Comparison between different electrolysis technologies under varying conditions

D. Tejada(1), A. Castro(1), A. Monterroso(1), E. López(1), J. Renau(2) and M. A. Ridao(3) 1.El Arenosillo Energy Laboratory, Energy and Environment Area, National Institute for Aerospace Technology (INTA), Mazagón, Moguer, Huelva, (Spain) 2. Escuela Superior de Enseñanzas Técnicas, Universidad Cardenal Herrera CEU Alfara del Patriarca, Valencia, (Spain) 3 Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería, Universidad de Sevilla, (Spain) 2026-02-15

Abstract

The use of renewable hydrogen is becomingincreasingly relevance as a sustainable alternative to conventional energy sources, particularly in the transport and industrial sectors. One of its main advantages is that it enables energy use without generating direct pollutant emissions, thus contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gases emissions and the mitigation of climate change. Green hydrogen in these sectors is typically produced through different electrolysis technologies. These processes are often powered by renewable energy sources—such as solar or wind—which are inherently variable over time.
This paper presents a comprehensive comparison of the main electrolysis technologies, including alkaline electrolysis (ALKEL), proton exchange membrane electrolysis (PEMWEL), and anion exchange membrane electrolysis (AEMWEL). It analyzes their respective advantages, limitations, efficiency levels, response times, and adaptability to intermittent energy supplies. The study also explores the technical challenges associated with integrating each technology with renewable power sources, emphasizing key factors to consider when selecting the most suitable method. It is important to note that this analysis does not take cost into account, focusing instead on technical parameters and operational performance. The objective is to provide insights that support informed decision-making for the deployment of hydrogen technologies within sustainable energy systems.

Key words: Renewable Hydrogen, electrolysis, AEMWEL, PEMWEL, AWEL.

References

[1] European Commission (2020). Hydrogen strategy for a climate-neutral Europe. European Commission.

[2] J. Jurasz, F.A. Canales, A. Kies, M. Guezgouz, A. Beluco, "A review on the complementarity of renewable energy sources: Concept, metrics, application and future research directions", Solar Energy, (2020), Volume 195, Pages 703-724.

[3] Diabate, M., Vriend, T., Krishnamoorthy, H. S., & Shi, J. “Hydrogen and battery–based energy storage system (ESS) for future DC microgrids”. IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. (2022, December).

[4] Kannah, R. Y., Kavitha, S., Karthikeyan, O. P., Kumar, G., Dai-Viet, N. V., & Banu, J. R. “Techno-economic assessment of various hydrogen production methods–A review”. Bioresource technology, (2021), 319, 124175.

[5] Zhao, B., et al. (2020). “Integration of renewable energy and electrolysis for hydrogen production: A review”. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(39), 19567-19580.

[6] Schmidt, T., et al. (2017). “Energy storage in a fully renewable energy system”. Energy Reports, 3, 30-39.

[7] V.A. Martinez Lopez et al. (2023) “Dynamic operation of water electrolyzers: A review for applications in photovoltaic systems integration”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Volume 182, 113407.

[8] International Renewable Energy Agency. “Hydrogen: A renewable energy perspective”. IRENA (2020).