制氢技术生命周期足迹的多维比较

IF 5.3 Q2 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Péter Németh, Anikó Zseni, András Torma
{"title":"制氢技术生命周期足迹的多维比较","authors":"Péter Németh,&nbsp;Anikó Zseni,&nbsp;András Torma","doi":"10.1016/j.clet.2025.100902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Hydrogen as an energy carrier will play an important role in the future in achieving sustainable development goals in the energy and mobility sectors as well as to reach decarbonization goals. Currently adopted hydrogen strategies foresee a significant increase in the amount of hydrogen used in the future. To meet this increased volume in the most sustainable way, a careful analysis of potential hydrogen production technologies is necessary, considering real environmental impacts. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of different non-renewable and renewable hydrogen production technologies and evaluates their environmental effects based on global warming potential (GWP). Environmental footprint data discussed in this paper are based on published life-cycle assessment (LCA) results. As direct comparison of LCA results is difficult due to different LCA scenarios, selected system boundaries, various material components and manufacturing techniques, a novel multidimensional comparison approach was developed to understand LCA results better and to give a more comprehensive picture of environmental footprint components. In addition to methodological issues, the key influencing factors of the carbon footprint of different hydrogen production technologies were also identified. It is not possible to identify one stand-alone technology that would be the most environmentally friendly in all circumstances, it is essential to investigate all the technologies in the given context of use. Regarding water-splitting, it is outstandingly crucial to examine the source of the electricity because it strongly influences the GWP of this H<sub>2</sub> production technology. If the GWP of the electricity is high, this technology could be more harmful to the environment than the steam methane reforming (SMR).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34618,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner Engineering and Technology","volume":"24 ","pages":"Article 100902"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multidimensional comparison of life cycle footprint of hydrogen production technologies\",\"authors\":\"Péter Németh,&nbsp;Anikó Zseni,&nbsp;András Torma\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clet.2025.100902\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Hydrogen as an energy carrier will play an important role in the future in achieving sustainable development goals in the energy and mobility sectors as well as to reach decarbonization goals. Currently adopted hydrogen strategies foresee a significant increase in the amount of hydrogen used in the future. To meet this increased volume in the most sustainable way, a careful analysis of potential hydrogen production technologies is necessary, considering real environmental impacts. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of different non-renewable and renewable hydrogen production technologies and evaluates their environmental effects based on global warming potential (GWP). Environmental footprint data discussed in this paper are based on published life-cycle assessment (LCA) results. As direct comparison of LCA results is difficult due to different LCA scenarios, selected system boundaries, various material components and manufacturing techniques, a novel multidimensional comparison approach was developed to understand LCA results better and to give a more comprehensive picture of environmental footprint components. In addition to methodological issues, the key influencing factors of the carbon footprint of different hydrogen production technologies were also identified. It is not possible to identify one stand-alone technology that would be the most environmentally friendly in all circumstances, it is essential to investigate all the technologies in the given context of use. Regarding water-splitting, it is outstandingly crucial to examine the source of the electricity because it strongly influences the GWP of this H<sub>2</sub> production technology. If the GWP of the electricity is high, this technology could be more harmful to the environment than the steam methane reforming (SMR).</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34618,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cleaner Engineering and Technology\",\"volume\":\"24 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100902\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cleaner Engineering and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666790825000254\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner Engineering and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666790825000254","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

氢作为一种能源载体,将在未来实现能源和交通领域的可持续发展目标以及实现脱碳目标方面发挥重要作用。目前采用的氢战略预见到未来氢的使用量将显著增加。为了以最可持续的方式满足这一增长的量,考虑到实际的环境影响,对潜在的氢气生产技术进行仔细分析是必要的。本文综述了不同的不可再生和可再生制氢技术,并基于全球变暖潜势(GWP)对其环境影响进行了评价。本文讨论的环境足迹数据是基于已发表的生命周期评估(LCA)结果。由于不同的LCA情景、选择的系统边界、不同的材料成分和制造技术,难以对LCA结果进行直接比较,因此开发了一种新的多维比较方法来更好地理解LCA结果,并给出更全面的环境足迹成分图。除了方法问题外,还确定了不同制氢技术碳足迹的关键影响因素。不可能确定一种在所有情况下都对环境最友好的独立技术,必须在特定的使用范围内调查所有技术。关于水分解,检查电力来源是非常重要的,因为它强烈影响这种制氢技术的GWP。如果电力的GWP值较高,该技术对环境的危害可能比蒸汽甲烷重整(SMR)更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multidimensional comparison of life cycle footprint of hydrogen production technologies
Hydrogen as an energy carrier will play an important role in the future in achieving sustainable development goals in the energy and mobility sectors as well as to reach decarbonization goals. Currently adopted hydrogen strategies foresee a significant increase in the amount of hydrogen used in the future. To meet this increased volume in the most sustainable way, a careful analysis of potential hydrogen production technologies is necessary, considering real environmental impacts. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of different non-renewable and renewable hydrogen production technologies and evaluates their environmental effects based on global warming potential (GWP). Environmental footprint data discussed in this paper are based on published life-cycle assessment (LCA) results. As direct comparison of LCA results is difficult due to different LCA scenarios, selected system boundaries, various material components and manufacturing techniques, a novel multidimensional comparison approach was developed to understand LCA results better and to give a more comprehensive picture of environmental footprint components. In addition to methodological issues, the key influencing factors of the carbon footprint of different hydrogen production technologies were also identified. It is not possible to identify one stand-alone technology that would be the most environmentally friendly in all circumstances, it is essential to investigate all the technologies in the given context of use. Regarding water-splitting, it is outstandingly crucial to examine the source of the electricity because it strongly influences the GWP of this H2 production technology. If the GWP of the electricity is high, this technology could be more harmful to the environment than the steam methane reforming (SMR).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cleaner Engineering and Technology
Cleaner Engineering and Technology Engineering-Engineering (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
218
审稿时长
21 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信