## 4 Case Analysis and Discussion
### Discussion  
To further analyze the influence of the AWE and PEME technical parameters on the configuration results of the hybrid electrolyzer, Figure 7 depicts the optimization objective function value and the rated power of the hybrid electrolyzer based on the proposed method, considering different hydrogen production efficiencies of AWE and PEME. Subsequently, as the hydrogen production costs of AWE and PEME varied, Figure 8 presents the values of the optimization objective function and the rated power of the hybrid electrolyzer. Additionally, Figure 9 shows the optimization results of changing the investment costs for AWE and PEME. The hydrogen production efficiency of AWE and PEME significantly influences the configuration ratio between these two technologies in a hybrid electrolyzer, as illustrated in Figure 7. When the hydrogen production efficiency of AWE exceeded 72%, the hybrid electrolyzer predominantly operated in a single AWE form, and the efficiency of PEME did not impact the system. This is primarily because AWE's efficiency increases its cost advantages. Conversely, when the hydrogen production efficiency of AWE fell below 72%, a decline in AWE's efficiency or an increase in PEME's efficiency led to a higher proportion of PEME in the hybrid system. This shift highlights PEME's advantages in hydrogen production efficiency, enabling the production of more hydrogen for sale under the same power conditions, which improves the economic viability of the hydrogen production system. In terms of optimization objectives, compared with improvements in PEME's efficiency, AWE held a more significant role in achieving optimization objective \(J_{1}\). If PEME's hydrogen production efficiency is below 78%, a decrease in AWE's efficiency will result in the hybrid electrolyzer reverting to a single AWE configuration while maintaining constant rated power. This will lead to an increase in the value of the objective function \(J_{2}\). Conversely, if PEME's hydrogen production efficiency exceeds 78% and AWE's efficiency decreases, the proportion of PEME will increase, resulting in a decrease in the value of objective function \(J_{2}\). Therefore, the hydrogen production efficiencies of AWE and PEME are critical technical indicators that determine the composition and hybrid ratio of the hydrogen electrolyzer. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(J_{1}\) & \(J_{2}\) & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Rated Power of** \\ **AWE (MW)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Rated Power of** \\ **PEME (MW)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline min(\(J_{1}\)) & 442,790.62 & 1216.00 & 40.27 & 33.23 \\ min(\(J_{2}\)) & 478,127.59 & 905.29 & 0.00 & 62.15 \\ Method 1 & 453,097.09 & 912.35 & 0.00 & 62.51 \\ Method 2 & 451,268.28 & 922.62 & 5.70 & 56.81 \\ Proposed method & 447,218.53 & 952.56 & 18.87 & 43.64 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison results using different methods. In Figure 8, when AWE's per unit hydrogen production cost reduced or the per unit hydrogen production cost of PEME increased, the hydrogen production electrolyzer was a single AWE. Conversely, a single PEME form was presented. Conversely, when the AWE's per-unit hydrogen production cost was fixed and the cost of PEME changed, various configurations could be observed in the hydrogen production electrolyzer. For instance, if the per unit hydrogen production cost of AWE is 20 \(\forall\)/kg, and the per unit hydrogen production cost of PEME is less than 25 \(\forall\)/kg or greater than 31 \(\forall\)/kg, the hydrogen production electrolyzer will consist of either a single PEME or AWE. However, when the per unit hydrogen production cost of PEME falls between 25 \(\forall\)/kg and 31 \(\forall\)/kg, a mixed configuration of AWE and PEME will be used. This indicates that the relative costs of hydrogen production between AWE and PEME are crucial in determining the optimal structure of the hydrogen production electrolyzer.