MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407087511 · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00904

Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Water Electrolysis: Cell-Level Considerations for Gigawatt-Scale Deployment

2025· review· en· W4407087511 on OpenAlexaff
Cliffton Wang, John Stansberry, Rangachary Mukundan, Hung-Ming Joseph Chang, Devashish Kulkarni, Andrew M. Park, Austin Plymill, Nausir Firas, Christopher Pantayatiwong Liu, Jack Todd Lang, Jason Keonhag Lee, Nadia Ebrahimpour Tolouei, Yu Morimoto, Chun‐Hua Wang, Gaohua Zhu, Jack Brouwer, Plamen Atanassov, Christopher Capuano, Cortney Mittelsteadt, Xiong Peng, Iryna V. Zenyuk

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersOffice of Energy EfficiencyNational Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship ProgramFuel Cell Technologies ProgramFondazione Ticino OlonaU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsChemistryProton exchange membrane fuel cellSoftware deploymentElectrolysisProtonScale (ratio)MembraneNuclear physicsBiochemistryPhysicsPhysical chemistryElectrodeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrogen produced with no greenhouse gas emissions is termed "green hydrogen" and will be essential to reaching decarbonization targets set forth by nearly every country as per the Paris Agreement. Proton exchange membrane water electrolyzers (PEMWEs) are expected to contribute substantially to the green hydrogen market. However, PEMWE market penetration is insignificant, accounting for less than a gigawatt of global capacity. Achieving substantive decarbonization via green hydrogen will require PEMWEs to reach capacities of hundreds of gigawatts by 2030. This paper serves as an overarching roadmap for cell-level improvements necessary for gigawatt-scale PEMWE deployment, with insights from three well-established hydrogen technology companies included. Analyses will be presented for economies of scale, renewable energy prices, government policies, accelerated stress tests, and component-specific improvements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations278
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical ReviewsSame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207