The future of green hydrogen is with the selection of electrolysis technologies that harmonize performance, cost, and sustainability. In this study, we evaluated proton exchange membrane (PEM) and Alkaline electrolyzers using an integrated multi-criteria decision-making framework. Weighting the criteria using the fuzzy best-worst method (FBWM) revealed efficiency (0.0899) and capital expenditure (0.0800) as the most prominent, highlighting the significance of cost-performance trade-offs in stakeholder decisions. Greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption scored high on environmental metrics. Moreover, a technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) results showed a narrow lead of PEM (CCi = 0.507) over Alkaline (CCi = 0.493), owing mostly to superior technical parameters like hydrogen purity and current density. Weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) analysis confirmed this finding, with PEM returning a sum score of 0.432 compared to Alkaline's 0.414. Sensitivity analysis across four weighting scenarios determined the test of rankings robustness: PEM did better in all but the cost-dominant scenario, in which Alkaline did better due to lower capital spending (CAPEX) and longer stack lifespan. These findings support informed technology selection under different stakeholder priorities and can assist in future hydrogen infrastructure planning.
Citation: Leila Bekrit, Chakib Seladji. A multi-criteria techno-economic evaluation of PEM and Alkaline electrolyzers for green hydrogen production using fuzzy BWM, TOPSIS, and WASPAS[J]. Clean Technologies and Recycling, 2026, 6(1): 56-74. doi: 10.3934/ctr.2026003
The future of green hydrogen is with the selection of electrolysis technologies that harmonize performance, cost, and sustainability. In this study, we evaluated proton exchange membrane (PEM) and Alkaline electrolyzers using an integrated multi-criteria decision-making framework. Weighting the criteria using the fuzzy best-worst method (FBWM) revealed efficiency (0.0899) and capital expenditure (0.0800) as the most prominent, highlighting the significance of cost-performance trade-offs in stakeholder decisions. Greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption scored high on environmental metrics. Moreover, a technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) results showed a narrow lead of PEM (CCi = 0.507) over Alkaline (CCi = 0.493), owing mostly to superior technical parameters like hydrogen purity and current density. Weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) analysis confirmed this finding, with PEM returning a sum score of 0.432 compared to Alkaline's 0.414. Sensitivity analysis across four weighting scenarios determined the test of rankings robustness: PEM did better in all but the cost-dominant scenario, in which Alkaline did better due to lower capital spending (CAPEX) and longer stack lifespan. These findings support informed technology selection under different stakeholder priorities and can assist in future hydrogen infrastructure planning.
| [1] |
Acar C, Dincer I (2014) Comparative assessment of hydrogen production methods from renewable and non-renewable sources. Int J Hydrogen Energy 39: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.10.060 doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.10.060
|
| [2] |
Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas A (2017) A comparative overview of hydrogen production processes. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 67: 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.044 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.044
|
| [3] |
Bhandari R, Trudewind CA, Zapp P (2014) Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via electrolysis–A review. J Cleaner Prod 85: 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.048 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.048
|
| [4] |
Wang T, Cao X, Jiao L (2022) PEM water electrolysis for hydrogen production: Fundamentals, advances, and prospects. Carbon Neutrality 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43979-022-00022-8 doi: 10.1007/s43979-022-00022-8
|
| [5] |
Salehmin MNI, Husaini T, Goh J, Sulong AB (2022) High-pressure PEM water electrolyser: A review on challenges and mitigation strategies towards green and low-cost hydrogen production. Energy Convers Manag 268: 115985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115985 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115985
|
| [6] |
Endrődi B, Trapp CA, Szén I, Bakos I, Lukovics M, Janáky C (2025) Challenges and opportunities of the dynamic operation of PEM water electrolyzers. Energies 18: 2154. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18092154 doi: 10.3390/en18092154
|
| [7] |
Millet P, Ngameni R, Grigoriev SA, et al. (2010) PEM water electrolyzers: From electrocatalysis to stack development. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35: 5043–5052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.09.015 doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.09.015
|
| [8] | Huang D, Lu A, Ai X, et al. (2024) Impact of operational parameters on shutdown characteristic of industrial AWE cell. In: Proceedings of the 10th Hydrogen Technology Convention, 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-8581-4_23 |
| [9] |
Emam AS, Hamdan MO, Abu-Nabah BA, et al. (2024) A review on recent trends, challenges, and innovations in alkaline water electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 64: 599–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.03.238 doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.03.238
|
| [10] |
Pardhi S, Chakraborty S, Tran D-D, et al. (2022) A review of fuel cell powertrains for long-haul heavy-duty vehicles: Technology, hydrogen, energy and thermal management solutions. Energies 15: 9557. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249557 doi: 10.3390/en15249557
