Electronic Supplementary Information

Uncovering the true cost of hydrogen production routes using life cycle
monetisation
Amjad Al-Qahtania, Brett Parkinsona, Klaus Hellgardta, Nilay Shaha and Gonzalo Guillen-Gosalbezb*

a
Centre for Process Systems Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College
London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK

b
Institute for Chemical and Bioengineering, Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, ETH
Zürich, Vladimir-Prelog-Weg 1, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland

*Corresponding author: Gonzalo.guillen.gosalbez@chem.ethz.ch

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Details on the LCA of hydrogen production and main limitations.....................................................2

2. Energy calculations of the CCS system in SMR+CCS case................................................................3

3. Monetary valuation..............................................................................................................................4

4. Life-cycle inventory data.....................................................................................................................5

5. Uncertainty......................................................................................................................................8

6. LCIA results using ReCipe 2016 method at midpoint levels (22 indicators) expressed in terms of
endpoint per 1 kg of hydrogen.................................................................................................................8

References..............................................................................................................................................12

This document is organised as follows. Section 1 provides details on the life-cycle assessment (LCA) of
hydrogen production alongside the main limitations. Section 2 provides details on the calculations
carried out for the CCS system for the steam methane reforming with carbon capture and storage
(SMR+CCS) case. In Section 3, additional information on the monetary values used to monetise
environmental impacts are provided. Section 4 provides the life-cycle inventory (LCI) data used in the
LCA calculations. Section 5 provides further details on the uncertainty analysis. Finally, the full LCA
results at the disaggregated midpoint levels are presented in section 6.

1
 1. Details on the LCA of hydrogen production and main limitations
LCA was applied to the ten hydrogen production technologies in Table 1 and Figure 1. The LCA study
follows the ISO 14040 standards, which encompass four main steps [1]:
1. Goal and scope of the analysis: the main objective was to assess and evaluate different hydrogen
production routes. Thus, the analysis was carried out on a cradle-to-gate basis. The functional
unit of the analysis is 1 kg of hydrogen produced at a minimum of 30 bar.
2. Inventory analysis: the main data of the foreground system were collected from the literature
(Table 2). Besides, data of the background system were taken from Ecoinvent v3.4 [2]. A
detailed explanation for each flow can be found in the process description in ecoinvent - Table
S1.
3. Impact assessment: The LCA analysis was performed using the ReCipe 2016 method [3].
ReCipe 2016 converts the life cycle inventories (LCI) into environmental impacts via
characterisation factors at the mid-point and end-point levels. In this analysis, the focus has been
on the environmental impacts at the end-point levels. Hence, three main environmental impacts
are analysed at the end-point level:
a. Human health (HH), which is quantified in DALYs (disability adjusted life years).
DALYs refer to the number of years lost due to illness/disability.
b. Ecosystem quality (EQ), which is quantified using species.year that refer to the number
of species lost in a year.
c. Resource depletion (RD), which is quantified using USD dollars that refer to the extra
costs incurred due to the minerals and fossil extraction processes.
Moreover, these three end-point indicators are disaggregated into a set of mid-point indicators.
This step helps in identifying hot spots for each technology to overcome the potential barrier to
its deployment. These mid-points are presented in Figure S1.
4. Interpretation: It is the last step and phase of the LCA analysis, where LCA practitioners
combine the inventory data and impact assessment to draw conclusions and recommendations
for the system.
The main limitations of the LCA analysis presented in this study are summarised below:
 The environmental impacts of the electrolyser in the electrolysis routes were omitted from the
analysis. This assumption is motivated by the fact that the electricity input needed to produce 1
kg of hydrogen (54.2 kWh) has been shown to be the main contributor to the total
environmental impacts of this hydrogen production pathways [4].
 The emissions embodied in the equipment units of the plants were excluded from the analysis.
This is a common assumption in LCA studies, where the main contributors to the total
environmental impacts tend to be the raw materials and energy consumption and infrastructure
is neglected [5].

2
  Further assumptions and limitations for the background processes are available in the
documentation available in [2].

