MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408821839 · doi:10.3390/hydrogen6020021

Computational Methods, Artificial Intelligence, Modeling, and Simulation Applications in Green Hydrogen Production Through Water Electrolysis: A Review

2025· review· en· W4408821839 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Y. Shash, Noha M. Abdeltawab, Doaa Hassan, Mohamed H. Darweesh, Y. G. Hegazy

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrogen · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogen productionProduction (economics)Computer scienceElectrolysisElectrolysis of waterArtificial intelligenceBiochemical engineeringProcess engineeringHydrogenEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations36
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrogenSame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207