joule 3, 81-100, 1/16/19.

5
Table 3: QTR Electric Energ Storage Targets

Syste capital cost by energy: $805–$10,020/kWh

Levelized cost: $0.01-$0.64/kWh/cycle
Range of baselines Syste efficiency: 75%–92%
Cycle life: 4,500–225,000 over life of plant
Syste capital cost by power: $300–$4,600/kW
Syste capital cost by energy: less than $250/kWh
Levelized cost: less than $0.20/kWh/cycle
Near-term targets Syste efficiency: ore than 75%

Cycle life: ore than 4,000 cycles

Syste capital cost by power: less than $1,750/kW (rounded to $1,800/kW)
Syste capital cost by energy: less than $150/kWh
Levelized cost: less than $0.10/kWh/cycle
Long-term targets Syste efficiency: ore than 80%
Cycle life: ore than 5,000 cycles
Syste capital cost by power: less than $1,250/kW (rounded to $1,300/kW)

Below are additional details for so e of the RFC targets, beyond what is already footnoted in Tables 1 and
2. Status and target nu bers were vetted with RFC experts as described at the beginning of this section.
The below content is grouped by characteristic and is relevant for both low- and high-te perature RFCs,
unless only one is specified.

Cell Performance/RTE
RTE changes significantly with current density; as a result, an effort was ade to find an alternate
perfor ance etric in order to avoid specifying a single operating point (i.e., current density) on the fuel
cell and electolysis polarization curves. Area specific resistance was considered for HTRFCs; however, this
would require the slope of the polarization curve to be the sa e in both fuel cell and electrolyzer
operation, and this is not always the case. In the end no other single etric could be identified that can
effectively easure both fuel cell and electrolyzer perfor ance. Thus, appropriate current densities, based
on feedback fro subject atter experts, were selected to specify the target for RTE. The general
consensus was that in real world applications RFCs are likely to be operated at higher current density in
electrolysis ode than in fuel cell ode; hence, the asy etric current densities of 0.5 A/c 2 fuel cell and
1 A/c 2 electrolyzer were selected for the RTE calculation. Note that a published reference and peer
review of this Record indicated a real world exa ple of operating at 0.3 A/c 2 in fuel cell ode and 0.38
A/c 2 in electrolysis ode, with the latter li ited only due to li itations of the power electronics.14 In

14 J. Mer elstein and O. Posdziech, Fuel Cells 17, No. 4 (2017) 562.

6
practice, syste level trade offs, designs and the specific application (e.g., duty cycle) will have an i pact
on the current densities used. The values selected here are expected to be representative syste
operating points, with the purpose of selecting the being to guide needed RFC R&D advance ents.

The roundtrip efficiency of high-te perature RFCs is inherently higher than low-te perature RFCs;
however, that does not preclude the latter fro being a co petitive solution. For exa ple, LTRFCs could
be better suited for energy storage applications in which there is substantial idle ti e (i.e., RFC not
operating as a fuel cell or a electrolyzer) when potential ther al anage ent drawbacks of HTRFCs are
taken into consideration.

Cell Durabilit /Degradation Rate

Stack durability will need to be si ilar to cell durability, but given the early stage of technology
develop ent, only cell durability is specified in the targets at this ti e. Realizing the duty cycle
specifications could vary substantially depending on the application targeted, an atte pt was ade to
balance being overly prescriptive in defining the cycling attributes with ensuring there are so e ini u
require ents for tracking progress against the targets. There was general agree ent fro the RFC
experts that daily cycling is a good starting point and is relevant for the electric energy storage applications
for which hydrogen energy storage is likely to be suited. There was no general agree ent on current
density require ents though so e experts pointed out that the current densities could be different in FC
and electrolysis odes (likely higher in electrolysis ode as discussed above).

S stem RTE
These are values that the RFC experts think the technology can achieve with sufficient R&D, though the
ulti ate target is a stretch for both LT and HT. Levelized cost of storage (LCOS) is the ost critical figure of
erit and it is possible that a high RTE could be traded off with other syste operating aspects to reduce
LCOS, resulting in a ore co petitive syste .

Hydrogen co pression and hydrogen processing need to be included in the syste RTE deter ination. For
exa ple, a syste ay be required to re ove residual oisture fro the product hydrogen gas fro the
electrolyzer in order to eet hydrogen purity require ents. A peer review of this Record indicated that
efficiency penalties (e.g., co pressor and balance-of-plant) can vary widely (e.g. 5% to over 10%) and
there are design trade-offs which can significantly effect these efficiency losses.

