In the paper the amount of PV plant is calculated to fully inflate the airship during a year.
For a use as AWES it is only necessary to fill the leaks which are less than 10% volume/year (according to different parameters such like porosity, and by taking account of the size of the studied airship in the paper), decreasing with altitude. Compression and storage of hydrogen are unnecessary, both on the ground and in flight, which saves weight and cost.
So if a 600 m³ LTA with high quality fabric has losses of 1/5 volume/year, after an initial inflation by using more important ground installations (PV and electrolyser), a small installation on board such like a 1 m² PV and a 1.5 kg electrolyser like on https://www.fuelcellstore.com/electrolyzer-230-e107 or the second on http://www.uniterm.pl/ogniwa_paliwowe/electrolyser.html would be enough to permanently fill the leaks and keep the initial shape. Indeed such a small electrolyser can produce 120 m³ hydrogen/year.
We add wings for this balloon in order to keep a lift-to-drag ratio (with wind turbines on board) over 1 even by high winds, another option being using Sharp rotor assuring a L/D ratio of about 2.3 (without the turbines aloft). This would be a (not crosswind excepted for the propellers motion) static system.
As an hypothesis we install (lighter thanks to ground generators) @Kitewinder propellers with rope-drive transmission on the wings or elsewhere.
Recovery the system at ground during big thunderstorms and storms remain the only constraint, knowing that balloons can withstand winds up to 120 km / h (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System), the turbines being stopped before.