|
| [11] |
Manzotti A, Quattrocchi E, Curcio A, et al. (2022) Membraneless electrolyzers for the production of low-cost, high-purity green hydrogen: A techno-economic analysis. Energy Convers Manag 254: 115156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115156 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115156
|
| [12] |
Shanian S, Savadogo O (2024) A critical review of the techno-economic analysis of hydrogen production from water electrolyzers using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). J New Mater Electrochem Syst 27: 107–134. https://doi.org/10.14447/jnmes.v27i2.a04 doi: 10.14447/jnmes.v27i2.a04
|
| [13] |
Arbye S, Wijaya FD, Budiman A (2024) Water electrolysis technology selection for green hydrogen production in coastal isolated area. Eng J 28: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4186/ej.2024.28.11.1 doi: 10.4186/ej.2024.28.11.1
|
| [14] |
Azzaoui A, Merrouni AA (2025) Hybrid CSP–PV combination to enhance green hydrogen production in Morocco: Solar technologies evaluation and techno-economic analysis. Processes 13: 769. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13030769 doi: 10.3390/pr13030769
|
| [15] |
Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A (2013) A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J Cleaner Prod 47: 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014
|
| [16] |
Rezaei J (2016) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega 64: 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001 doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001
|
| [17] |
Sitorus F, Brito-Parada PR (2020) A multiple-criteria decision-making method to weight the sustainability criteria of renewable energy technologies under uncertainty. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 127: 109891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109891 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.109891
|
| [18] |
Basilio M, Pereira V, Santos M (2025) Preface to the special issue "Advanced applications of multi-criteria decision-making methods in operational research". Mathematics 13: 1888. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13111888 doi: 10.3390/math13111888
|
| [19] |
Basilio MP, Pereira V, Yigit F (2023) New hybrid EC-PROMETHEE method with multiple iterations of random weight ranges: Applied to the choice of policing strategies. Mathematics 11: 4432. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11214432 doi: 10.3390/math11214432
|
| [20] |
Fernandes PG, Quelhas OLG, Gomes CFSimões, et al. (2023) Product engineering assessment of subsea intervention equipment using SWARA-MOORA-3NAG method. Systems 11: 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11030125 doi: 10.3390/systems11030125
|
| [21] |
Basílio MP, Pereira V, Costa HG, et al. (2022) A systematic review of the applications of multi-criteria decision aid methods (1977–2022). Electronics 11: 1720. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11111720 doi: 10.3390/electronics11111720
|
| [22] |
Arslan Ö, Cebi S (2024) A novel approach for multi-criteria decision making: Extending the WASPAS method using decomposed fuzzy sets. Comput Ind Eng 196: 110461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110461 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2024.110461
|
| [23] |
Solanki A, Sarkar D, Shah D (2023) Evaluation of factors affecting the effective implementation of Internet of Things and cloud computing in the construction industry through WASPAS and TOPSIS methods. Int J Constr Manag 24: 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2023.2222960 doi: 10.1080/15623599.2023.2222960
|
| [24] |
Sıcakyüz Ç (2023) Analyzing healthcare and wellness products' quality embedded in online customer reviews: Assessment with a hybrid fuzzy LMAW and Fermatean fuzzy WASPAS method. Sustainability 15: 3428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043428 doi: 10.3390/su15043428
|
| [25] |
Nnabuife SG, Darko CK, Obiako PC, et al. (2023) A comparative analysis of different hydrogen production methods and their environmental impact. Clean Technol 5: 1344–1380. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol5040067 doi: 10.3390/cleantechnol5040067
|
| [26] |
Salimi N, Rezaei J (2018) Evaluating firms' R & D performance using best worst method. Eval Program Plann 66: 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.10.002 doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.10.002
|
| [27] |
Tsikudo KA (2021) Ghana's Bui hydropower dam and linkage creation challenges. Forum Dev Stud 48. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2020.1858953 doi: 10.1080/08039410.2020.1858953
|
| [28] |
Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 58–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3 doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
|
| [29] |
Zavadskas EK, Vainiūnas P, Turskis Z, et al. (2012) Multiple criteria decision support system for assessment of project managers in construction. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 11: 501–520. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622012400135 doi: 10.1142/S0219622012400135
|
| [30] |
Radomski B, Mróz T (2023) Application of the hybrid MCDM method for energy modernisation of an existing public building—A case study. Energies 16: 3475. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16083475 doi: 10.3390/en16083475
|
Figures(4) / Tables(8)
Leila Bekrit, Chakib Seladji. A multi-criteria techno-economic evaluation of PEM and Alkaline electrolyzers for green hydrogen production using fuzzy BWM, TOPSIS, and WASPAS[J]. Clean Technologies and Recycling, 2026, 6(1): 56-74. doi: 10.3934/ctr.2026003
DownLoad: