Next Article in Journal
A New Power Sharing Scheme of Multiple Microgrids and an Iterative Pairing-Based Scheduling Method
Previous Article in Journal
A New Method of Identifying the Limit Condition of Injection Pump Wear in Self-Ignition Engines
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/en13071603
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Validation of GreenH2armony® as a Tool for the Computation of Harmonised Life-Cycle Indicators of Hydrogen

by
Antonio Valente
1,2,
Diego Iribarren
1,* and
Javier Dufour
1,2
1
Systems Analysis Unit, IMDEA Energy, 28935 Móstoles, Spain
2
Chemical and Environmental Engineering Group, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28933 Móstoles, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2020, 13(7), 1603; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071603
Submission received: 7 February 2020 / Revised: 19 March 2020 / Accepted: 25 March 2020 / Published: 1 April 2020
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology is often used to check the environmental suitability of hydrogen energy systems, usually involving comparative studies. However, these comparative studies are typically affected by inconsistent methodological choices between the case studies under comparison. In this regard, protocols for the harmonisation of methodological choices in LCA of hydrogen are available. The step-by-step application of these protocols to a large number of case studies has already resulted in libraries of harmonised carbon, energy, and acidification footprints of hydrogen. In order to foster the applicability of these harmonisation protocols, a web-based software for the calculation of harmonised life-cycle indicators of hydrogen has recently been developed. This work addresses—for the first time—the validation of such a tool by checking the deviation between the available libraries of harmonised carbon, energy, and acidification footprints of hydrogen and the corresponding tool-based harmonised results. A high correlation (R2 > 0.999) was found between the library- and tool-based harmonised life-cycle indicators of hydrogen, thereby successfully validating the software. Hence, this tool has the potential to effectively promote the use of harmonised life-cycle indicators for robust comparative LCA studies of hydrogen energy systems, significantly mitigating misinterpretation.

1. Introduction

The current level of fossil fuel use in the energy sector raises significant sustainability concerns, e.g., on environmental issues such as greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Within this context, hydrogen is expected to play a major role in the path towards a clean, decarbonised energy system [2]. When compared to other fuels, hydrogen contains a high amount of energy per mass unit and avoids direct emissions of pollutants in the use phase. Thus, hydrogen is seen as a strategic energy carrier with potential uses across different sectors. However, it is not directly available in free form, but it needs to be separated from another feedstock (e.g., hydrocarbons, biomass, and water) through energy-intensive processes. To that end, a large variety of hydrogen production methods can be applied [3], which leads to the need for comparative analyses that check the suitability of a given hydrogen energy system from a life-cycle perspective. In this regard, the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology [4,5] is widely applied to evaluate and compare the environmental performance of (generic) product systems, though LCA comparative studies are often affected by methodological differences that may hamper robust comparisons between case studies [6,7,8,9,10].
When focusing on hydrogen energy systems, numerous LCA studies are available in the current literature, with significant methodological differences between each other [11]. In fact, a harmonisation initiative specific to hydrogen energy systems has been undertaken [12,13,14,15], leading to LCA harmonisation protocols for three relevant life-cycle indicators: carbon footprint (global warming, GWP) [12], non-renewable energy footprint (cumulative fossil and nuclear energy demand CED) [13], and acidification (AP) [14]. These harmonisation protocols have already been applied to a wide range of LCA case studies of hydrogen, resulting in libraries of harmonised life-cycle indicators of hydrogen for robust comparisons. Furthermore, in order to facilitate the harmonisation procedure —whose step-by-step application may result time-consuming—the web-based tool GreenH2armony® has recently been developed [16,17] for the computation of harmonised carbon, energy, and acidification footprints of hydrogen according to the available protocols [12,13,14]. This work addresses—for the first time—the validation of such a tool for the computation of harmonised life-cycle indicators of hydrogen, thus enhancing the usefulness of comparative LCA to support decision-making processes [18,19]. In this sense, the ultimate value of this work is to enable robust decision-making on hydrogen production systems by making the use of current LCA harmonisation protocols practical.

2. Materials and Methods

The harmonisation protocols defined and applied in Valente et al. [12,13,14] allow the mitigation of the misinterpretation risk associated with inconsistent methodological choices in comparative LCA studies of hydrogen energy systems. The current libraries of harmonised life-cycle indicators of hydrogen report the harmonised carbon, energy, and acidification footprints of conventional (fossil) hydrogen from steam methane reforming (SMR) as well as of a large number of renewable hydrogen alternatives. The goal of this article is to validate the software GreenH2armony® through its one-to-one application to the case studies included in the available libraries [12,13,14], subsequently checking the deviation and correlation between the library- and the tool-based harmonised results. In this sense, low deviation and high correlation are required to pass the validation process.

