4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Harmonising methodological choices in life cycle assessment of hydrogen: A focus on acidification and renewable hydrogen

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 44, Issue 35, Pages 19426-19433

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.101

Keywords

Acidification; Carbon footprint; Harmonisation; Life cycle assessment; Renewable hydrogen; Steam methane reforming

Funding

  1. Regional Government of Madrid [S2013/MAE-2882]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness [ENE2015-74607-JIN AEI/FEDER/UE]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The environmental sustainability of hydrogen energy systems is often evaluated through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). In particular, environmental suitability is usually determined by comparing the life-cycle indicators calculated for a specific hydrogen energy system with those of a reference system (e.g., conventional hydrogen from steam methane reforming, SMR-H-2). In this respect, harmonisation protocols for comparative LCA of hydrogen energy systems have recently been developed in order to avoid misleading conclusions in terms of carbon footprints and cumulative energy demand. This article expands the scope of these harmonisation initiatives by addressing a new life-cycle indicator: acidification. A robust protocol for harmonising the acidification potential of hydrogen energy systems is developed and applied to both SMR-H-2 and a sample of case studies of renewable hydrogen. According to the results, unlike other energy systems, there is no correlation between acidification and carbon footprint in the case of hydrogen energy systems, which prevents the estimation of harmonised acidification results from available harmonised carbon footprints. Nevertheless, an initial library of harmonised life cycle indicators of renewable hydrogen is now made available. (C) 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available