Computational Methods, Artificial Intelligence, Modeling, and Simulation Applications in Green Hydrogen Production Through Water Electrolysis: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Green hydrogen production is emerging as a crucial component in global decarbonization efforts. This review focuses on the role of computational approaches and artificial intelligence (AI) in optimizing green hydrogen technologies. Key approaches to improving electrolyzer efficiency and scalability include computational fluid dynamics (CFD), thermodynamic modeling, and machine learning (ML). As an instance, CFD has achieved over 95% accuracy in estimating flow distribution and polarization curves, but AI-driven optimization can lower operational expenses by up to 24%. Proton exchange membrane electrolyzers achieve efficiencies of 65–82% at 70–90 °C, but solid oxide electrolyzers reach up to 90% efficiency at temperatures ranging from 650 to 1000 °C. According to studies, combining renewable energy with hydrogen production reduces emissions and improves grid reliability, with curtailment rates of less than 1% for biomass-driven systems. This integration of computational approaches and renewable energy ensures a long-term transition to green hydrogen while also addressing energy security and environmental concerns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".