Solar versus Electrolysis Methods for Green Hydrogen Production: A Meta-Analysis of Efficiency, Yield, and Cost Performance

Abstract— The global transition to sustainable energy systems has accelerated interest in green hydrogen production, with solar and electrolysis methods emerging as leading technological pathways. However, systematic comparative evidence across multiple performance dimensions remains limited, creating challenges for evidence-based technology selection decisions. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of solar and electrolysis methods for green hydrogen generation through systematic review and meta-analysis, examining efficiency, hydrogen yield, and levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) across recent scientific literature. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect) for studies published from 2015-2025. Data were extracted and standardized using established conversion factors for efficiency (%), hydrogen yield (kg/day), and cost (USD/kg). Statistical analyses used Mann-Whitney U tests due to assumption violations, with effect sizes calculated using Cohen's conventions. Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria, providing 8-20 studies per outcome measure. Electrolysis methods demonstrated significantly higher efficiency (55.8% vs 19.4%, p = 0.001, large effect r = 0.62) and more consistent, lower costs ($5.09 vs $8.03/kg, p < 0.10, medium effect r = 0.335). No statistically significant difference was found in hydrogen yield despite solar methods showing 14.72 times higher geometric mean, indicating that deployment scale influences yield more than technology choice. Electrolysis methods currently offer superior consistency and commercial readiness, while solar approaches show potential for breakthrough performance under optimal conditions. The findings suggest that diversified technology portfolios may optimize adoption of green hydrogen across countries, with technology selection depending on specific application requirements, risk tolerance, and local conditions rather than technological superiority.