2. Energy calculations of the CCS system in SMR+CCS case

The natural gas consumption, in this case, increases compared to the base case (SMR) as a result of the
heat that is used for the solvent regeneration step and the electricity consumed by the compression step.
The calculations for heat and electricity consider 1 kg of CO 2 captured. The additional heat is calculated
based on the higher heating value of methane, as follows:

( )
MJ CH ( 3.76−3.36 ) kg CH 55.5 MJ CH kg H 2 MJ CH
Heat 4
= × 4
× 4
=2.70 4

kg CO 2 , capt . kg H 2 kgCH ( 9.26−1.03 ) kg CO2 , capt .

4
kg CO 2 ,capt .

The compression process was deemed to have inefficiency factors, one is the efficiency of the
compressor, and the second efficiency factor stems from the efficiency of turning natural gas into
electrical power which powers the compressor. The compressor was assumed to have an efficiency of
80% and the power generation process an efficiency of 40%, those two factors were used to calculate the
amount of methane required to produce the electricity required by the compressor. The electricity
needed for the compression step is calculated as follows:

( )
MJ CH (1.11−0.31 ) kWh CH 3.6 MJ kg H 2 1 MJ CH
Electricity 4
= × 4
× × =1.09 4

kg CO2 , capt . kg H 2 kWh ( 9.26−1.03 ) kg CO2 0.4 ×0.8 kg CO 2 ,capt .

Accordingly, the additional total energy requirement of both heat and electricity for the CCS process is
3.79 MJ CH4/kg of CO2 captured. Furthermore, burning methane emits specific CO 2 emissions in the
CCS process, as reported by Farajzadeh et al., of 0.055 kg CO2/MJ CH4 [6]. Thus, the additional CO 2
emissions accounted for the CCS step is:

MJ CH kg CO 2 kg CO2
3.79 4
×0.055 =0.21
kg CO2 , capt . MJ CH 4
kg CO 2 ,capt .

3
 3. Monetary valuation
Monetisation was applied to express the end-point indicators on a common monetary basis [7]. The
values reported by Dong [8] were chosen here, which apply to the ReCipe 2016 end-point metrics. All
the monetised values were expressed in USD2019 to match the economic indicator considered in the
analysis, as shown in table S1.

Table S1: Monetisation values factors of the three environmental impacts at end-point levels.

Endpoint indicator Environmental unit Equivalent monetary value (USD2019)

Human health DALY 1.52 x 105
Ecosystem quality Species.yr 4.06 x 107
Resources depletion USD2013 1.10

4
 4. Life-cycle inventory data
Table S2 provides the LCI data of the foreground systems.

Table S2: Inventory flows of the foreground system retrieved from Ecoinvent v3.4. [2]

Flow Technology Description in Ecoinvent v3.4.

Coal CG, CG+CCS Lignite coal, combusted in
industrial boiler/US
Electricity consumed from the SMR, SMR+CCS, MP, Electricity, high voltage {US}|
grid CG+CCS, BG, BG+CCS production mix | Cut-off, U
Electricity produced from Nuclear Electricity, high voltage
nuclear energy {WECC, US only}| electricity
production, nuclear, pressure
water reactor | Cut-off, U
Electricity produced from solar Solar PV Electricity, low voltage
energy {WECC, US only}| electricity
production, photovoltaic,
570kWp open ground
installation, multi-Si | Cut-off,
U
Electricity produced from wind Wind Electricity, high voltage
energy {WECC, US only}| electricity
production, wind, >3MW
turbine, onshore | Cut-off, U
Natural gas SMR, SMR+CCS, MP Natural gas, high pressure
{GLO}| market group for |
Cut-off, U
Water consumed by the BG, BG+CCS, CG, CG+CCS Tap water {GLO}| market
gasification processes group for | Cut-off, U
Water consumed in the Nuclear, Solar PV, Wind, Water, deionised, from tap
electrolysis routes from SMR, SMR+CCS, MP water, at user {GLO}| market
renewables energies and for | Cut-off, U
natural gas sources
CG: Coal Gasification; CG+CCS: Coal Gasification with carbon capture and storage; SMR: Steam Methane Reforming; SMR+CCS: Steam methane reforming with carbon capture
and storage; MP: Methane pyrolysis; BG: Biomass Gasification; BG+CCS: Biomass Gasification with carbon capture and storage; Nuclear: water electrolysis using electricity from
nuclear energy; Solar PV: water electrolysis using electricity from solar energy; Wind: water electrolysis using electricity from wind energy.

5
The poplar biomass considered in the current study was modelled according to Peters et. al. [9],
Table S3 in the ESI.

Table S3: The inventory data used to model 1 kg of the biomass feedstock (poplar) from [9].

Products
Wood chips, poplar, at plantation 1 kg

Resources
Occupation, agriculture land 3.70 x 10-01 m2a
Carbon, organic, in soil or biomass stock in air 9.13 x 10-02 kg
-01
Carbon dioxide, in air in air 9.22 x 10 kg

Materials/fuels
Transport, tractor, and trailer, agricultural {GLO}| market for | 4.70 x 10-02 tkm
Cut-off, U
Ammonium nitrate, as N {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 2.00 x 10-03 kg
Phosphate fertiliser, as P2O5 {RoW}| triple superphosphate 3.33 x 10-04 kg
production | Cut-off, U
Potassium chloride, as K2O {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 1.20 x 10-03 kg
Glyphosate {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 9.88 x 10-06 kg
Pyrethroid-compound {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 2.47 x 10-06 kg
-06
Dithiocarbamate-compound {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 1.23 x 10 kg
Tree seedling {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 2.47 x 10-06 p
Tillage, ploughing {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 2.47 x 10-06 ha
Mowing, by rotary mower {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 2.47 x 10-06 ha
-06
Hoeing {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 2.47 x 10 ha
Harvesting, by complete harvester, beets {GLO}| market for | Cut- 2.47 x 10-06 ha
off, U
Tillage, rotary cultivator {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 2.47 x 10-06 ha
-06
Planting {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 2.47 x 10 ha
Application of plant protection product, by field sprayer {GLO}| 9.88 x 10-06 ha
market for | Cut-off, U
Fertilising, by broadcaster {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 1.48 x 10-05 ha
Combine harvesting {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 1.23 x 10-05 ha
Irrigation {GLO}| market group for | Cut-off, U 1.47 x 10-01 m3
Tillage, currying, by weeder {GLO}| market for | Cut-off, U 2.47 x 10-06 ha

6
Emissions to air
Ammonia 4.86 x 10-05 kg
-05
Dinitrogen monoxide 4.78 x 10 kg
Nitrogen oxides 1.00 x 10-05 kg
Carbon dioxide -9.22 x 10-01 kg
-02
Carbon dioxide, land transformation -9.13 x 10 kg

Emissions to water
Nitrate groundwate 9.72 x 10-04 kg
r
Phosphorus river 6.48 x 10-06 kg
Phosphate groundwate 7.95 x 10-06 kg
r
Cadmium river 7.30 x 10-10 kg
Chromium river 7.32 x 10-8 kg
Copper river 5.39 x 10-8 kg
Lead river 6.53 x 10-09 kg
-8
Nickel river 5.06 x 10 kg
Zinc river 7.24 x 10-8 kg
Cadmium groundwate 1.85 x 10-09 kg
r
Chromium groundwate 7.85 x 10-07 kg
r
Copper groundwate 1.33 x 10-07 kg
r
Lead groundwate 2.22 x 10-8 kg
r
Zinc groundwate 1.22 x 10-06 kg
r

Emissions to soil
Cadmium -2.39 x 10-07 kg
-07
Chromium -5.01 x 10 kg
Copper -1.30 x 10-05 kg
Lead -7.09 x 10-07 kg

7
Nickel 2.83 x 10-07 kg
Zinc -3.33 x 10-05 kg
-06
Glyphosate 9.88 x 10 kg
-06
Pyridine 2.47 x 10 kg
Potassium bis(2-hydroxyethyl)dithiocarbamate 1.23 x 10-06 kg

8
 5. Uncertainty
The uncertainty of the life cycle inventory (LCI) was evaluated for the production pathways in Table 1.
For the background data, Ecoinvent v3.4 assumes that the inventory entries follow lognormal
distributions, which are characterised using a squared geometric standard deviation ( σ 2) that
encompasses the 95% confidence interval. The standard deviations are estimated using the Pedigree
matrix (Equation (S1)), as recommended by Weidma [10], based on the uncertainty factors shown in
Table S4. The factors U1 – U6 refer to the reliability, completeness, temporal correlation, geographical
correlation, and sample size, respectively. Furthermore, U b refers to the uncertainty factor that is
assessed based on the expert’s judgement.

√∑
6
2
σ =exp ⁡ ln (U i)2 + ln(U b )2 (S1)
i=1

Table S4: Uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix associated with the modelled hydrogen production
processes in Table S2.

Inputs
Natura Electricity Tap Deionised Biomass feedstock Biomass
Coal
l Gas (US mix) water water (poplar) transport
Reliability 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.20 1.20
Completeness 1.02 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.10 1.10
Temporal
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
correlation
Geographical
1.01 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.02 1.02
correlation
Technological
1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50
correlation
Sample size 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
Basic factor 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 2.00

6. LCIA results using ReCipe 2016 method at midpoint levels (22 indicators)
expressed in terms of endpoint per 1 kg of hydrogen
In this section, we provide additional results. Figure S1a shows the LCIA results of the human health
indicator at its disaggregated midpoint levels, including their breakdown into reactants, utilities, and
direct emissions. Figures S1b and S1c show the LCIA results of the ecosystems quality and resources
depletion indicators, including their breakdown. Further details on the ReCipe methodology and their
characterisation factors can be found in [3].

9
Figure S1a: ReCipe 2016 LCIA results at the midpoint level of all the hydrogen production routes
analysed, contributions to human health endpoint indicator expressed in DALYs per 1 kg of H 2.

10
Figure S1b: ReCipe 2016 LCIA results at midpoint level of all hydrogen production routes analysed,
contributions to ecosystem quality endpoint indicator expressed in Species.yr per 1 kg of H 2.

11
Figure S1c: ReCipe 2016 LCIA results at midpoint level of all hydrogen production routes analysed,
contributions to ecosystem quality, and resource depletion endpoint indicators expressed in Species.yr
and USD2013 per 1 kg of H2.

12
References
[1] The International Standards Organisation. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment
— Principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: 2006.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7550.1107.
[2] Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus H. The Ecoinvent Database: Overview and
Methodological Framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2005;10:3–9.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.10.181.1.
[3] Huijbregts M, Steinmann Z, Elshout P, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, et al. ReCiPe 2016: A
harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level - Report I:
characterization. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y.
[4] Mehmeti A, Angelis-Dimakis A, Arampatzis G, McPhail S, Ulgiati S. Life Cycle Assessment
and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging
Technologies. Environments 2018;5:24. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5020024.
[5] González-Garay A, Frei MS, Al-Qahtani A, Mondelli C, Guillén-Gosálbez G, Pérez-Ramírez J.
Plant-to-planet analysis of CO2-based methanol processes. Energy Environ Sci 2019;12:3425–
36. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EE01673B.
[6] Farajzadeh R, Eftekhari AA, Dafnomilis G, Lake LW, Bruining J. On the sustainability of CO2
storage through CO2 – Enhanced oil recovery. Appl Energy 2020;261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114467.
[7] Weidema B. Comparing Three Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods from an Endpoint
Perspective. J Ind Ecol 2014;19:20–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12162.
[8] Fantke P, Dong Y, Hauschild M, Sørup H. Evaluating the monetary values of greenhouse gases
emissions in life cycle impact assessment. J Clean Prod 2019;209:538–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.205.
[9] Peters JF, Iribarren D, Dufour J. Biomass pyrolysis for biochar or energy applications? A life
cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 2015;49:5195–202. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5060786.
[10] Weidema BP. Multi-user test of the data quality matrix for product life cycle inventory data. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 1998;3:259–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979832.

13