MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Life cycle and economic viability assessment of clean hydrogen as a fuel in corn drying

2025· article· en· W4415681616 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad Ali, David S.‐K. Ting, Rupp Carriveau

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Conversion and Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentNatural gasFossil fuelHydrogen productionCombustionGreenhouse gasRenewable energyHydrogenBiofuel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The framework illustrates the life cycle and economic assessment of hydrogen from four resources and conventional fuels for corn drying based on two delivery scenarios (pipeline and trucking). The process integrates production and delivery of the above-mentioned fuels via pipeline and trucking, their combustion in corn drying, and calculates the carbon intensity and energy costs associated with corn drying using these fuels. • Life cycle and economic assessment of hydrogen and fossil fuels in corn drying. • Transportation via trucking and pipeline scenarios is analyzed. • Green hydrogen reduces emissions above 90 % compared to current fuels. • Pipeline scenario makes hydrogen more cost-competitive. • Sensitivity analysis makes hydrogen viable for sustainable grain drying. This study presents a comparative life cycle and economic assessment of using clean hydrogen as a sustainable alternative to natural gas and propane for corn grain drying. The study compares the environmental performance limited to GWP 100 and cost-effectiveness of hydrogen from various renewable sources (hydro, wind, solar) and plasma pyrolysis of natural gas against conventional fossil fuels under two delivery scenarios: pipeline and trucking. A life cycle assessment is conducted using Open LCA to quantify the carbon intensity of each fuel from cradle to combustion at multiple energy requirements, based on four burner efficiencies across each scenario. In parallel, economic analysis is conducted by calculating the fuel cost required per ton of dried corn grains at each efficiency across both scenarios. The results indicate that green hydrogen consistently outperforms current fuels in terms of emissions, but it is generally more expensive at lower burner efficiencies and in trucking scenarios. However, the cost competitiveness of green hydrogen improves significantly at higher efficiency, and with pipeline infrastructure development, it can become more economical when compared to propane. Hydrogen produced via plasma pyrolysis offers high environmental and economic costs due to its electricity and natural gas requirements. Sensitivity analysis further explores the impact of a 50% reduction in hydrogen production and transportation costs, revealing that hydrogen could become a viable option for grain drying in both pipeline and trucking scenarios. This study highlights the long-term potential of hydrogen in reducing carbon emissions and offers insights into the economic feasibility of hydrogen adoption in agricultural drying processes. The findings suggest that strategic investments in hydrogen infrastructure could significantly enhance the sustainability of agricultural practices, paving the way for a greener future in food production.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy Conversion and ManagementSame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207