MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Degradation modelling and the impact of intermittent operation on proton exchange membrane electrolyzers

2025· article· en· W7116100561 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hydrogen Energy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsDegradation (telecommunications)Proton exchange membrane fuel cellElectrolysisDowntimeRenewable energyMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates membrane thinning with fluoride release rate as the indicator for chemical degradation in PEM electrolyzers when coupled with intermittent energy sources. Continuous and intermittent operating scenarios are modelled to predict and compare chemical degradation over long-term operation. Predicted degradation is less for continuous operation (with a rate of 2.69 nm h −1 ), whereas intermittent operation increases the predicted degradation rate to 5.86 nm h −1 . Four distinct intermittency patterns over a 48-h period are also investigated, highlighting the role of downtime and scheduling on degradation. Results indicate that differences in cumulative degradation are primarily determined by the length and sequencing of OFF periods. The results provide insights into operational strategies, indicating that accounting for electrolyzer performance degradation in operational planning can mitigate degradation and improve performance in intermittent renewable energy applications. • Predictions over the operational life of a PEM electrolyzer with intermittent use. • Intermittent operation is significant for membrane degradation. • Intermittent operation causes non-linear membrane degradation. • Irregular cycling can increase predicted membrane thinning.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Hydrogen EnergySame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207