A well to pump life cycle environmental impact assessment of some hydrogen production routes

被引:118
作者
Siddiqui, Osamah [1 ]
Dincer, Ibrahim [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ontario Inst Technol, Fac Engn & Appl Sci, Clean Energy Res Lab, 2000 Simcoe St North, Oshawa, ON L1H 7K4, Canada
关键词
Hydrogen production; Life cycle assessment; Environmental impact; Carbon dioxide emissions; Energy; TECHNOECONOMIC ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR; WIND;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.118
中图分类号
O64 [物理化学(理论化学)、化学物理学];
学科分类号
070304 ; 081704 ;
摘要
In the present study, a comparative well to pump life cycle assessment is conducted on the hydrogen production routes of water electrolysis, biomass gasification, coal gasification, steam methane reforming, hydrogen production from ethanol and methanol. The CML 2001 impact assessment methodology is employed for assessment and comparison. Comparatively higher life cycle Carbon dioxide and Sulphur oxide emissions of 27.3 kg/kg H-2 and 50.0 g/kg H-2 respectively are determined for the water electrolysis hydrogen production route via U.S. electricity mix. In addition, the life cycle global warming potential of this route (28.6 kg CO2eq/kg H-2) is found to be comparatively higher than other routes followed by coal gasification (23.7 kg CO2eq/kg H-2). However, the ethanol based hydrogen production route is estimated to have comparatively higher life cycle emissions of nitrogen dioxide (19.6 g/kg H-2) and volatile organic compounds (10.3 g/kg H-2). Moreover, this route is determined to have a comparatively higher photochemical ozone creation potential of 0.0045 kg-ethene(eq)/kg H-2 as well as eutrophication potential of 0.0043 kg PO4eq/kg H-2. The results of this study are comparatively discussed to signify the importance of life cycle assessment in comparing the environmental sustainability of hydrogen production routes. (C) 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:5773 / 5786
页数:14
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   Comparative assessment of hydrogen production methods from renewable and non-renewable sources [J].
Acar, Canan ;
Dincer, Ibrahim .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2014, 39 (01) :1-12
[2]  
BARE JC, 2003, J IND ECOLOGY, V0006
[3]   Life cycle assessment of nuclear-based hydrogen and ammonia production options: A comparative evaluation [J].
Bicer, Yusuf ;
Dincer, Ibrahim .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2017, 42 (33) :21559-21570
[4]   Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen, methanol and electric vehicles from well to wheel [J].
Bicer, Yusuf ;
Dincer, Ibrahim .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2017, 42 (06) :3767-3777
[5]  
Cai H., 2012, UPDATED GREENHOUSE G, DOI 10.2172/1045758
[6]   Life cycle assessment of various hydrogen production methods [J].
Cetinkaya, E. ;
Dincer, I. ;
Naterer, G. F. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2012, 37 (03) :2071-2080
[7]  
Clark C., 2011, LIFE CYCLE ANAL SHAL
[8]   Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for better sustainability [J].
Dincer, Ibrahim ;
Acar, Canan .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2015, 40 (34) :11094-11111
[9]   Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen pathways from fossil sources in China [J].
Dong, Jun ;
Liu, Xiaotong ;
Xu, Xinhai ;
Zhang, Shuyang .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH, 2016, 40 (15) :2105-2116
[10]   Life cycle assessment of alternatives for hydrogen production from renewable and fossil sources [J].
Dufour, Javier ;
Serrano, David P. ;
Galvez, Jose L. ;
Gonzalez, Antonio ;
Soria, Enrique ;
Fierro, Jose L. G. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2012, 37 (02) :1173-1183