2.1. Methodological Background: Main Features of the Harmonisation Framework

The protocols currently available focus on the harmonisation of methodological choices on the life cycle impact assessment method, system boundaries, functional unit, multifunctionality approach, inclusion of capital goods, and final hydrogen conditions (pressure, temperature, and purity) [12,13,14]. As regards the life cycle impact assessment method, the harmonisation of carbon footprints requires the inclusion of at least CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions and the use of IPCC-based characterisation factors with a 100-year horizon [20]. In case of harmonising energy footprints, they have to be quantified as the sum of fossil and nuclear energy demand, while the harmonisation of acidification requires the use of a CML-based method [21].
Figure 1 shows the main subsystems involved in a harmonised hydrogen energy system [12,13,14]. The life-cycle impacts are harmonised to a common functional unit of 1 kg of hydrogen at 20 MPa and 25 °C, following a cradle-to-gate approach that covers up to the compression stage. Hence, all the steps needed up to the compressed pure hydrogen, regarding both the foreground and the background level, are embedded in the harmonised energy system. Capital goods are included in the harmonised system’s boundaries. In case of systems presenting multifunctionality (i.e., performing other functions in addition to hydrogen production, e.g., electricity production), it is addressed according to a common scheme at the subsystem level: system expansion is applied when the hydrogen-related product represents the main function of the multifunctional subsystem, whereas an allocation approach based on economic values is followed when the hydrogen-related product represents a secondary function.
To date, the LCA harmonisation initiative has led to libraries of harmonised carbon, non-renewable energy, and acidification footprints of hydrogen for a large number of case studies. The purpose of these libraries is to provide values for robust comparison of hydrogen alternatives, mitigating the misinterpretation risk linked to LCA methodological inconsistencies. These libraries are expected to be enlarged by LCA practitioners willing to consistently compare their original hydrogen energy system(s) with those available in the literature. In this regard, the calculation of harmonised life-cycle indicators from a new LCA study may require a relatively large number of operations, and therefore the step-by-step (“by-hand”) application of the protocols may result time-consuming. Moreover, human factors such as wrong calculations, cumulated approximations and typos can compromise the estimation of harmonised life-cycle impacts.

2.2. Main Features of the Software GreenH2armony® and Validation Procedure

The web-based tool GreenH2armony® has been developed to facilitate an appropriate application of the protocols for the computation of life-cycle indicators of hydrogen [16]. This tool is characterised by a user-friendly interface and it does not require additional calculations by the user, but only specific qualitative and quantitative information available in the original LCA study. According to the user’s guide of the software [17], its application involves the following requirements:
  • The user must have an LCA study of a hydrogen energy system whose carbon, energy and/or acidification footprint the user is willing to harmonise.
  • Such a study must be based on an attributional modelling approach and include a hydrogen production stage in the system’s boundaries.
  • The user must be able to identify the hydrogen production technology involved, the hydrogen carrier and the driving energy.
  • The user must know the functional unit used in the original study.
  • The user must know the stages involved in the system’s life cycle.
  • The user must know the original results for the indicators to be harmonised.
  • When the system includes stages beyond hydrogen purification, the user must know the impacts specific to these additional stages.
  • The user must be able to identify multifunctional subsystems and quantitatively define the multifunctionality approach originally followed.
  • Regarding carbon footprint, the impact assessment method used in the original study must involve IPCC-based characterisation factors (100-year horizon; at least for CO2, N2O, and CH4; kg CO2 eq units).
  • Regarding energy footprint, the impact assessment method must be based on the quantification (in MJ) of the sum of fossil and nuclear energy demand from a life-cycle perspective.
  • Concerning acidification, the impact assessment method used in the original study must be CML-based and expressed in kg SO2 eq.
The tool is targeted at LCA practitioners in the field of hydrogen energy, not necessarily being proficient LCA users. Overall, the guided procedure for the harmonisation of an LCA case study of hydrogen involves six sequential steps:
  • In the first step, information regarding the core technology (reforming, electrolysis, etc.), the type of inputs (heat, electricity, and feedstock) and the reference year and region is requested.
  • In the second step, the tool requires the original functional unit, the stages considered, and the impacts per functional unit.
  • In the third stage, information regarding multifunctionality (if present) is requested for those subsystems in which multifunctionality takes place. If, according to the protocols, modifications to the original multifunctionality approach are needed, the tool asks for additional information about the amount of co-products, the original allocation factors (if applied), and the original impacts associated with the subsystem.
  • In the fourth step, if needed, the tool requests quantitative information on the impacts associated with the life-cycle stages after hydrogen production (i.e., compression/liquefaction, storage, distribution, and use).
  • In the fifth step, regarding the conditioning stage, information about the initial pressure (if known) and the type of electricity used for compression is collected. It should be noted that, to increase the applicability of the harmonisation procedure in the event of data scarcity, the tool offers the possibility of using default values at some specific points (e.g., infrastructure, electricity and feedstock impacts).
  • Finally, in the sixth step, the tool requests qualitative information about capital goods and quantitative data for relevant inputs (amount of hydrogen carrier and/or driving energy).
Once the abovementioned procedure is completed, the software provides the user with the harmonised values for the life-cycle indicators addressed. When GWP and CED are not both addressed, the software also offers the possibility of estimating one indicator from the other using a correlation equation between both indicators [15]. Additionally, a report benchmarking the results against those of conventional hydrogen from SMR is generated. This report also provides the ranking of the new harmonised case study within the set of case studies archived in the database of the software.
With the aim of validating the software, all the case studies currently included in the libraries available in [12,13,14] were individually processed using GreenH2armony®. In this regard, Table A1 in the Appendix A presents the list of case studies of hydrogen included in the libraries [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57], and therefore used herein to check the validity of the software. For the sake of full traceability of the validation exercise, Supplementary Information reporting all of the information fed to the software is provided on a case-by-case basis.
The procedure for the validation of the software consists in determining the deviation and correlation between the library-based harmonised indicators and the tool-based ones. If low deviation and high correlation (i.e., R2 > 0.99) are found, then the software is considered to pass the validation exercise. Otherwise, the software is not deemed valid. Furthermore, if the software is successfully validated, a secondary outcome of the study refers to the identification of incorrect values within the published libraries of harmonised life-cycle indicators of hydrogen due to human factors affecting the “by-hand” application of the harmonisation protocols.

3. Results and Discussion

As a result of the validation exercise, Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 present the harmonised impacts computed through the software GreenH2armony® (tool use illustrated in [58]), also including the harmonised impacts of hydrogen already available in the current libraries [12,13,14]. For those case studies where a significant difference between tool- and library-based harmonised values was found, the reasons behind such a deviation were explored by revisiting the calculations performed in the original harmonisation studies [12,13,14] (column “Comment” in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). As the computational structure of GreenH2armony® was programmed in a Microsoft IIS 8.5 environment on Windows Server 2012 R2 using MsSQL databases and classic Active Server Pages language and following the decision trees readily available in the original protocols [12,13,14], the reasons behind potential deviations should be associated with human errors affecting the literature-based results. Otherwise, computational bugs would lead to the invalidation of the proposed software solution.
Regarding the harmonised carbon footprints of hydrogen (Table 1), the values with: (i) a relative difference above 5% between the tool-based GWP and the library-based one and (ii) an absolute difference higher than 0.6 kg CO2 eq per functional unit (i.e., 5% of the harmonised carbon footprint of the reference case, SMR2) were revisited in order to identify the origin of such a significant deviation. This led to the finding that all the case studies with a significant deviation (viz., HE4, HE1, PVE1, CSE2, WPE8, BMG6, WPE8, and BMG3) were affected by human errors that occurred when applying the protocols by hand, i.e. without using GreenH2armony®.
Similarly, Table 2 presents the harmonised non-renewable energy footprints of hydrogen from both the available library [13] and the software used. As previously done for the carbon footprint, the cases with a significant deviation (relative difference above 5% and absolute difference higher than 10 MJ per functional unit [5% of the harmonised non-renewable energy footprint of the reference case, SMR2]) were revisited. Under this life-cycle indicator, only the case study SBR10 was found to be affected by a significant deviation, which is linked to a human error (viz., double counting of capital goods in the library-based value).
Table 3 reports the harmonised acidification impacts. As done for the previous life-cycle indicators, the case studies with a significant deviation (relative difference above 5% and absolute difference higher than 0.001 kg SO2 eq per functional unit [5% of the harmonised acidification of the reference case, SMR2]) were revisited. This led to identify SBR4 and SBR5 as the case studies with a significant deviation. Once revisited, human factors were also identified as the source of deviation, in particular the misreading of numbers in bar diagrams when harmonising these case studies without GreenH2armony®.
According to the results in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3, the remaining harmonised carbon, energy, and acidification footprints (i.e., more than 90% of the harmonised values) were found to be associated with negligible deviations. These insignificant deviations were found to be closely linked to digit approximations cumulated through the harmonisation process. Overall, a very low deviation between the tool-based harmonised life-cycle indicators and the library-based ones was therefore concluded.
Besides the relevance of the difference between the library- and tool-based harmonised values, the importance of harmonisation to avoid misinterpretation is actually shown by the difference between the original and harmonised values. Previous harmonisation works reported mitigation of misinterpretation risk for the three life-cycle indicators under study [12,13,14]. Concerning carbon footprints, examples of misinterpretation were reported when ranking renewable options, e.g., PVE5 < WPE19 < CSE1 < BME1 according to the original values while BME1 < CSE1 < WPE19 < PVE5 based on the harmonised ones [12]. Regarding energy footprints, misinterpretation risk was illustrated when checking the achievement of a 40% energy-saving target with respect to conventional hydrogen: target attained by BMG8 but not by BMF5 according to the harmonised values, while target attained by BMF5 but not by BMG8 according to the original values [13]. Finally, regarding acidification, misinterpretation risk was found when comparing e.g., the cases SBR9, BMG1, BMG4, BMG5, and BMG7 with conventional SMR2 [14].
Furthermore, in order to assess the correlation between the two families of harmonised values, the library-based values not affected by human factors and the corresponding tool-based ones were jointly plotted in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4. These linear regression studies show a very high correlation between library- and tool-based harmonised impacts, accounting for R2 values above 0.999 for GWP, CED, and AP. The initial hypothesis of high correlation and low deviation between library- and tool-based harmonised values was therefore accepted. Hence, since occasional deviations were found to be exclusively associated with human errors and numerical approximations (and not to an incorrect performance of the software), the harmonisation tool GreenH2armony® was deemed valid. In fact, the tool-based values provide a more reliable quantification of the harmonised indicators than those available in previous libraries. In other words, the tool-based harmonised values in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 should be considered an update of those reported in the original libraries [12,13,14]. Finally, it should be noted that the use of GreenH2armony® was found to drastically reduce the time needed to perform the harmonisation of a single case study. This time reduction was estimated to be of 90% of the time typically required for a “by-hand” harmonisation, being the average time needed for a harmonisation study using GreenH2armony® of around 15 minutes.

4. Conclusions

The software GreenH2armony® for the computation of life-cycle indicators of hydrogen was successfully validated. A high correlation (R2 > 0.999) between library- and tool-based harmonised life-cycle indicators of hydrogen was found for the three indicators addressed (carbon, non-renewable energy, and acidification footprints). In more than 90% of the cases, the deviation between the tool-based values and the library-based ones was found to be negligible. In the remaining cases, the deviation was found to be associated with human errors in the step-by-step application of the protocols without using GreenH2armony®. This favourable validation is expected to effectively pave the way for an extended, practical use of harmonised life-cycle indicators for robust comparative LCA studies of hydrogen energy systems. Since the harmonised indicators of the tool-based libraries were found to be more reliable than those from the by-hand application of the protocols, the new values provided in this work constitute an updated version of the current libraries of harmonised carbon, energy, and acidification footprints of hydrogen. Future work in this field should focus on overcoming the limitations of the tool regarding the reduced number of sustainability indicators and dimensions addressed to date. Other limitations such as the focus on hydrogen production remain out of the scope of the proposed computational solution.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials can be found at https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/7/1603/s1.

Author Contributions

All authors developed the software, analysed the results and contributed to writing the article; A.V. and D.I. developed the validation framework; A.V. performed the validation of the software under the supervision of D.I and J.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Case studies in the libraries of harmonised carbon [12], energy [13], and acidification [14] footprints.
Table A1. Case studies in the libraries of harmonised carbon [12], energy [13], and acidification [14] footprints.
ReferenceCodeHydrogen Production ProcessHarmonised Indicators
[22]SMR1Steam reforming of natural gasGWP
[23]SMR2Steam reforming of natural gasGWP, CED, AP
[24]TCC1NiFe2O thermochemical 2-step cycle (heat from solar reactor)GWP
[25]TCC2ZnO thermochemical 2-step cycle (heat from solar reactor)GWP
[25]SBR1Bioethanol reforming (wheat grains)GWP, AP
[26]SBR2Bio-oil reforming (rapeseed oil)GWP
[26]SBR3Bio-oil reforming (palm oil)GWP
[27]SBR4Bioethanol (56%) + CH4 (44%) reforming (cassava)GWP, AP
[27]SBR5Bioethanol reforming (from cassava)GWP, AP
[25]SBR6Autothermal reforming of bioethanol (wheat grains)GWP, AP
[25]SBR7Autothermal reforming of biomethane (cattle manure)GWP, AP
[28]SBR8Biomethane reforming (non-food biowaste)GWP, AP
[28]SBR9Biomethane reforming (German substrate mix)GWP, AP
[29]SBR10Biogas reforming (farm waste)GWP, CED
[25]SBR11Biomethane reforming (cattle manure)GWP, AP
[30]SBR12Bio-oil reforming (fast pyrolysis of wood chips)GWP, CED
[30]SBR13Bio-oil reforming (fast pyrolysis of willow)GWP, CED
[31]SBR14Bio-oil reforming (fast pyrolysis of poplar)GWP, CED, AP
[25]POX1Partial oxidation of biomethane (cattle manure)GWP, AP
[32]BMG1Biomass gasification (short-rotation poplar)GWP, CED, AP
[28]BMG2Biomass gasification (willow)GWP, AP
[33]BMG3Biomass gasification (wood chips)GWP
[23]BMG4Biomass gasification (poplar)GWP, CED, AP
[34]BMG5Biomass gasification (woody biomass)GWP, AP
[35]BMG6Biomass gasification (woody biomass)GWP
[36]BMG7Biomass gasification (vine pruning waste)GWP, AP
[37]BMG8Biomass gasification (woody biomass)GWP, CED
[38]BMG9Biomass gasification with CO2 capture (short-rotation poplar)GWP, AP
[39]WPE1Water electrolysis (wind power)GWP
[40]WPE2Water electrolysis (wind power)GWP
[41]WPE3Water electrolysis (wind power)GWP
[42]WPE4Water electrolysis (wind power)GWP
[43]WPE5Water electrolysis (wind power)GWP
[44]WPE6Water electrolysis (wind power)GWP
[45]WPE7Water electrolysis (wind power)GWP
[35]WPE8Alkaline water electrolysis (wind power)GWP, CED
[46]WPE9Alkaline water electrolysis (asbestos membrane) (wind power)GWP, AP
[46]WPE10Alkaline water electrolysis (advanced membrane) (wind power)GWP, AP
[46]WPE11Alkaline water electrolysis (advanced membrane; optimised system) (wind power)GWP, AP
[47]WPE12Alkaline water electrolysis (Na-Cl cell) (wind power)GWP
[48]WPE13Alkaline water electrolysis (wind power)GWP
[49]WPE15PEM water electrolysis (wind power)GWP
[50]WPE16High-temperature water electrolysis (wind power)GWP, CED, AP
[51]WPE17Alkaline water electrolysis (wind power)GWP
[50]WPE18High-temperature electrolysis (wind power)GWP, CED, AP
[50]WPE19High temperature electrolysis (wind + biogas back-up)GWP, CED, AP
[35]PVE1Alkaline water electrolysis (PV power)GWP, CED
[45]PVE2Water electrolysis (PV power)GWP
[39]PVE3Water electrolysis (PV power)GWP
[40]PVE4Water electrolysis (PV power)GWP
[42]PVE5Water electrolysis (PV power)GWP
[47]PVE6Alkaline water electrolysis (Na-Cl cell) (PV power)GWP
[49]PVE7PEM water electrolysis (PV power)GWP
[51]PVE8Alkaline water electrolysis (PV power)GWP
[52]PVE9Alkaline water electrolysis (PV power)GWP
[51]CSE1Alkaline water electrolysis (thermal solar power)GWP
[35]CSE2Alkaline water electrolysis (thermal solar power)GWP, CED
[35]HE1Alkaline water electrolysis (hydropower)GWP, CED
[53]HE2Alkaline water electrolysis (hydropower)GWP, CED, AP
[51]HE3Alkaline water electrolysis (hydropower)GWP
[52]HE4Alkaline water electrolysis (hydropower)GWP
[51]BME1Alkaline water electrolysis (biomass gasification electricity)GWP
[54]RNE1Alkaline water electrolysis (undefined renewable power)GWP
[33]RNE2Alkaline water electrolysis (undefined renewable power)GWP
[55]BMF1Two-stage fermentation (wheat straw)GWP
[55]BMF2Two-stage fermentation (potatoes peels)GWP
[55]BMF3Two-stage fermentation (sweet stalk)GWP
[56]BMF4Photo-fermentation (sugarcane)GWP, CED
[56]BMF5Dark fermentation (sugarcane)GWP, CED
[56]BMF6Two-stage fermentation (sugarcane)GWP, CED
[57]MAF1Dark fermentation (microalgal sugar)GWP
[57]MAF2Dark fermentation (microalgal sugar)GWP

References

  1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global Warming of 1.5 °C; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. International Energy Agency. Technology Roadmap-Hydrogen and Fuel Cells; OECD/IEA: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dincer, I. Green methods for hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2012, 37, 1954–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  5. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14044:2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  6. De Rosa, M.; Pizzol, M.; Schmidt, J. How methodological choices affect LCA climate impact results: The case of structural timber. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ahlgren, S.; Björklund, A.; Ekman, A.; Karlsson, H.; Berlin, J.; Börjesson, P.; Ekvall, T.; Finnveden, G.; Janssen, M.; Strid, I. Review of methodological choices in LCA of biorefinery systems—Key issues and recommendations. Biofuel. Bioprod. Bioref. 2015, 9, 606–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Huang, Y.; Spray, A.; Parry, T. Sensitivity analysis of methodological choices in road pavement LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. How do methodological choices affect the carbon footprint of microalgal biodiesel? A harmonised life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 560–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bhandari, R.; Trudewind, C.A.; Zapp, P. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via electrolysis—A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen energy systems: A review of methodological choices. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 346–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. Harmonised life-cycle global warming impact of renewable hydrogen. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 762–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. Harmonising the cumulative energy demand of renewable hydrogen for robust comparative life-cycle studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 384–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. Harmonising methodological choices in life cycle assessment of hydrogen: A focus on acidification and renewable hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2019, 44, 19426–19433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. Cumulative Energy Demand of Hydrogen Energy Systems. In Energy Footprints of the Energy Sector; Muthu, S.S., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, Singapore, 2019; pp. 47–75. [Google Scholar]
  16. Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. GreenH2armony®—Harmonised Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Energy Systems. Available online: https://www.greenh2armony.org (accessed on 18 March 2020).
  17. Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. GreenH2armony® v.1.0.0—User’s Guide; IMDEA Energy: Móstoles, Spain, 2019; Available online: https://imdeaenergy.greenh2armony.org/files/user_guide.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2019).
  18. Singh, A.; Sevda, S.; Abu Reesh, I.M.; Vanbroekhoven, K.; Rathore, D.; Pant, D. Biohydrogen production from lignocellulosic biomass: Technology and sustainability. Energies 2015, 8, 13062–13080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Gao, L.; Winfield, Z.C. Life cycle assessment of environmental and economic impacts of advanced vehicles. Energies 2012, 5, 605–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis—Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  21. Guinée, J.B.; Gorrée, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; de Koning, A.; van Oers, L.; Wegener Sleeswijk, A.; Suh, S.; de Haes, H.A.U. Life Cycle Assessment—An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards; Centre of Environmental Science: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  22. Spath, P.L.; Mann, M.K. Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production via Natural Gas Steam Reforming; NREL: Golden, CO, USA, 2001.
  23. Susmozas, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. Life-cycle performance of indirect biomass gasification as a green alternative to steam methane reforming for hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2013, 38, 9961–9972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dufour, J.; Serrano, D.P.; Gálvez, J.L.; González, A.; Soria, E.; Fierro, J.L.G. Life cycle assessment of alternatives for hydrogen production from renewable and fossil sources. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2012, 37, 1173–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hajjaji, N.; Pons, M.N.; Renaudin, V.; Houas, A. Comparative life cycle assessment of eight alternatives for hydrogen production from renewable and fossil feedstock. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 44, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Marquevich, M.; Sonnemann, G.W.; Castells, F.; Montané, D. Life cycle inventory analysis of hydrogen production by the steam-reforming process: Comparison between vegetable oils and fossil fuels as feedstock. Green Chem. 2002, 4, 414–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Authayanun, S.; Suwanmanee, U.; Arpornwichanop, A. Enhancement of dilute bio-ethanol steam reforming for a proton exchange membrane fuel cell system by using methane as co-reactant: Performance and life cycle assessment. