Directly coupled photovoltaic alkaline electrolysis with low-cost carbon and stainless-steel electrodes: an exploratory assessment of single-axis solar tracking at sub-watt scale

  • Md. Farhan Imtiaz Chowdhury Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh
  • Muhaiminul Islam Independent Researcher, Bangladesh
  • Md. Fahim Sadat Bari Independent Researcher, Bangladesh
  • Md. Shaib Hossain Independent Researcher, Bangladesh
  • Wasif Sadman Tanim Independent Researcher, Bangladesh
DOI https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fer.2.1.1
0 Abstract Views 0 Downloads
Abstract

Hydrogen produced by wiring a solar array directly to an electrolyzer, with no battery or power electronics in between, is cheap to build, but little data exists on how such systems behave at very small scales. We built a 1.6 W-rated photovoltaic (PV) array and coupled it directly to a two-electrode alkaline cell (3.6 M NaOH). Two inexpensive electrode materials were tried: carbon rods recovered from spent dry cells and grade 304 stainless steel. Each was run at a fixed tilt with an Arduino-controlled single-axis tracker on one clear and one overcast day in Chattogram, Bangladesh, yielding eight configurations. Current and voltage were read every 5 minutes for 60 minutes. Charge and energy were obtained by trapezoidal integration. Hydrogen is reported only as a charge-derived equivalent from Faraday's law, not as a measured volume. The cell received 1.8 to 24.7 mW, equivalent to 0.08 to 0.73 mL of hydrogen per hour. Mean cell voltages ranged from 7.9 to 16.1 V, indicating that ohmic and contact losses, not electrode kinetics, control the cell; voltage efficiency relative to the thermoneutral potential was only 9 to 19%. With carbon under a clear sky, tracking raised the energy delivered to the cell by 35%. However, the tracker used an estimated 180 to 720 J in the same hour, while the cell received at most 89 J, so tracking lost energy in every configuration we tested. A first-order break-even estimate puts the point where tracking starts to pay at about 0.9 to 2.0 W of delivered electrolysis power, some 35 to 80 times our load. Every configuration was run once, so the results are indicative only. The main finding is that active tracking is a net energy sink below about 1 W. We also identify the losses that limit the performance of directly coupled cells of this size.

Graphical Abstract
Keywords
Hydrogen production Electrolyzer Photovoltaic (PV) Electrode material
How to Cite
Chowdhury, M. F. I. ., Islam, M. ., Sadat Bari, M. F. ., Hossain, M. S. ., & Tanim, W. S. . (2026). Directly coupled photovoltaic alkaline electrolysis with low-cost carbon and stainless-steel electrodes: an exploratory assessment of single-axis solar tracking at sub-watt scale. Future Engineering Research, 2(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fer.2.1.1
References
  1. M. W. Jones et al., “National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850,” Sci. Data, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 155, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41597-023-02041-1.
  2. W. Nsengiyumva, S. G. Chen, L. Hu, and X. Chen, “Recent advancements and challenges in Solar Tracking Systems (STS): A review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 81, pp. 250–279, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.085.
  3. M. Awad et al., “A review of water electrolysis for green hydrogen generation considering PV/wind/hybrid/hydropower/geothermal/tidal and wave/biogas energy systems, economic analysis, and its application,” Alex. Eng. J., vol. 87, pp. 213–239, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2023.12.032.
  4. M. Hermesmann and T. E. Müller, “Green, Turquoise, Blue, or Grey? Environmentally friendly Hydrogen Production in Transforming Energy Systems,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., vol. 90, p. 100996, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2022.100996.
  5. O. Myagmarjav et al., “Development of a membrane reactor with a closed-end silica membrane for nuclear-heated hydrogen production,” Prog. Nucl. Energy, vol. 137, p. 103772, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2021.103772.
  6. R. Bhattacharyya, K. K. Singh, R. B. Grover, and K. Bhanja, “Nuclear hydrogen production for industrial decarbonization: Creating the business case for the near term,” Int. J. Energy Res., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 6929–6943, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1002/er.7572.
