ArticleNature communications2026
Optimizing reversible solid oxide cell technology for long-term energy storage in Europe's decarbonized frameworks.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Energy storage is crucial for enhancing energy security. In this study, we explore the indispensable roles of both long-term and short-term energy storage solutions, demonstrating their combined benefits. By achieving 60% round-trip efficiency of long-term storage through reversible solid oxide cells (rSOC) technology, we affirm rSOC's immediate environmental and economic advantages and challenge its perception as merely a future-oriented technology within the current European energy framework. Looking forward to Europe's 2050 energy landscape, our findings indicate substantial variability in storage capacity requirements for various countries, ranging from 54 to 680 kWh/kW for the proposed rSOC system. The use of rSOC as a unique storage technology achieves a minimum levelized cost of storage (LCOS) of 0.88 €/kWh, whereas battery systems reach a lower minimum value of 0.67 €/kWh but exhibit a much broader cost range depending on country and energy context. We demonstrate that hybrid strategies emerge as the most economically viable, reducing costs by up to 78% and, in some cases, to as low as 0.19 €/kWh. These findings support hybrid energy storage strategies as a future-oriented solution.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.