Life Cycle Assessment of Various Nuclear-Based Hydrogen and Ammonia Production Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis, a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of nuclear-based hydrogen and ammonia production is performed.Environmental impacts of nuclear hydrogen and ammonia production processes are assessed in five different impact categories selected from CML-2001 method.In one scenario BWR-HTE nuclear hydrogen production is compared with PWR-HTE nuclear hydrogen production to reveal the impact of nuclear power plant selection on LCA results.The LCA study of nuclear hydrogen and ammonia production methods is achieved by SimaPro software.Moreover, in the present study, a comparative cost analysis of various nuclear hydrogen production configurations is performed regarding hydrogen generation method, storage, and transportation of hydrogen, and nuclear power plant type.Hydrogen Energy Evaluation Program (HEEP) is utilized for cost analysis of various nuclear hydrogen production scenarios.According to the results of the performed LCA study, hydrogen and ammonia production via nuclear high-temperature electrolysis (HTE) yields the lowest environmental impacts, whereas nuclear 5-step thermochemical copper-chlorine (Cu-Cl) cycle method has the highest environmental impacts regarding the selected impact categories.For instance, the GWP of HTE based nuclear hydrogen and ammonia productions are 0.48 kg CO2-eq and 0.183 kg CO2-eq, whereas 5-step Cu-Cl cycle based nuclear hydrogen and ammonia production have the GWP value of 1.35 kg CO2-eq 0.336 CO2-eq per kg hydrogen, respectively.Except for ozone depletion potential (ODP), HTE based nuclear hydrogen production from BWR type reactor yields lower environmental impacts than that of nuclear hydrogen production from PWR type reactor in all selected impact categories.From the cost assessment study of nuclear hydrogen production, it can be highlighted that APWR based hydrogen production via high-temperature steam reforming is the most costeffective among the selected methods.One kg nuclear hydrogen production from APWR type reactor cost 3.24 $, whereas this value for HTGR type reactor is 3.61 $/kg of hydrogen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".