  7. C. Dolle, N. Neha, and C. Coutanceau, “Electrochemical hydrogen production from biomass,” Curr. Opin. Electrochem., vol. 31, p. 100841, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.coelec.2021.100841.
  8. M. Temiz and I. Dincer, “Concentrated solar driven thermochemical hydrogen production plant with thermal energy storage and geothermal systems,” Energy, vol. 219, p. 119554, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119554.
  9. F. Gallardo, J. García, A. Monforti Ferrario, G. Comodi, and J. Nw. Chiu, “Assessing sizing optimality of OFF-GRID AC-linked solar PV-PEM systems for hydrogen production,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 47, no. 64, pp. 27303–27325, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.06.098.
  10. G. K. Karayel, N. Javani, and I. Dincer, “Hydropower for green hydrogen production in Turkey,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 48, no. 60, pp. 22806–22817, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.04.084.
  11. A. R. Irhamna and G. M. Bollas, “Intensified reforming reactor for blue hydrogen and nitrogen production,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 80, pp. 1477–1492, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.05.428.
  12. W. A. Khan et al., “Porous carbon nanoparticles for flat plate solar collectors: A thermal, economic and environmental investigation,” Mater. Sci. Eng. B, vol. 315, p. 118085, May 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.mseb.2025.118085.
  13. M. A. Alfellag, S. N. Kazi, S. U. Hasnain, R. Nawaz, and K. Shaikh, “Experimental evaluation of flat-plate solar collector performance with eco-friendly MWCNTs/hBN hybrid nanofluids: energy, exergy, hydrothermal, economic, and environmental analysis,” Energy, vol. 339, p. 139070, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2025.139070.
  14. K. Shaikh et al., “Performance evaluation of green synthesized graphene nanoplatelets / multiwall carbon nanotubes hybrid nanofluids for the retardation of mineral fouling and its environmental benefits,” Carbon, vol. 238, p. 120243, May 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2025.120243.
  15. K. Kumba, P. Upender, P. Buduma, M. Sarkar, S. P. Simon, and V. Gundu, “Solar tracking systems: Advancements, challenges, and future directions: A review,” Energy Rep., vol. 12, pp. 3566–3583, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2024.09.038.
  16. A. J. R. Parawan and R. G. Tayactac, “Application of Sun Tracking Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Technology with Parabolic Reflectors to Power an Electrolysis System for Yielding Green Hydrogen from Potable Water,” E3S Web Conf., vol. 566, p. 04002, 2024, doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202456604002.
  17. Y. Choi and S. Bhakta, “Optimal sizing of grid-tied hybrid solar tracking photovoltaic/hydrogen fuel cell energy systems for electric vehicle charging stations in South Korea: A techno-economic study,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 486, p. 144511, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144511.
  18. F. Gutiérrez-Martín, J. A. Díaz-López, A. Caravaca, and A. J. Dos Santos-García, “Modeling and simulation of integrated solar PV - hydrogen systems,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 52, pp. 995–1006, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.179.
  19. W. Ajeeb, R. Costa Neto, and P. Baptista, “Life cycle assessment of green hydrogen production through electrolysis: A literature review,” Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess., vol. 69, p. 103923, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2024.103923.
  20. B. Roucham, A. Lefilef, O. Zaghdoud, and K. S. Mohammed, “The evolution of green hydrogen in renewable energy research: Insights from a bibliometric perspective,” Energy Rep., vol. 13, pp. 576–593, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2024.12.037.
  21. M. Arunachalam, Y. Yoo, A. S. Al-Ghamdi, H. Park, and D. S. Han, “Integrating green hydrogen production with renewable energy-powered desalination: An analysis of CAPEX implications and operational strategies,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 84, pp. 344–355, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.08.250.
  22. F. Chien, H. W. Kamran, G. Albashar, and W. Iqbal, “Dynamic planning, conversion, and management strategy of different renewable energy sources: A Sustainable Solution for Severe Energy Crises in Emerging Economies,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 7745–7758, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.12.004.
