Environmental implications of solid oxide fuel cell system for hydrogen sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogen, known for its high energy content and clean combustion, is promising in the energy transition. This study explores the environmental impact of a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) system. 1 kg of hydrogen production at 1 bar serves as the functional unit. The SOFC system generates hydrogen, electricity, and heat across five modes. Results indicate that the SOFC system achieves a global warming potential of 0.17–9.50 kg CO 2 -eq/FU using the system expansion method. Regional analysis shows that areas with high renewable electricity shares experience increased CO 2 emissions due to functional unit decision. The exergy allocation method is less sensitive to electricity sources and seasonal emission profiles than system expansion. Comparing eight production routes, the SOFC system using biomethane (−5.46 kg CO 2 -eq/FU) outperforms steam methane reforming (11 kg CO 2 -eq/FU) and biomass gasification (1.49 kg CO 2 -eq/FU). These insights are valuable for advancing renewable energy initiatives and effectively mitigating climate change. • Study a novel SOFC system design that generates electricity, hydrogen, and heat. • Details LCA results for climate change, ecosystem quality and human health impacts. • Evaluates emissions using different electricity sources, fuel types, and profiles. • Highlights benefits of system expansion and exergy allocation in LCA multifunctionality. • Provides new insight on hydrogen categorization against conventional methods.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".