4.7 Article

Quantification of fresh water consumption and scarcity footprints of hydrogen from water electrolysis: A methodology framework

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 786-796

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.026

关键词

Power to hydrogen; Water electrolysis; Water footprint; Life cycle assessment; Australia

资金

  1. Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia under ERIA Research Project FY2018 on: A new Approach in Support of Sustainable Energy and Development
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71828401]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Towards decarbonizing the global economy, hydrogen produced through water electrolysis is expected to be one of the key solutions for variable renewable energy storage and sector coupling, in particular, via the transport sector in the next few decades. Even though water is an important aspect of the environmental impact, the impact assessment of hydrogen production on water is lacking. This paper proposes a comprehensive methodology for assessing the water footprints of hydrogen production from electrolysis. A major innovative aspect is to demonstrate the geographical distribution of the footprints along the supply chain. The water footprints for hydrogen produced from grid electricity, wind and solar power in Australia was analysed as a case study. Sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate the influence of key parameters including Solar Radiation Level, Silicon Efficiency, and Lifetime of PV Modules. The study finds that the water consumption footprint is much less than that reported in the literature and large part of the water could be consumed indirectly outside of hydrogen producing countries. The quantity of water footprint varies significantly among different assumptions. The findings provide insights into both domestic and cross-boundary water impacts of hydrogen electrolysis and can thus inform policy debates in each nation and beyond. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据