  23. H. V. Patel, S. A. Gorji, S. S. M. Shahi, and J. G. Love, “Implementation of a Lab-Scale Green Hydrogen Production System with Solar PV Emulator and Energy Storage System,” in 2021 11th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems (ICPES), Shanghai, China: IEEE, Dec. 2021, pp. 201–208. doi: 10.1109/ICPES53652.2021.9683797.
  24. K. Tan and M. Tao, “A Maximum Current Point Tracking Algorithm for Solar-to-Hydrogen Production,” in 2023 IEEE 50th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), San Juan, PR, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2023, pp. 1–1. doi: 10.1109/PVSC48320.2023.10359551.
  25. M. León, J. Silva, R. Ortíz-Soto, and S. Carrasco, “A Techno-Economic Study for Off-Grid Green Hydrogen Production Plants: The Case of Chile,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 14, p. 5327, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.3390/en16145327.
  26. P. Rao and M. Yoon, “Potential Liquid-Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC) Systems: A Review on Recent Progress,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 22, p. 6040, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.3390/en13226040.
  27. Z. Abdin, C. Tang, Y. Liu, and K. Catchpole, “Large-scale stationary hydrogen storage via liquid organic hydrogen carriers,” iScience, vol. 24, no. 9, p. 102966, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102966.
  28. N. Tsogt, D. Q. Gbadago, and S. Hwang, “Exploring the potential of liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC) system for efficient hydrogen storage and Transport: A Techno-Economic and energy analysis perspective,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 299, p. 117856, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117856.
  29. M. Niermann, A. Beckendorff, M. Kaltschmitt, and K. Bonhoff, “Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC) – Assessment based on chemical and economic properties,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 44, no. 13, pp. 6631–6654, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.199.
  30. S. Amrani, A. Alami Merrouni, S. Touili, H. Ait Lahoussine Ouali, and H. Dekhissi, “An AHP-GIS combination for site suitability analysis of hydrogen production units from CSP &PV solar power plants in Morocco,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, vol. 56, pp. 369–382, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.12.165.
  31. F. Odoi-Yorke et al., “Evaluating the economic viability of decentralised solar PV-based green hydrogen for cooking in Ghana,” Sol. Compass, vol. 11, p. 100078, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.solcom.2024.100078.
  32. V. Kumar, M. Prasad Behera, Y. Lv, B. Pradheepa Kamarajan, and S. Singamneni, “Hydrogen production from wastewater using interdigitated printed electrode-based Single-Chamber microbial electrolysis cells,” Mater. Des., vol. 245, p. 113237, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2024.113237.
  33. M. Lineros et al., “Electronics for everybody: student practical experiences using Arduino,” in 2018 37th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC), Santiago, Chile: IEEE, Nov. 2018, pp. 1–8. doi: 10.1109/SCCC.2018.8705228.
  34. X. M. Chen, Y. Li, Z. G. Zhao, T. Ma, and R. Z. Wang, “General method to obtain recommended tilt and azimuth angles for photovoltaic systems worldwide,” Sol. Energy, vol. 172, pp. 46–57, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.06.045.
  35. M. M. Kabir et al., “Integrated membrane distillation-solid electrolyte-based alkaline water electrolysis for enhancing green hydrogen production,” Desalination, vol. 601, p. 118580, May 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2025.118580.
  36. R. Nawaz et al., “Thermal and economic optimization of multi-start helically corrugated annular flow heat exchanger: an experimental and numerical study,” Exp. Heat Transf., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 317–345, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.1080/08916152.2025.2508477.
  37. G. D. Wilcox and D. R. Gabe, “Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis,” Trans. IMF, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 93–94, Jan. 1992, doi: 10.1080/00202967.1992.11870951.
  38. Y. Zheng et al., “Hydrogen evolution by a metal-free electrocatalyst,” Nat. Commun., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 3783, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1038/ncomms4783.
  39. S. Riyajuddin et al., “Super-Hydrophilic Leaflike Sn4 P3 on the Porous Seamless Graphene–Carbon Nanotube Heterostructure as an Efficient Electrocatalyst for Solar-Driven Overall Water Splitting,” ACS Nano, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 4861–4875, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1021/acsnano.2c00466.