A Life Cycle Analysis of Hydrogen Production for Buildings and Vehicles

2005 ◽  
Vol 895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendra Tupper ◽  
Jan F Kreider
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Hydrogen Production ◽  
Life Cycle Analysis ◽  
Environmentally Benign ◽  
Methane Reforming ◽  
External Costs ◽  
Steam Methane Reforming ◽  
Plant Construction ◽  
Steam Methane ◽  
Life Cycle Stages

AbstractAspects of the hydrogen economy are addressed by quantifying impacts and costs associated with a hydrogen-based energy infrastructure. It is recommended that hydrogen (H2) is produced from Solar Thermochemical (STC) Cycles and Wind Electrolysis, with the possible use of Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) to aid in the creation of a hydrogen infrastructure. Despite high impact assessment results from SimaPro, the external costs associated with Biomass gasification are shown to be comparable with those for Wind Electrolysis. Thus, biomass-produced hydrogen could also be a viable alternative, especially in areas ideally suited to the growth of energy crops. Finally, the most influential life cycle stages are the Construction of the FCV and Hydrogen Production (except for the environmentally benign wind electrolysis). For the Wind/Electrolysis case, the majority of impacts come from plant construction.

Life Cycle Impacts and External Costs for Various Hydrogen Pathways

Solar Energy ◽  
2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendra Tupper ◽  
Jan F. Kreider
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmentally Benign ◽  
Fuel Cell Vehicle ◽  
External Costs ◽  
Hydrogen Economy ◽  
Steam Methane Reforming ◽  
Steam Methane ◽  
Life Cycle Stages ◽  
Production Technologies ◽  
First Time

Hydrogen is an energy vector of considerable recent interest because of its perceived environmental benignity. Aspects of the hydrogen economy are addressed in this article by quantifying associated impacts and costs. For the first time, important questions are addressed in a comprehensive way. Impact assessments and external cost analyses investigate whether hydrogen should replace standard fuels and which production technologies are preferred. Finally, the life cycle stages of that contribute the largest impacts are identified. If external costs are to be minimized in the operation of a U.S. hydrogen economy, it is recommended that hydrogen (H2) be produced from solar thermochemical (STC) cycles and wind electrolysis, with the possible use of steam methane reforming (SMR). The external costs associated with biomass gasification are shown to be comparable with those for wind electrolysis. Thus, biomass-produced hydrogen could also be a viable alternative, especially in areas ideally suited to the growth of energy crops. Finally, the most influential life cycle stages are the Construction of the Fuel Cell Vehicle (FCV) and Hydrogen Production (except for the environmentally benign wind electrolysis). For the wind/electrolysis case, the majority of impacts come from plant construction.

Comparative Analysis of Advanced H2/Air Cycle Power Plants Based on Different Hydrogen Production Systems From Fossil Fuels

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Gambini ◽  
M. Vellini
Keyword(s):  
Hydrogen Production ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Fossil Fuel ◽  
H2 Production ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Methane Reforming ◽  
Steam Methane Reforming ◽  
Steam Methane

In this paper two options for H2 production by means of fossil fuels are presented, evaluating their performance when integrated with advanced H2/air cycles. The investigation has been developed with reference to two different schemes, representative both of consolidated technology (combined cycle power plants) and of innovative technology (a new advance mixed cycle, named AMC). The two methods, here considered, to produce H2 are: • coal gasification: it permits transformation of a solid fuel into a gaseous one, by means of partial combustion reactions; • steam-methane reforming: it is the simplest and potentially the most economic method for producing hydrogen in the foreseeable future. These hydrogen production plants require material and energy integrations with the power section, and the best connections must be investigated in order to obtain good overall performance. The main results of the performed investigation are quite variable among the different H2 production options here considered: for example the efficiency value is over 34% for power plants coupled with coal decarbonization system, while it is in a range of 45–48% for power plants coupled with natural gas decarbonization. These differences are similar to those attainable by advanced combined cycle power plants fuelled by natural gas (traditional CC) and coal (IGCC). In other words, the decarbonization of different fossil fuels involves the same efficiency penalty related to the use of different fossil fuel in advanced cycle power plants (from CC to IGCC for example). The CO2 specific emissions depend on the fossil fuel type and the overall efficiency: adopting a removal efficiency of 90% in the CO2 absorption systems, the CO2 emission reduction is 87% and 82% in the coal gasification and in the steam-methane reforming respectively.

Plasma catalytic steam methane reforming for distributed hydrogen production

2019 ◽  
Vol 337 ◽  
pp. 69-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaobing Zhu ◽  
Xiaoyu Liu ◽  
Hao-Yu Lian ◽  
Jing-Lin Liu ◽  
Xiao-Song Li
Keyword(s):  
Hydrogen Production ◽  
Methane Reforming ◽  
Steam Methane Reforming ◽  
Steam Methane
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document