The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review on exergy comparison of hydrogen production methods from renewable energy sources
Abstract
Hydrogen is an important energy carrier which could play a very significant role in the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases. The route by which hydrogen is produced is the determining factor for its environmental performance. Hydrogen can be produced through methane reforming or through the electrolysis of water with the use of electricity or it can be produced directly by gasification from biomass. Renewable energy sources (RES) could be the feedstock for the two methods previously mentioned. The objective of this work is the comparison of hydrogen (H2) production processes using various renewable energy sources. This comparison is based on the exergy efficiency of each process. The renewable energy sources that have been used are: wind power, solar energy, hydroelectric power, and biomass. The solar energy systems that are used are photovoltaic and thermal. The biomass systems are divided into two categories: (a) electricity production through biomass combustion, (b) biomass gasification for the direct production of hydrogen. When in any of the processes electricity is produced, this electricity is used for the electrolysis process of water to produce hydrogen (and oxygen). Because hydrogen is transported in a liquid form, the liquefaction process is also taken into consideration in this work. The liquefaction process is very energy intensive and as a consequence it requires a lot of exergy. It has been found that the hydrogen production process with the highest exergy efficiency is the electrolysis using electricity from hydro power. This efficiency is 5.6%. The process with the lowest exergy efficiency is the one with electrolysis driven by electricity from solar energy photovoltaics. The efficiency of this process is 1.0%.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel production processes
KORONEOS, C. (2004) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.01.016 · Cited by 437
Self-citation
Cited by
Hosseini, S. E., & Wahid, M. A. (2016) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.112 · Cited by 2,567
Mellmann, D., Sponholz, P., Junge, H., & Beller, M. (2016) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c5cs00618j · Cited by 872
Renewable energy: Present research and future scope of Artificial Intelligence
Jha, S. K., Bilalovic, J., Jha, A., Patel, N., & Zhang, H. (2017) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.018 · Cited by 369
Recent Advances of Asymmetric Supercapacitors
Wu, N., Bai, X., Pan, D., Dong, B., Wei, R., Naik, N., Patil, R. R., & Guo, Z. (2021) · Advanced Materials Interfaces · doi:10.1002/admi.202001710 · Cited by 292
An overview of hydrogen gas production from solar energy
Koumi Ngoh, S., & Njomo, D. (2012) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.07.027 · Cited by 257
Metadata
- Authors
- Christopher, K., & Dimitrios, R.
- Venue
- Energy & Environmental Science
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 6640
- ISSN
- 1754-5692 (ISSN-L)
- 1754-5706
- OpenAlex
- W1966097563
- Cited by
- 469
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review on exergy comparison of hydrogen production methods from renewable energy sources. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/c2ee01098d
- The paper
- Christopher, K., & Dimitrios, R. (2012). A review on exergy comparison of hydrogen production methods from renewable energy sources. Energy & Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee01098d
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.