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2015, 40, 12144–12153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wulf, C.; Kaltschmitt, M. Life cycle assessment of biohydrogen production as a transportation fuel in Germany. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 150, 466–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hajjaji, N.; Martinez, S.; Trably, E.; Steyer, J.P.; Helias, A. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production from biogas reforming. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2016, 41, 6064–6075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Heracleous, E. Well-to-Wheels analysis of hydrogen production from bio-oil reforming for use in internal combustion engines. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2011, 36, 11501–11511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Susmozas, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. Assessing the life-cycle performance of hydrogen production via biofuel reforming in Europe. Resources 2015, 4, 398–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Iribarren, D.; Susmozas, A.; Petrakopoulou, F.; Dufour, J. Environmental and exergetic evaluation of hydrogen production via lignocellulosic biomass gasification. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 69, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wulf, C.; Kaltschmitt, M. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen supply chain with special attention on hydrogen refuelling stations. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2012, 37, 16711–16721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Weinberg, J.; Kaltschmitt, M. Life cycle assessment of mobility options using wood based fuels—Comparison of selected environmental effects and costs. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 150, 420–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Simons, A.; Bauer, C. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production. In Transition to Hydrogen—Pathways toward Clean Transportation; Wokaun, A., Wilhelm, E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 13–57. [Google Scholar]
  36. Martín-Gamboa, M.; Iribarren, D.; Susmozas, A.; Dufour, J. Delving into sensible measures to enhance the environmental performance of biohydrogen: A quantitative approach based on process simulation, life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 214, 376–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Koroneos, C.; Dompros, A.; Roumbas, G. Hydrogen production via biomass gasification—A life cycle assessment approach. Chem. Eng. Process. 2008, 47, 1261–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Susmozas, A.; Iribarren, D.; Zapp, P.; Linβen, J.; Dufour, J. Life-cycle performance of hydrogen production via indirect biomass gasification with CO2 capture. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2016, 41, 19484–19491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ramos Pereira, S.; Coelho, M.C. Life cycle analysis of hydrogen—A well-to-wheels analysis for Portugal. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2013, 38, 2029–2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Granovskii, M.; Dincer, I.; Rosen, M.A. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell and gasoline vehicles. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2006, 31, 337–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Spath, P.L.; Mann, M.K. Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Hydrogen Production via Wind/Electrolysis; NREL: Golden, CO, USA, 2004.
  42. Granovskii, M.; Dincer, I.; Rosen, M.A. Exergetic life cycle assessment of hydrogen production from renewables. J. Power Sources 2007, 167, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Khan, F.I.; Hawboldt, K.; Iqbal, M.T. Life Cycle Analysis of wind–fuel cell integrated system. Renew. Energy 2005, 30, 157–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Miotti, M.; Hofer, J.; Bauer, C. Integrated environmental and economic assessment of current and future fuel cell vehicles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 94–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Cetinkaya, E.; Dincer, I.; Naterer, G.F. Life cycle assessment of various hydrogen production methods. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2012, 37, 2071–2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Koj, J.C.; Schreiber, A.; Zapp, P.; Marcuello, P. Life cycle assessment of improved high pressure alkaline electrolysis. Energy Procedia 2015, 75, 2871–2877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Suleman, F.; Dincer, I.; Agelin-Chaab, M. Environmental impact assessment and comparison of some hydrogen production options. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2015, 40, 6976–6987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lee, J.Y.; An, S.; Cha, K.; Hur, T. Life cycle environmental and economic analyses of a hydrogen station with wind energy. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2010, 35, 2213–2225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Reiter, G.; Lindorfer, J. Global warming potential of hydrogen and methane production from renewable electricity via power-to-gas technology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Patyk, A.; Bachmann, T.M.; Brisse, A. Life cycle assessment of H2 generation with high temperature electrolysis. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2013, 38, 3865–3880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Koroneos, C.; Dompros, A.; Roumbas, G.; Moussiopoulos, N. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel production processes. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2004, 29, 1443–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lombardi, L.; Carnevale, E.; Corti, A. Life cycle assessment of different hypotheses of hydrogen production for vehicle fuel cells fuelling. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2011, 2, 63–78. [Google Scholar]
