Hydrogen production, storage and transport for renewable energy and chemicals: An environmental footprint assessment
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216305%3A26210%2F23%3APU146609" target="_blank" >RIV/00216305:26210/23:PU146609 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122009947#kwrds0010" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122009947#kwrds0010</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113113" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.rser.2022.113113</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Hydrogen production, storage and transport for renewable energy and chemicals: An environmental footprint assessment
Original language description
Hydrogen applications range from an energy carrier to a feedstock producing bulk and other chemicals and as an essential reactant in various industrial applications. However, the sustainability of hydrogen production, storage and transport are neither unquestionable nor equal. Hydrogen is produced from natural gas, biogas, aluminium, acid gas, biomass, electrolytic water splitting and others; a total of eleven sources were investigated in this work. The environmental impact of hydrogen production, storage and transport is evaluated in terms of greenhouse gas and energy footprints, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity potential, and eco-cost. Different electricity mixes and energy footprint accounting approaches, supported by sensitivity analysis, are conducted for a comprehensive overview. H2 produced from acid gas is identified as the production route with the highest eco-benefit (-41,188 euro/t H2), while the biomass gasification method incurred the highest eco-cost (11,259 euro/t H2). The water electrolysis method shows a net positive energy footprint (60.32 GJ/t H2), suggesting that more energy is used than produced. Considering the operating footprint of storage, and transportation, gaseous hydrogen transported via a pipeline is a better alternative from an environmental point of view, and with a lower energy footprint (38 %-85%) than the other options. Storage and transport (without construction) could have accounted for around 35.5% of the total GHG footprint of a hydrogen value chain (production, storage, trans-portation and losses) if liquefied and transported via road transport instead of a pipeline. The identified results propose which technologies are less burdensome to the environment.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
20704 - Energy and fuels
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
R - Projekt Ramcoveho programu EK
Others
Publication year
2023
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
ISSN
1364-0321
e-ISSN
—
Volume of the periodical
173
Issue of the periodical within the volume
113113
Country of publishing house
US - UNITED STATES
Number of pages
18
Pages from-to
1-18
UT code for WoS article
000921356000001
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85145554770