i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 6 1 4 8 e1 6 1 5 8

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Application of green hydrogen with theoretical and

empirical approaches of alkaline water electrolysis:
Life cycle-based techno economic and
environmental assessments of renewable urea
synthesis

Heehyang Kim a, Changgwon Choe a, Aejin Lee a, Hankwon Lim a,b,c,*

a
School of Energy and Chemical Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, 50 UNIST-gil,
Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Republic of Korea
b
Graduate School of Carbon Neutrality, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, 50 UNIST-gil, Eonyang-
eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Republic of Korea
c
Carbon Neutrality Demonstration and Research Center,Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, 50
UNIST-gil, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Republic of Korea

highlights graphical abstract

Comprehensive analysis was con-

ducted for renewable urea
production.

Based on experimental results,
process modeling was performed.

Technical analysis of renewable
urea production was considered
with IeV curve.

Economic analysis was conducted
for renewable urea production.

Life cycle assessment of renewable
urea production was
demonstrated.

article info abstract

Article history: Alkaline water electrolysis which is the most commercialized and mature technology of
Received 20 September 2022 water electrolysis was researched to improve performance by the Korea Institute of Energy
Received in revised form Research (KIER). In line with the trend of energy shift, renewable urea production through
18 December 2022 hydrogen production from alkaline water electrolysis was proposed in this work. To vali-
Accepted 5 January 2023 date the process modeling of renewable urea production and hydrogen performance
Available online 31 January 2023 analysis with IeV curves was assessed. Economic and life cycle assessments were

* Corresponding author. School of Energy and Chemical Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, 50 UNIST-gil,
Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Republic of Korea.
E-mail address: hklim@unist.ac.kr (H. Lim).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.01.062
0360-3199/© 2023 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 6 1 4 8 e1 6 1 5 8 16149

Keywords: conducted to provide quantitative guidelines for renewable urea production. Absolutely,

Urea production the influential factor of unit urea production cost was hydrogen from alkaline water

Renewable energy electrolysis and environmental assessment results as well. Moreover, the guidelines for

Alkaline water electrolysis renewable urea production were provided through cost estimation and life cycle assess-

Process simulation ment. In summary, hydrogen production from alkaline water electrolysis had a significant

Economic analysis impact on urea production and for this reason, research on alkaline water electrolysis

Life cycle assessment should continue for further development.

© 2023 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

based process was considered for NH3 production. Levelized

Introduction
To consider the environmental alteration, various chemicals
are caused by sustainable and environmentally produced
methods through various channels [1]. Nevertheless, the
problem of environmental contamination occurred follow
one after another in our society; therefore, varied ways are
suggested to settle the problem regarding the environment.
One of them, urea ((NH2)2CO) is also raised as a problem in
terms of economic and environmental due to the reasons
such as the rising cost of raw materials and the importance of
sustainability [2]. Basically, ammonia (NH3) and carbon di-
oxide (CO2) can be converted to urea through two parts called
the Basarov reaction; (1) ammonium carbamate (NH2-
COONH4) is synthesized from NH3 and CO2; (2) Dehydration of
ammonium carbamate to synthesize urea and water (H2O)
[3,4]. Of that, NH3 is synthesized from hydrogen (H2) and ni-
trogen (N2) utilizing the Haber-Bosch process [5]; therefore,
the elements used in urea production are largely CO2, H2O, N2,
H2, and so on [6]. To consider economic and environmental
feasibility, the best way of urea production is to bring
captured CO2 and renewable H2 [7]. Especially, H2 is a crucial
portion of the entire process, and this point highlights by
several literatures. Zhang et al. [8] investigated the compar-
ative techno-economic analysis of green NH3 production
through two pathways for H2 production. Especially, optimi-
zation of overall energy efficiency and levelized cost of NH3
were conducted and both were compared with methane to
NH3 technology. From the results of energy analysis for the
power to NH3 process, the highest system efficiency of over
74% was presented; however, economic infeasibility was
confirmed due to the high levelized cost of NH3 as 544 to 666 $
ton1. Burak et al. [9] evaluated the economic and environ-
mental assessment of NH3 as a fuel by case study. Three types
of fuel fractions (with real voyage data of a ship) and different
types of NH3 production pathways (blue, brown, and green
NH3) organized thirteen scenarios. The best performance was
110.7 and 145.9 $ tonCO2eq1 for 60% and 95% of NH3 frac-
tions, respectively in green NH3 from the wind energy
pathway. The higher fraction of NH3 leads to a lower cost due
to the negative environmental effect of nitrous oxide emis-
sions. Lee et al. [10] conducted the comparison of techno-
economic and life cycle assessment of diverse NH3 produc-
tion processes. Various H2 production pathways: 1) including
natural gas and grid electricity-based process, 2) natural gas
and captured CO2, and grid electricity-based process, 3) H2
from water electrolysis and nuclear or renewable electricity-
NH3 production costs were calculated in the range of
0.229e1.055 $ kg1 and greenhouse gas emissions of 0e2.6 kg
CO2 kg NH31 were observed from the life cycle assessment.
Nosherwani et al. [11] performed a comparative techno-
economic analysis of two NH3 production processes: 1) con-
ventional natural gas-based grey NH3 and 2) onshore wind-
based green NH3 production in the coastal area of Germany.
Also, different water electrolysis types and wind farms were
considered for the case study to compare levelized NH3 pro-
duction cost. With different pathways of NH3 production, 797
to 1323 $ ton1 of levelized NH3 production cost were ob-
tained, and higher NH3 production costs were due to the
expensive capital cost of electrolysis and the unsettling per-
formance of the system. Wang et al. [12] compared the eco-
nomic and environmental assessments with a variety of NH3
production routes such as conventional process, conven-
tional one with carbon capture process, H2 from water elec-
trolysis and NH3 synthesis, and direct electrochemical NH3
synthesis at 100 ton d1. The lowest NH3 production costs
were observed for the cases considering H2 from water elec-
trolysis and NH3 synthesis with a very low-priced electricity
price of 0.02 $ kWh1. For the cases considering H2 from water
electrolysis and NH3 synthesis, electrolysis cost is the major
parameter in the total NH3 production cost. Moreover,
greenhouse gas emissions during the NH3 production were
demonstrated according to electricity CO2 emissions in-
tensity with cradle to gate of boundary system for carbon
footprint analysis. Alfian et al. [13] aimed to develop a multi-
objective optimization model for optimal green urea pro-
duction in economic and environmental aspects. Biomass
gasification and renewable electricity-based H2 from water
electrolysis were considered in this study. In addition, the
optimal configurations of urea production which can lead to
minimized production cost and CO2 emissions were discov-
ered as biomass gasification from 2020 to 2035 and a combi-
nation of biomass gasification and PV electrolysis from 2040
to 2050. Castellani et al. [14] covered the energy and envi-
ronmental assessments of flue gas recycling for the co-
production of NH3 and methane. The flue gas is separated
into N2 and CO2 by membrane separation and each compo-
nent is converted into NH3 and methane combined with
green H2. As a result of energy and carbon footprint analyses,
H2 production accounts for 82.09% and 82.13% of total CO2
emissions and energy consumption, respectively. As previ-
ously stated, the significant effect of H2 production on urea
production was investigated through literature. Through
alkaline water electrolysis, which has many advantages such
16150 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 6 1 4 8 e1 6 1 5 8