  53. Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J.; Spazzafumo, G. Life-cycle performance of hydrogen as an energy management solution in hydropower plants: A case study in Central Italy. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2015, 40, 16660–16672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mori, M.; Jensterle, M.; Mržljak, T.; Drobnič, B. Life-cycle assessment of a hydrogen-based uninterruptible power supply system using renewable energy. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1810–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Djomo, S.N.; Blumberga, D. Comparative life cycle assessment of three biohydrogen pathways. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 2684–2694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Manish, S.; Banerjee, R. Comparison of biohydrogen production processes. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2008, 33, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pacheco, R.; Ferreira, A.F.; Pinto, T.; Nobre, B.P.; Loureiro, D.; Moura, P.; Gouveia, L.; Silva, C.M. The production of pigments & hydrogen through a Spirogyra sp. biorefinery. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 89, 789–797. [Google Scholar]
  58. Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. GreenH2armony® v.1.0.0—Demo Video; IMDEA Energy: Móstoles, Spain, 2019; Available online: https://imdeaenergy.greenh2armony.org/video/demo.mp4 (accessed on 27 December 2019).
Energies 13 01603 g001 550
Figure 1. Harmonised hydrogen energy system.
Figure 1. Harmonised hydrogen energy system.
Energies 13 01603 g001
Energies 13 01603 g002 550
Figure 2. Linear regression between library- and tool-based harmonised carbon footprints.
Figure 2. Linear regression between library- and tool-based harmonised carbon footprints.
Energies 13 01603 g002
Energies 13 01603 g003 550
Figure 3. Linear regression between library- and tool-based harmonised energy footprints.
Figure 3. Linear regression between library- and tool-based harmonised energy footprints.
Energies 13 01603 g003
Energies 13 01603 g004 550
Figure 4. Linear regression between library- and tool-based harmonised acidification.
Figure 4. Linear regression between library- and tool-based harmonised acidification.
Energies 13 01603 g004
Table
Table 1. Library- and tool-based harmonised carbon footprints of hydrogen (kg CO2 eq per functional unit).
Table 1. Library- and tool-based harmonised carbon footprints of hydrogen (kg CO2 eq per functional unit).
CodeLibrary-Based GWPTool-Based GWPError [Absolute] (Relative)Comment
SMR112.9512.85[−0.10] (−0.8%)Negligible error
SMR211.4311.32[−0.11] (−1.0%)Negligible error
BMG40.180.05[−0.13] (−260%)Negligible error
HE20.770.77[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
BMG12.092.10[0.01] (0.5%)Negligible error
BMG24.404.36[−0.04] (−0.9%)Negligible error
SBR86.986.86[−0.12] (−1.7%)Negligible error
SBR97.227.14[−0.08] (−1.1%)Negligible error
WPE150.740.75[0.01] (1.3%)Negligible error
PVE73.223.23[0.01] (0.3%)Negligible error
WPE71.151.16[0.01] (0.6%)Negligible error
PVE22.592.61[0.02] (0.8%)Negligible error
WPE160.630.64[0.01] (0.9%)Negligible error
WPE180.810.81[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
WPE192.292.31[0.02] (0.9%)Negligible error
WPE130.850.85[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
RNE23.523.52[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
BMF14.514.52[0.01] (0.2%)Negligible error
BMF22.392.39[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
BMF34.965.02[0.06] (1.2%)Negligible error
WPE170.840.84[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
CSE12.202.20[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
PVE85.045.04[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
HE31.991.99[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
BME11.721.58[−0.14] (−8.9%)Negligible error
BMG810.4710.49[0.02] (0.2%)Negligible error
BMF45.014.83[−0.18] (−3.7%)Negligible error
BMF57.367.19[−0.17] (−2.4%)Negligible error
BMF64.894.62[−0.27] (−5.8%)Negligible error
WPE11.081.06[−0.02] (−1.9%)Negligible error
PVE35.755.73[−0.02] (−0.3%)Negligible error
WPE20.970.99[0.02] (2.0%)Negligible error
WPE30.960.96[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
WPE40.960.99[0.03] (3%)Negligible error
PVE52.372.38[0.01] (0.4%)Negligible error
WPE50.510.64[0.13] (20.3%)Negligible error
WPE62.022.29[0.27] (11.8%)Negligible error
WPE90.730.71[−0.02] (−2.8%)Negligible error
WPE100.680.66[−0.02] (−3.0%)Negligible error
WPE110.680.66[−0.02] (−3.0%)Negligible error
WPE120.160.16[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
PVE60.690.69[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
PVE97.547.30[−0.24] (−3.3%)Negligible error
RNE16.116.07[−0.04] (−0.7%)Negligible error
TCC16.816.39[−0.42] (−6.6%)Negligible error
