LAPSE:2025.0196
Published Article

LAPSE:2025.0196
On Optimal Hydrogen Pathway Selection Using the SECA Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method
June 27, 2025
Abstract
The increasing global population has resulted in the scramble for more energy. Hydrogen offers a new revolution to energy systems worldwide. Considering its numerous uses, research interest has grown to seek sustainable production methods. However, hydrogen production must satisfy three factors, i.e., energy security, energy equity, and environmental sustainability, referred to as the energy trilemma. Therefore, this study seeks to investigate the sustainability of hydrogen production pathways through the use of a Multi-Criteria Decision- Making model. In particular, a modified Simultaneous Evaluation of Criteria and Alternatives (SECA) model was employed for the prioritization of 19 options for hydrogen production. This model simultaneously determines the overall performance scores of the 19 options and the objective weights for the energy trilemma in a South African context. The results obtained from this study showed that environmental sustainability has a higher objective weight value of 0.37, followed by energy security with a value of 0.32 and energy equity with the least at 0.31. Of the 19 options selected, steam reforming of methane with carbon capture and storage was found to have the highest overall performance score, considering the trade-offs in the energy trilemma. This was followed by steam reforming of methane without carbon capture and storage and the autothermal reforming of methane with carbon capture and storage. The results obtained in this study will potentially pave the way for optimally producing hydrogen from different feedstocks while considering the energy trilemma and serve as a basis for further research in sustainable process engineering.
The increasing global population has resulted in the scramble for more energy. Hydrogen offers a new revolution to energy systems worldwide. Considering its numerous uses, research interest has grown to seek sustainable production methods. However, hydrogen production must satisfy three factors, i.e., energy security, energy equity, and environmental sustainability, referred to as the energy trilemma. Therefore, this study seeks to investigate the sustainability of hydrogen production pathways through the use of a Multi-Criteria Decision- Making model. In particular, a modified Simultaneous Evaluation of Criteria and Alternatives (SECA) model was employed for the prioritization of 19 options for hydrogen production. This model simultaneously determines the overall performance scores of the 19 options and the objective weights for the energy trilemma in a South African context. The results obtained from this study showed that environmental sustainability has a higher objective weight value of 0.37, followed by energy security with a value of 0.32 and energy equity with the least at 0.31. Of the 19 options selected, steam reforming of methane with carbon capture and storage was found to have the highest overall performance score, considering the trade-offs in the energy trilemma. This was followed by steam reforming of methane without carbon capture and storage and the autothermal reforming of methane with carbon capture and storage. The results obtained in this study will potentially pave the way for optimally producing hydrogen from different feedstocks while considering the energy trilemma and serve as a basis for further research in sustainable process engineering.
Record ID
Keywords
Subject
Suggested Citation
Kaitano C, Majozi T. On Optimal Hydrogen Pathway Selection Using the SECA Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method. Systems and Control Transactions 4:282-287 (2025) https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.101357
Author Affiliations
Kaitano C: School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa
Majozi T: School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa
Majozi T: School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa
Journal Name
Systems and Control Transactions
Volume
4
First Page
282
Last Page
287
Year
2025
Publication Date
2025-07-01
Version Comments
Original Submission
Other Meta
PII: 0282-0287-1543-SCT-4-2025, Publication Type: Journal Article
Record Map
Published Article

LAPSE:2025.0196
This Record
External Link

https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.101357
Article DOI
Download
Meta
Record Statistics
Record Views
510
Version History
[v1] (Original Submission)
Jun 27, 2025
Verified by curator on
Jun 27, 2025
This Version Number
v1
Citations
Most Recent
This Version
URL Here
https://psecommunity.org/LAPSE:2025.0196
Record Owner
PSE Press
Links to Related Works
References Cited
- DOE. The South African Energy Sector Report (2019)
- U.S Energy Information Administration. Country Analysis Executive Summary: South Africa. Independent Statistic & Analysis. 1-15 (2021)
- PWC. COVID-19: What it means for the energy industry. PWC / United Stated, 1-10 (2020). https://www.pwc.com/us/en/library/covid-19/coronavirus-energy-industry-impact.html
- EIA. U.S. Energy Facts Explained. Department of Energy. 6 (2023). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
- Chih YK, Chen WH, You S, Hsu CH, Lin HP, Raza Naqvi S, Ashokkumar V. Statistical optimization of hydrogen production from bio-methanol steam reforming over Ni-Cu/Al2O3 catalysts. Fuel, 331,125691. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125691
- Abdel-Basset M, Gamal A, Chakrabortty RK, Ryan MJ. Evaluation of sustainable hydrogen production options using an advanced hybrid MCDM approach: A case study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46,4567-4591 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.10.232
- Pilavachi PA, Chatzipanagi AI, Spyropoulou AI. Evaluation of hydrogen production methods using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34.5294-5303 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.04.026
- Chung Y, Hong S, Kim J. Which of the technologies for producing hydrogen is the most prospective in Korea?: Evaluating the competitive priority of those in near-, mid-, and long-term. Energy Policy, 65, 115-125 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.020
- Ren J, Manzardo A, Toniolo S, Scipioni A. Sustainability of hydrogen supply chain. Part I: Identification of critical criteria and cause-effect analysis for enhancing the sustainability using DEMATEL. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 38, 14159-14171 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.08.126
- Ramazankhani ME, Mostafaeipour A, Hosseininasab H, Fakhrzad MB. Feasibility of geothermal power assisted hydrogen production in Iran. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41,18351-18369 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.08.150
- Acar C, Beskese A, Temur GT. Sustainability analysis of different hydrogen production options using hesitant fuzzy AHP. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43, 18059-18076 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.024
- Lin R, Lu S, Yang A, Shen W, Ren J. Multi-criteria sustainability assessment and decision-making framework for hydrogen pathways prioritization: An extended ELECTRE method under hybrid information. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46, 13430-13445 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.01.018
- Seker S, Aydin N. Assessment of hydrogen production methods via integrated MCDM approach under uncertainty. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47, 3171-3184 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.07.232
- Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M, Amiri M, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J. Simultaneous evaluation of criteria and alternatives (SECA) for multi-criteria decision-making. Informatica (Netherlands), 29, 265-280 (2018). https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2018.167
- Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas A. A comparative overview of hydrogen production processes. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 597-611 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.044
- Mehmeti A, Angelis-Dimakis A, Arampatzis G, McPhail S J, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment and water footprint of hydrogen production methods: From conventional to emerging technologies. Environments - MDPI, 5, 1-19 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5020024
- Acar C, Dincer I. Comparative assessment of hydrogen production methods from renewable and non-renewable sources. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 39, 1-12, (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.10.060
- Al-Qahtani A, Parkinson B, Hellgardt K, Shah N, Guillen-Gosalbez G. Uncovering the true cost of hydrogen production routes using life cycle monetisation. Applied Energy, 281, 115958 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115958
- Bhandari R, Trudewind C A, Zapp P. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via electrolysis - A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 151-163, (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.048
- DTIC. Green Hydrogen Commercialisation Strategy For South Africa: Executive Summary. 1-26 (2022)
- Chau K, Djire A, Khan F. Review and analysis of the hydrogen production technologies from a safety perspective. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47, 13990-14007 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.02.127

