IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i18p4911-d265406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Energy Sustainability Analysis (ESA) of Energy-Producing Processes: A Case Study on Distributed H 2 Production

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos E. Gómez-Camacho

    (DISAT, Dep. Applied Science and Technology, Politecnico di Torino, C/so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy)

  • Bernardo Ruggeri

    (DISAT, Dep. Applied Science and Technology, Politecnico di Torino, C/so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy)

Abstract

In the sustainability context, the performance of energy-producing technologies, using different energy sources, needs to be scored and compared. The selective criterion of a higher level of useful energy to feed an ever-increasing demand of energy to satisfy a wide range of endo- and exosomatic human needs seems adequate. In fact, surplus energy is able to cover energy services only after compensating for the energy expenses incurred to build and to run the technology itself. This paper proposes an energy sustainability analysis (ESA) methodology based on the internal and external energy use of a given technology, considering the entire energy trajectory from energy sources to useful energy. ESA analysis is conducted at two levels: (i) short-term, by the use of the energy sustainability index (ESI), which is the first step to establish whether the energy produced is able to cover the direct energy expenses needed to run the technology and (ii) long-term, by which all the indirect energy-quotas are considered, i.e., all the additional energy requirements of the technology, including the energy amortization quota necessary for the replacement of the technology at the end of its operative life. The long-term level of analysis is conducted by the evaluation of two indicators: the energy return per unit of energy invested (EROI) over the operative life and the energy payback-time (EPT), as the minimum lapse at which all energy expenditures for the production of materials and their construction can be repaid to society. The ESA methodology has been applied to the case study of H 2 production at small-scale (10–15 kW H2 ) comparing three different technologies: (i) steam-methane reforming (SMR), (ii) solar-powered water electrolysis (SPWE), and (iii) two-stage anaerobic digestion (TSAD) in order to score the technologies from an energy sustainability perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos E. Gómez-Camacho & Bernardo Ruggeri, 2019. "Energy Sustainability Analysis (ESA) of Energy-Producing Processes: A Case Study on Distributed H 2 Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-23, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:4911-:d:265406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/4911/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/4911/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferroni, Ferruccio & Hopkirk, Robert J., 2016. "Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 336-344.
    2. Charles A.S. Hall, 2011. "Synthesis to Special Issue on New Studies in EROI (Energy Return on Investment)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(12), pages 1-4, December.
    3. Atlason, Reynir Smari, 2018. "EROI and the Icelandic society," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 52-57.
    4. Lambert, Jessica G. & Hall, Charles A.S. & Balogh, Stephen & Gupta, Ajay & Arnold, Michelle, 2014. "Energy, EROI and quality of life," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 153-167.
    5. Vinayak Laxman Pachapur & Prianka Kutty & Preetika Pachapur & Satinder Kaur Brar & Yann Le Bihan & Rosa Galvez-Cloutier & Gerardo Buelna, 2019. "Seed Pretreatment for Increased Hydrogen Production Using Mixed-Culture Systems with Advantages over Pure-Culture Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-26, February.
    6. Sharma, Sunita & Ghoshal, Sib Krishna, 2015. "Hydrogen the future transportation fuel: From production to applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1151-1158.
    7. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, 1975. "Dynamic models and economic growth," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 3(11-12), pages 765-783.
    8. Florian Fizaine Fizaine & Victor Court, 2016. "Energy expenditure,economicgrowth,andtheminimumEROI of society," Post-Print hal-01410625, HAL.
    9. Algunaibet, Ibrahim M. & Pozo, Carlos & Galán-Martín, Ángel & Guillén-Gosálbez, Gonzalo, 2019. "Quantifying the cost of leaving the Paris Agreement via the integration of life cycle assessment, energy systems modeling and monetization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 588-601.
    10. Pierie, F. & van Someren, C.E.J. & Benders, R.M.J. & Bekkering, J. & van Gemert, W.J.Th. & Moll, H.C., 2015. "Environmental and energy system analysis of bio-methane production pathways: A comparison between feedstocks and process optimizations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 456-466.
    11. Hall, Charles A.S. & Lambert, Jessica G. & Balogh, Stephen B., 2014. "EROI of different fuels and the implications for society," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 141-152.
    12. Enrica Leccisi & Marco Raugei & Vasilis Fthenakis, 2016. "The Energy and Environmental Performance of Ground-Mounted Photovoltaic Systems—A Timely Update," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    13. Charles A. S. Hall & Stephen Balogh & David J.R. Murphy, 2009. "What is the Minimum EROI that a Sustainable Society Must Have?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-23, January.
    14. Ferroni, Ferruccio & Guekos, Alexandros & Hopkirk, Robert J., 2017. "Further considerations to: Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 498-505.
    15. Harjanne, Atte & Korhonen, Janne M., 2019. "Abandoning the concept of renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 330-340.
    16. Fizaine, Florian & Court, Victor, 2016. "Energy expenditure, economic growth, and the minimum EROI of society," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 172-186.
    17. Troy R. Hawkins & Bhawna Singh & Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez & Anders Hammer Strømman, 2013. "Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(1), pages 53-64, February.
    18. Patel, M., 2003. "Cumulative energy demand (CED) and cumulative CO2 emissions for products of the organic chemical industry," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(7), pages 721-740.
    19. Fiore, S. & Ruffino, B. & Campo, G. & Roati, C. & Zanetti, M.C., 2016. "Scale-up evaluation of the anaerobic digestion of food-processing industrial wastes," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 96(PA), pages 949-959.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Radhanon Diewvilai & Kulyos Audomvongseree, 2022. "Possible Pathways toward Carbon Neutrality in Thailand’s Electricity Sector by 2050 through the Introduction of H 2 Blending in Natural Gas and Solar PV with BESS," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-26, May.
    2. Bin Yan & Qiuxuan Wu & Xiaoni Chi & Chenxi Wu & Ping Luo & Yanbin Luo & Pingliang Zeng, 2022. "Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Photovoltaic/Thermal Systems: Parameter Analysis and Determination of Optimum Flow," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Rajesh Nandi & Chayan Kumer Saha & Shiplu Sarker & Md. Sanaul Huda & Md. Monjurul Alam, 2020. "Optimization of Reactor Temperature for Continuous Anaerobic Digestion of Cow Manure: Bangladesh Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Hong, Sanghyun & Kim, Eunsung & Jeong, Saerok, 2023. "Evaluating the sustainability of the hydrogen economy using multi-criteria decision-making analysis in Korea," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 485-492.
    5. Rafael Ninno Muniz & Stéfano Frizzo Stefenon & William Gouvêa Buratto & Ademir Nied & Luiz Henrique Meyer & Erlon Cristian Finardi & Ricardo Marino Kühl & José Alberto Silva de Sá & Brigida Ramati Per, 2020. "Tools for Measuring Energy Sustainability: A Comparative Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-27, May.
    6. Rosario Carbone & Concettina Marino & Antonino Nucara & Maria Francesca Panzera & Matilde Pietrafesa, 2019. "Electric Load Influence on Performances of a Composite Plant for Hydrogen Production from RES and its Conversion in Electricity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-15, November.
    7. Diankai Wang & Inna Gryshova & Anush Balian & Mykola Kyzym & Tetiana Salashenko & Viktoriia Khaustova & Olexandr Davidyuk, 2022. "Assessment of Power System Sustainability and Compromises between the Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-23, February.
    8. Gabriella Garbarino & Federico Pugliese & Tullio Cavattoni & Guido Busca & Paola Costamagna, 2020. "A Study on CO 2 Methanation and Steam Methane Reforming over Commercial Ni/Calcium Aluminate Catalysts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Mohammed Siddig H. Mohammed & Abdulsalam Alhawsawi & Abdelfattah Y. Soliman, 2020. "An Integrated Approach to the Realization of Saudi Arabia’s Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlos de Castro & Iñigo Capellán-Pérez, 2020. "Standard, Point of Use, and Extended Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) from Comprehensive Material Requirements of Present Global Wind, Solar, and Hydro Power Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-43, June.
    2. Patrick Moriarty & Damon Honnery, 2019. "Energy Accounting for a Renewable Energy Future," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Kis, Zoltán & Pandya, Nikul & Koppelaar, Rembrandt H.E.M., 2018. "Electricity generation technologies: Comparison of materials use, energy return on investment, jobs creation and CO2 emissions reduction," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 144-157.
    4. Patrick Moriarty & Damon Honnery, 2020. "Feasibility of a 100% Global Renewable Energy System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Victor Court, 2019. "An Estimation of Different Minimum Exergy Return Ratios Required for Society," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 1-13, September.
    6. Adrien Fabre, 2018. "Evolution of EROIs of Electricity Until 2050: Estimation Using the Input-Output Model THEMIS," Policy Papers 2018.09, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    7. Rafael Ninno Muniz & Stéfano Frizzo Stefenon & William Gouvêa Buratto & Ademir Nied & Luiz Henrique Meyer & Erlon Cristian Finardi & Ricardo Marino Kühl & José Alberto Silva de Sá & Brigida Ramati Per, 2020. "Tools for Measuring Energy Sustainability: A Comparative Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-27, May.
    8. Graham Palmer, 2018. "A Biophysical Perspective of IPCC Integrated Energy Modelling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    9. Ilaria Perissi & Alessandro Lavacchi & Ugo Bardi, 2021. "The Role of Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) in Complex Adaptive Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Melgar-Melgar, Rigo E. & Hall, Charles A.S., 2020. "Why ecological economics needs to return to its roots: The biophysical foundation of socio-economic systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    11. Jonathan Dumas & Antoine Dubois & Paolo Thiran & Pierre Jacques & Francesco Contino & Bertrand Cornélusse & Gauthier Limpens, 2022. "The Energy Return on Investment of Whole-Energy Systems: Application to Belgium," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 1-34, December.
    12. Lina I. Brand-Correa & Paul E. Brockway & Claire L. Copeland & Timothy J. Foxon & Anne Owen & Peter G. Taylor, 2017. "Developing an Input-Output Based Method to Estimate a National-Level Energy Return on Investment (EROI)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, April.
    13. David J. Murphy & Marco Raugei & Michael Carbajales-Dale & Brenda Rubio Estrada, 2022. "Energy Return on Investment of Major Energy Carriers: Review and Harmonization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, June.
    14. Marco Vittorio Ecclesia & João Santos & Paul E. Brockway & Tiago Domingos, 2022. "A Comprehensive Societal Energy Return on Investment Study of Portugal Reveals a Low but Stable Value," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    15. Hongshuo Yan & Lianyong Feng & Jianliang Wang & Yuanying Chi & Yue Ma, 2021. "A Comprehensive Net Energy Analysis and Outlook of Energy System in China," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 1-14, December.
    16. Wiraditma Prananta & Ida Kubiszewski, 2021. "Assessment of Indonesia’s Future Renewable Energy Plan: A Meta-Analysis of Biofuel Energy Return on Investment (EROI)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-15, May.
    17. Carlos Castro & Iñigo Capellán-Pérez, 2018. "Concentrated Solar Power: Actual Performance and Foreseeable Future in High Penetration Scenarios of Renewable Energies," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 1-20, September.
    18. Raugei, Marco & Sgouridis, Sgouris & Murphy, David & Fthenakis, Vasilis & Frischknecht, Rolf & Breyer, Christian & Bardi, Ugo & Barnhart, Charles & Buckley, Alastair & Carbajales-Dale, Michael & Csala, 2017. "Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation: A comprehensive response," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 377-384.
    19. Heun, Matthew Kuperus & Owen, Anne & Brockway, Paul E., 2018. "A physical supply-use table framework for energy analysis on the energy conversion chain," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 1134-1162.
    20. Walmsley, Timothy G. & Walmsley, Michael R.W. & Varbanov, Petar S. & Klemeš, Jiří J., 2018. "Energy Ratio analysis and accounting for renewable and non-renewable electricity generation: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 328-345.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:4911-:d:265406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.