## 3 Results  
The sources introduced in the literature review in Section 2.1 were examined to perform a comparative analysis among the H\({}_{2}\) production technologies for the decision criteria introduced in Section 2.2. The quantitative and qualitative results of the comparative analysis are organized in Tables 1-9. As shown below, Tables 1-3 give the cost of H\({}_{2}\), energy consumption, and global warming impact of the technologies. Tables 4-6 provide the energy efficiencies in terms of the (LHV)H\({}_{2}\) of the technologies. Tables 7-9 show the TRL and supply chain material availability of the technologies. It should be noted that for most decision criteria, the results are recorded as a range of values. This is because multiple sources were cross-referenced in order to provide the most accurate data. For each technology, there are a variety of conditions, such as plant size and local electricity cost, that can vary widely. Therefore, a technology's performance for a given criterion cannot be given in a single value without being very specific about plant specifications (viz., technology type, production capacity, etc.). Providing a range of values from multiple sources is less limiting to the overarching objective of the comparative assessment. It is important to note that for waste plastic gasification [54] with CCS and biomass gasification with CCS (Table 1), as well as biomethane pyrolysis (Table 3), certain papers reported their global warming impact as a negative value. These scenarios imply that net carbon emissions are negative based on utilizing waste streams that would have emitted more carbon otherwise and also due to capturing the carbon emissions associated with gasification. by other location-dependent externalities, such as cost of energy, cost of electricity, labor cost, etc. 2. For H\({}_{2}\) production via waste valorization: (b.1) Biomass gasification with CCS technology has the highest energy consumption (MJ/kg H\({}_{2}\)), (b.2) aqueous-phase reforming (APR) of glycerol has the lowest CO\({}_{2}\) emissions (kg CO\({}_{2}\)/kg H\({}_{2}\)), and (b.3) cost of H\({}_{2}\) production (USD/kg H\({}_{2}\)) using ATR of glycerol seems to be the lowest compared to the other waste valorization technologies. The data summarized in Table 2 show that: * PEME technology that uses solar PV electricity tends to have the highest cost of H\({}_{2}\) production (USD/kg H\({}_{2}\)) compared to the other technologies. * Water electrolyzers that use electricity from the grid mix tend to have the highest CO\({}_{2}\) emissions (kg CO\({}_{2}\)/kg H\({}_{2}\)). For the data shown in Table 3 for the emerging H\({}_{2}\) production technologies, the following observations can be derived: * Thermochemical decomposition integrated with solar thermal as well as ammonia thermal decomposition with PSA membrane separation seem to have the highest cost of H\({}_{2}\) production ($/kg H\({}_{2}\)). * Electrified steam-methane reforming (ESMR) has the lowest energy consumption (MJ/kg H\({}_{2}\)). * CO\({}_{2}\) emissions (kg CO\({}_{2}\)/kg H\({}_{2}\)) from the evaluated emerging H\({}_{2}\) production technologies seem to be low, with biomethane pyrolysis emerging as the most environmentally friendly, followed by thermochemical decomposition integrated with solar thermal technology.