Hydrogen production, storage and transport for renewable energy and chemicals: An environmental footprint assessment

Kód výsledku v 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>

Výsledek na webu

<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>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Hydrogen production, storage and transport for renewable energy and chemicals: An environmental footprint assessment

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Hydrogen production, storage and transport for renewable energy and chemicals: An environmental footprint assessment

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

20704 - Energy and fuels

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

R - Projekt Ramcoveho programu EK

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS

ISSN

1364-0321

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

173

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

113113

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

18

Strana od-do

1-18

Kód UT WoS článku

000921356000001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85145554770