MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409464443 · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2025.136182

A comprehensive life cycle impact evaluation of hydrogen production processes for cleaner applications

2025· article· en· W4409464443 on OpenAlexaff
A. Yağmur Gören, İbrahim Dinçer, Ali Khalvati

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentHydrogen productionProduction (economics)Cleaner productionEnvironmental scienceHydrogenProcess engineeringEngineeringWaste managementBiochemical engineeringChemistryEconomicsMunicipal solid waste

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The worldwide energy demands have greatly increased with urbanization and population growth. Air pollution, acid rain, greenhouse gas emissions, global warming originating from CO 2 emissions, depletion of energy supplies, and environmental degradation resulting from climate change are all consequences of using non-renewable fossil fuel-based energy infrastructure. To minimize emissions, renewable energy-based alternative energy sources must be investigated. In this regard, hydrogen (H 2 ) has emerged as a promising fuel to meet energy requirements, and green H 2 production with net-zero emissions has gained significant interest in recent years. Therefore, this study uses the life cycle assessment approach to evaluate the atmospheric emissions and environmental impact parameters of the gasification, electrolysis, and dark fermentation-microbial electrolysis hybrid process and assess their sustainability levels, considering the sustainable development goals. Among the studied H 2 production processes, the maximum CO 2 emission originates from the coal gasification process, accounting for 18.6 kg-CO 2 /kg-H 2 , while the alkaline electrolysis process provides the lowest total CO 2 emission of 6.39 kg-CO 2 /kg-H 2 . Furthermore, the biological-based dark fermentation-microbial electrolysis cell process is a promising option owing to its highest negative biogenic CO 2 emission of −68.69 kg-CO 2 /kg-H 2 . The environmental impact parameters of the studied processes are calculated considering the emissions, and the highest global warming potential of 21.75 kgCO 2 -eq./kg-H 2 is obtained for the coal gasification process, considering the life cycle assessment coefficients. Overall, the lowest atmospheric emissions and environmental impacts are obtained for the electrolysis process. Consequently, these results revealed that switching from the fossil fuel resources used in the conventional H 2 production methods to fully sustainable sources, such as renewables, can make energy production methods entirely sustainable from an environmental point of view. • A comprehensive impact assessment of key hydrogen production methods is introduced. • The atmospheric emissions and environmental impacts of each method are compared through LCA. • The highest global warming potential of 21.75 kgCO 2 -eq./kg-H 2 is obtained for the gasification. • Dark fermentation process emits −68.69 kg-CO 2 /kg-H 2 due to CO 2 uptake during biomass growth phase. • The water electrolysis process is found advantageous over the renewable energy 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergySame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207