TCC26.696.36[−0.33] (−5.2%)Negligible error
SBR110.3610.25[−0.11] (−1.1%)Negligible error
SBR69.949.83[−0.11] (−1.1%)Negligible error
SBR75.795.67[−0.12] (−2.1%)Negligible error
SBR115.805.69[−0.11] (−1.9%)Negligible error
POX15.885.78[−0.10] (−1.7%)Negligible error
SBR107.347.24[−0.10] (−1.4%)Negligible error
SBR27.357.24[−0.11] (−1.5%)Negligible error
SBR35.255.14[−0.11] (−2.1%)Negligible error
SBR45.044.92[−0.12] (−2.4%)Negligible error
SBR511.7811.67[−0.11] (−0.9%)Negligible error
SBR125.825.75[−0.07] (−1.2%)Negligible error
SBR137.427.30[−0.12] (−1.6%)Negligible error
BMG54.164.53[0.37] (8.2%)Negligible error
BMG7−0.13−0.17[−0.04] (23.5%)Negligible error
SBR145.245.15[−0.09] (−1.7%)Negligible error
BMG9−24.19−23.10[1.09] (−4.7%)Negligible error
MAF151.7051.60[−0.10] (−0.2%)Negligible error
MAF31707.601707.50[−0.10] (0.0%)Negligible error
HE411.549.20[−2.34] (−25.4%)Human factor: misreading of the original impact
HE11.021.82[0.80] (44.0%)Human factor: wrong functional unit conversion
PVE12.183.98[1.80] (45.2%)Human factor: wrong functional unit conversion
CSE21.723.30[1.58] (47.9%)Human factor: wrong functional unit conversion
WPE81.202.10[0.90] (42.9%)Human factor: misreading of the original impact
BMG68.0018.52[10.52] (56.8%)Human factor: misreading of the original impact
PVE43.982.29[−1.69] (−73.8%)Human factor: incorrect harmonisation of compression
BMG31.623.18[1.56] (49.1%)Human factor: incorrect harmonisation of compression
Table
Table 2. Library- and tool-based harmonised non-renewable energy footprints of hydrogen (MJ per functional unit).
Table 2. Library- and tool-based harmonised non-renewable energy footprints of hydrogen (MJ per functional unit).
CodeLibrary-Based CEDTool-Based CEDError [Absolute] (Relative)Comment
SMR2200.95200.39[−0.56] (−0.3%)Negligible error
BMG425.3624.79[−0.57] (−2.3%)Negligible error
HE28.718.70[−0.01] (−0.1%)Negligible error
BMG141.8641.96[0.10] (0.2%)Negligible error
WPE168.078.06[−0.01] (−0.1%)Negligible error
WPE1811.4611.41[−0.05] (−0.4%)Negligible error
WPE1917.5717.55[−0.02] (−0.1%)Negligible error
BME135.5036.80[1.30] (3.5%)Negligible error
BMF491.1289.32[−1.80] (−2.0%)Negligible error
BMF5183.72185.58[1.86] (1.0%)Negligible error
BMF687.7487.73[−0.01] (0.0%)Negligible error
HE123.9024.00[0.10] (0.4%)Negligible error
PVE159.3756.50[−2.87] (−5.1%)Negligible error
CSE144.2840.09[−4.19] (−10.5%)Negligible error
WPE829.9329.87[−0.06] (−0.2%)Negligible error
SBR12111.22111.93[0.71] (0.6%)Negligible error
SBR13113.98112.71[−1.27] (−1.1%)Negligible error
MBG73.004.90[1.90] (38.8%)Negligible error
SBR14114.66114.56[−0.10] (−0.1%)Negligible error
BMG820.4020.20[−0.20] (−1.0%)Negligible error
SBR1098.1942.11[−56.08] (−133.2%)Human factor: wrong consideration of capital goods
Table
Table 3. Library- and tool-based harmonised acidification of hydrogen (kg SO2 eq per functional unit).
Table 3. Library- and tool-based harmonised acidification of hydrogen (kg SO2 eq per functional unit).
CodeLibrary-Based APTool-Based APError [Absolute] (Relative)Comment
SMR21.86·10−21.85·10−2[−1.00·10−4] (−0.5%)Negligible error
BMG41.45·10−21.43·10−2[−2.00·10−4] (−1.4%)Negligible error
HE22.23·10−32.15·10−3[−8.00·10−5] (−3.7%)Negligible error
BMG11.72·10−21.72·10−2[2.00·10−5] (0.1%)Negligible error
BMG21.49·10−21.44·10−2[−5.00·10−4] (−3.5%)Negligible error
SBR89.29·10−29.37·10−2[8.00·10−4] (0.9%)Negligible error
SBR91.24·10−11.20·10−1[−4.14·10−3] (−3.5%)Negligible error
WPE162.40·10−32.40·10−3[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
WPE183.70·10−33.73·10−3[3.00·10−5] (0.8%)Negligible error
WPE94.15·10−34.30·10−3[1.50·10−4] (3.5%)Negligible error
WPE103.05·10−33.10·10−3[5.00·10−5] (1.6%)Negligible error
WPE113.05·10−33.10·10−3[5.00·10−5] (1.6%)Negligible error
SBR15.61·10−25.62·10−2[1.00·10−4] (0.2%)Negligible error
SBR65.38·10−25.38·10−2[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
SBR7−3.81·10−2−3.81·10−2[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
SBR11−4.40·10−2−4.40·10−2[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
POX1−3.71·10−2−3.71·10−2[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
BMG51.63·10−21.64·10−2[1.00·10−4] (0.6%)Negligible error
BMG79.62·10−39.65·10−3[3.00·10−5] (0.3%)Negligible error
SBR147.27·10−27.27·10−2[0.00] (0.0%)Negligible error
BMG92.01·10−22.02·10−2[1.00·10−4] (0.5%)Negligible error
SBR47.02·10−31.23·10−2[5.28·10−3] (42.9%)Human factor: wrong functional unit conversion
SBR52.56·10−22.75·10−3[−2.29·10−2] (−830.9%)Human factor: wrong functional unit conversion

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Valente, A.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. Validation of GreenH2armony® as a Tool for the Computation of Harmonised Life-Cycle Indicators of Hydrogen. Energies 2020, 13, 1603. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071603

AMA Style

Valente A, Iribarren D, Dufour J. Validation of GreenH2armony® as a Tool for the Computation of Harmonised Life-Cycle Indicators of Hydrogen. Energies. 2020; 13(7):1603. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071603

Chicago/Turabian Style

Valente, Antonio, Diego Iribarren, and Javier Dufour. 2020. "Validation of GreenH2armony® as a Tool for the Computation of Harmonised Life-Cycle Indicators of Hydrogen" Energies 13, no. 7: 1603. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071603

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop