IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i7p2184-d222047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Hydrogen in the Ecological Benefits of Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel Production and Use: An LCA Benchmark

Author

Listed:
  • Roberta Olindo

    (Air Liquide Forschung und Entwicklung GmbH, Gwinnerstrasse 27–33, 60388 Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

  • Joost G. Vogtländer

    (Industrial Design Engineering, Design for Sustainability, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, NL 2628CE Delft, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Desulphurization of oil-based fuels is common practice to mitigate the ecological burden to ecosystems and human health of SO x emissions. In many countries, fuels for vehicles are restricted to 10 ppm sulphur. For marine fuels, low sulphur contents are under discussion. The environmental impact of desulphurization processes is, however, quite high: (1) The main current source for industrial hydrogen is Steam Methane Reforming (SMR), with a rather high level of CO 2 emissions, (2) the hydrotreating process, especially below 150 ppm, needs a lot of energy. These two issues lead to three research questions: (a) What is the overall net ecological benefit of the current desulphurization practice? (b) At which sulfphur ppm level in the fuel is the additional ecological burden of desulphurization higher than the additional ecological benefit of less SO x pollution from combustion? (c) To what extent can cleaner hydrogen processes improve the ecological benefit of diesel desulphurization? In this paper we use LCA to analyze the processes of hydrotreatment, the recovery of sulphur via amine treating of H 2 S, and three processes of hydrogen production: SMR without Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), SMR with 53% and 90% CCS, and water electrolysis with two types of renewable energy. The prevention-based eco-costs system is used for the overall comparison of the ecological burden and the ecological benefit. The ReCiPe system was applied as well but appeared not suitable for such a comparison (other damage-based indicators cannot be applied either). The overall conclusion is that (1) the overall net ecological benefit of hydrogen-based Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel is dependent of local conditions, but is remarkably high, (2) desulphurization below 10 ppm is beneficial for big cities, and (3) cleaner production of hydrogen reduces eco-cost by a factor 1.8–3.4.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberta Olindo & Joost G. Vogtländer, 2019. "The Role of Hydrogen in the Ecological Benefits of Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel Production and Use: An LCA Benchmark," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:2184-:d:222047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2184/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2184/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Christian Koj & Christina Wulf & Andrea Schreiber & Petra Zapp, 2017. "Site-Dependent Environmental Impacts of Industrial Hydrogen Production by Alkaline Water Electrolysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, June.
    2. José Potting & Wolfgang Schöpp & Kornelis Blok & Michael Hauschild, 1998. "Site‐Dependent Life‐Cycle Impact Assessment of Acidification," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 2(2), pages 63-87, April.
    3. Weidema, Bo Pedersen, 2009. "Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1591-1598, April.
    4. Lee, Dong-Yeon & Elgowainy, Amgad & Dai, Qiang, 2018. "Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen fuel production from chlor-alkali processes in the United States," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 467-479.
    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. Aghbashlo, Mortaza & Khounani, Zahra & Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, Homa & Gupta, Vijai Kumar & Amiri, Hamid & Lam, Su Shiung & Morosuk, Tatiana & Tabatabaei, Meisam, 2021. "Exergoenvironmental analysis of bioenergy systems: A comprehensive review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).

    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. Anni Orola & Anna Härri & Jarkko Levänen & Ville Uusitalo & Stig Irving Olsen, 2022. "Assessing WELBY Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach through Cobalt Mining Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-26, September.
    2. Ahlroth, Sofia, 2014. "The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 34-41.
    3. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    4. Lu, Qiang & Zhang, Bo & Yang, Shichun & Peng, Zhaoxia, 2022. "Life cycle assessment on energy efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).
    5. Säll, Sarah & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 41-53.
    6. Cátia da Silva & Ana Paula Barbosa‐Póvoa & Ana Carvalho, 2022. "Towards sustainable development: Green supply chain design and planning using monetization methods," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1369-1394, May.
    7. Mehrshad Kolahchian Tabrizi & Jacopo Famiglietti & Davide Bonalumi & Stefano Campanari, 2023. "The Carbon Footprint of Hydrogen Produced with State-of-the-Art Photovoltaic Electricity Using Life-Cycle Assessment Methodology," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-25, July.
    8. Fan, Jing-Li & Yu, Pengwei & Li, Kai & Xu, Mao & Zhang, Xian, 2022. "A levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) comparison of coal-to-hydrogen with CCS and water electrolysis powered by renewable energy in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    9. Sara Rajabi Hamedani & Mauro Villarini & Andrea Colantoni & Maurizio Carlini & Massimo Cecchini & Francesco Santoro & Antonio Pantaleo, 2020. "Environmental and Economic Analysis of an Anaerobic Co-Digestion Power Plant Integrated with a Compost Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, May.
    10. Ralf Havertz, 2021. "South Korea’s hydrogen economy program as a case of weak ecological modernization," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 209-226, June.
    11. Mohamed Benghanem & Adel Mellit & Hamad Almohamadi & Sofiane Haddad & Nedjwa Chettibi & Abdulaziz M. Alanazi & Drigos Dasalla & Ahmed Alzahrani, 2023. "Hydrogen Production Methods Based on Solar and Wind Energy: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-31, January.
    12. Henrik Saxe & Signe Loftager Okkels & Jørgen Dejgård Jensen, 2017. "How to Obtain Forty Percent Less Environmental Impact by Healthy, Protein-Optimized Snacks for Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, December.
    13. Khan, Muhammad Imran & Shahrestani, Mehdi & Hayat, Tasawar & Shakoor, Abdul & Vahdati, Maria, 2019. "Life cycle (well-to-wheel) energy and environmental assessment of natural gas as transportation fuel in Pakistan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 1738-1752.
    14. Zhang, Cong & Greenblatt, Jeffery B. & Wei, Max & Eichman, Josh & Saxena, Samveg & Muratori, Matteo & Guerra, Omar J., 2020. "Flexible grid-based electrolysis hydrogen production for fuel cell vehicles reduces costs and greenhouse gas emissions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    15. Hren, Robert & Vujanović, Annamaria & Van Fan, Yee & Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír & Krajnc, Damjan & Čuček, Lidija, 2023. "Hydrogen production, storage and transport for renewable energy and chemicals: An environmental footprint assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    16. Marisa D.M. Vieira & Thomas C. Ponsioen & Mark J. Goedkoop & Mark A.J. Huijbregts, 2016. "Surplus Cost Potential as a Life Cycle Impact Indicator for Metal Extraction," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, January.
    17. Squadrito, G. & Nicita, A. & Maggio, G., 2021. "A size-dependent financial evaluation of green hydrogen-oxygen co-production," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 2165-2177.
    18. 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.
    19. Li, Junjie & Cheng, Wanjing, 2020. "Comparison of life-cycle energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic costs of coal to ethanol and bioethanol," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    20. Marianne Thomsen & Daina Romeo & Dario Caro & Michele Seghetta & Rong-Gang Cong, 2018. "Environmental-Economic Analysis of Integrated Organic Waste and Wastewater Management Systems: A Case Study from Aarhus City (Denmark)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.

    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:7:p:2184-:d:222047. 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.