Sub-task A Data consolidation of parameters describing hydrogen technologies”‘s focus has been on categorizing data by the TRL of components, developing a data-quality assessment process, and subsequently, a database structure. Ongoing work will include data entry and testing, and validation. A major outstanding issue remains how to best deal with delivering this data in such a rapidly changing technological environment. But above all, as presented at the IEA Hydrogen TCP ExCo meeting in Madrid in May, the crucial difference between Sub-task A’s primary deliverable and the others Sub-tasks is the A’s is a product – B, C, and D are papers and reports.

Accordingly, we are seeking support from IEA Hydrogen’s ExCo to find a dedicated contact person at IEA to turn subtask A into an ongoing sustainable process. The connection is necessary to justify the extension of existing products to a generic technology data acquisition architecture that can deliver quality data to the energy modelling community worldwide.

The first published deliverable from Subtask B “Develop knowledge of how to model Hydrogen in the value chain and improve current methods” was a submission to Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. It was first-authored by Herib Blanco, co-authored by Subtask b participants Leaver, Dodds, Dickinson, García-Gusano, Iribarren, Lind, Wang, Daneberg and Baumann.

As is well known in the IEA Hydrogen community, hydrogen serves multiple purposes: from fuel to decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors to chemical feedstock. The range of model paradigms developed to date are used to assess the potential for hydrogen energy systems while accounting for the unique characteristics of hydrogen. Their taxonomy development delivered a basis for classifying models. They reviewed 29 studies that dealt with energy models in general (not necessarily including hydrogen), and have designed the following schema:


Model taxonomy to classify energy system models. Categories with relatively greater numbers of reviews are colored with darker shades of green


This general taxonomy was then adapted to hydrogen, leaving only 32 sub-categories of four primary categories:

  • electrolyser services to electricity networks which requires a much higher spatial and temporal resolution than that provided by most conventional energy models
  • model topology, in the sense of one product leading to multiple low carbon transformation pathways (power to X)
  • complexity, to the extent that hydrogen modeling involves technology, behaviour, markets and policy.
  • Methodology, which refers to the analytical approach used to represent the model and the mathematical approach to solve it.


Model taxonomy to classify energy system models based on features required for hydrogen


Then identified nine hydrogen model archetypes, these being:

  • Integrated Assessment Models
  • Energy System Models
  • Power models
  • Integration models for variable renewable energy
  • models focused on Cities
  • Islands/Off-grid
  • Sectoral analysis
  • Geo-spatial analysis and Networks
  • Integrated Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and hydrogen ESM


This identification enabled the identification of features, gaps and interrelationships among archetypes as follows:

  • The need to cover environmental and high spatial resolution aspects is only provided for by one archetype.
  • The correlation among archetypes forms a basis for identifying opportunities for soft-linking.
  • Each archetype provides only partial answers to typical problems.
  • Using a suite composed of multiple models could address the shortcomings of using just one archetype.
  • All models focus on technology and costs: aspects such as the innovation cycle, market design, and policy levers to promote deployment received little attention.
  • Capturing these dynamics in the archetypes would enable a more holistic analysis and facilitate subsequent action.

In the time remaining, (through the end of 2022), they aim to complete some price dynamics modelling for the South Australia Region of Australia’s National Electricity Market and then seek to “internationalize” the outcomes in collaboration with Task 41 Participation from Europe, the USA, and Canada.

Sub-task C “Collaboration with analysts in IEA HQ Analytics and the ETSAP community” provides the link between IEA Hydrogen and IEA ETSAP for this task. The final IEA ETSAP report is in the press and will shortly be published on the IEA ETSAP website, at which point Sub-task D will be complete.

Sub-task D “Review reports from IEA” is complete. We reviewed IEA Reports: The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, and Global Hydrogen Review. We also verified IEA assumptions regarding PEM, Alkaline, and SOEC electrolyzers, PEM fuel cells, and contributed generic peer review services to IEA deliverables.