Particularly for HTRFCs, there are ther odyna ic considerations that need to be taken into account. As an
exa ple, in fuel cell ode the axi u cell ther odyna ic efficiency is ~78% @ 800 ℃, however this is
based on reversible open circuit voltage (OCV) and not a practical operating voltage. Assu ing a
reasonable operating cell voltage of 0.8 V/cell in FC ode, the ther odyna ic axi u LHV efficiency is
~64%. In electrolysis ode, operating at ther oneutral voltage, the cell efficiency is by definition 100%,
resulting in a round trip efficiency of ~64%. Pressurized operation and a lower operating te perature will
both increase this RTE. The ulti ate syste RTE target for HTRFCs was set based on these ther odyna ic
considerations and on input fro technical experts that agreed that either 65% or 70% would be
appropriate as an ulti ate stretch goal, but should not co pro ise cost or durability or lead to an
increased LCOS as a result.
7
Levelized Cost of Storage
LCOS is considered to be the figure of erit for co parison to other electric energy storage technologies.
The targets are taken directly fro DOE’s Quadriennal Technology Review (QTR) for which significant
effort was undertaken to develop cost and perfor ance targets for electric energy storage technologies.
The RFC experts agreed that the LCOS targets fro the QTR see ed appropriate and were not aware of a
better source for LCOS targets. The $0.10/kWh ulti ate target is likely aggressive, as so e energy storage
applications can acco odate a higher LCOS. In order to not li it potential opportunities by focusing on
just one specific storage application, an aggressive, referenceable target was selected for the LCOS. As the
needs of the broad energy storage space beco es better studied and established, along with RFC’s role in
it, LCOS targets can be updated accordingly.

The Syste RTE, Lifeti e, and Capital Cost targets are consistent with achieving these LCOS target values
with reasonable assu ptions for the other LCOS calculation input para eters. Exa ple inputs used for an
LTRFC LCOS calculation15, which surpasses the ulti ate LCOS target, are provided in Table 4. This
calculation is based on a daily cycle to be inline with expectations that hydrogen energy storage is better
suited for longer duration cycles. A 250 kW fuel cell syste is assu ed, as this is acceptably close to the
power output used in LBNL’s cost analysis and is reasonably sized for a hydrogen energy storage syste .
Syste Capital Cost by Power and Syste Capital Cost by Energy are interrelated, depending on the other
assu ptions used in the LCOS calculation and on the application targeted. Consequently, it is possible to
eet the LCOS target while eeting only one of these syste capital cost targets.

Table 4: Example LCOS Calculation for LTRFC Ultimate Targets

LCOS ASSUMPTIONS
O&M 3.5 % of capital cost
Installation Costs + "Soft Costs" 33 % of capital cost
Electricity Price 0.02 $/kWh
Depth of Discharge 100 %
Degradation Rate (Accounted for separately by
0 %
oversizing stack by 10%)
Discount Rate 7 %
Syste size (FC/EL) 250/854 kW
Current Density (FC ode) 0.50 A/c 2
Current Density (EL ode) 1.00 A/c 2
Charge Hours 10 h/day
Discharge Hours 13 h/day
Nu ber of Cycles 350 cycles/year
FC-Efficiency 63 %
EL-Efficiency 74 %
Roundtrip Efficiency 46 %
PGM Loading 0.5 g/c 2
Syste Capital Cost by Power 1300 $/kW

15LCOS calculation based on the approach used by Sch idt, et al., Joule 3, 81-100, 1/16/19 and [Link] -
[Link] /how-to-deter ine- eaningful-co parable-costs-of-energy-storage/

8
 Syste Capital Cost by Energy 110 $/kWh
Lifeti e 10 years
LEVELIZED COST OF STORAGE
LCOS 0.094 $/kWh

S stem Capital Cost b Power and b Energ

After careful consideration and analysis, the QTR targets were chosen for the overarching syste level
RFC etrics. Capital costs were rounded to significant figures co parable to other significant figures (i.e.,
$1,750/kW was rounded to $1,800/kW as the 2020 target). LBNL carried out cost analysis using the
existing stationary fuel cell cost studies given in Footnote 7 for HTRFCs and Footnote 6 for LTRFCs as a
starting point. They odified these stationary fuel cell cost nu bers by re oving the fuel processing
equip ent and adding other BOP co ponents, including hydrogen storage vessels, as needed. Targets
were developed based on anufacturing volu es of 100, 1,000 and 10,000 units per year for the current,
2030, and ulti ate targets. The resulting nu bers were in a si ilar range to the QTR cost targets.
Ulti ately, the QTR nu bers were used as they provide a peer-reviewed and ore easily referenced
source.

No cost status is provided for 2020 due to a lack of available infor ation. There are no co ercial
reversible fuel cell syste s available and any one-off de os are of li ited relevance to large-scale energy
storage and cost esti ates for the cannot be easily extrapolated for co ercially relevant syste s.