as low-priced catalyst as nickel or stainless steel and a high
lifetime of the system of 10e20 years [15e17], renewable urea
production would be performed with high performance
compared with other water electrolysis system as polymer
electrolyte membrane water electrolysis and solid oxide
electrolysis. Thus, alkaline water electrolysis has become the
most commercialized compared to other water electrolysis
[17e19]. However, the volume of equipment is increased
since the operating current density is lower than polymer
electrolyte membrane water electrolysis [20,21], also, alkaline
water electrolysis has many downsides like slow start and
stop responsiveness, unfavorable under high pressure, and
differential pressure conditions [22,23]. Therefore, further
studies on the effect of H2 production from alkaline water
electrolysis based on experimental results from the Korea
Institute of Energy Research (KIER) were performed for
renewable urea production with regard to technical, eco-
nomic, and environmental perspectives. The comprehensive
analysis of renewable urea production from H2 through
alkaline water electrolysis considering economic and envi-
ronmental perspectives was assessed with experimental
results of alkaline water electrolysis. In this work, the inte-
grative analysis of renewable urea production was conducted
whereas previous work was focused on the analysis of
experiment and process simulation. Also, the guidelines for
renewable urea production from green H2 could be obtained
under comprehensive analysis.
Methods
Process modeling
To produce the renewable urea, the process simulation of the
alkaline water electrolysis system and urea production was
performed by ASPEN PLUS® simulator and the calculator
function in ASPEN PLUS® was utilized for the alkaline water
electrolyzer stack. Fig. 1 shows the process flow diagram of
renewable urea synthesis including H2 from alkaline water
electrolysis.
At first, the reactant of the alkaline water electrolyzer
made up of H2O and potassium hydroxide (KOH) was calcu-
lated using the calculator at 25  C, 1 bar, and 30 wt% of KOH.
Especially, the mass flow rate of the reactant can be estimated
based on Equation (1), which is a function of faradaic effi-
ciency, current density, and active cell area [24].

Fig. 1 e Process flow diagram of renewable urea production combined with alkaline water electrolysis system for green H2
production. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this
article.)
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 6 1 4 8 e1 6 1 5 8
Mass flow rate of reactant ¼
FE  CD  ðpr Þ  3600  MWwater
2

kg y1
F  ð2e Þ  1000  0:7
where FE is the faradaic efficiency (%), CD is current density (A
cm2), r is cell radius (cm), MWwater is the molecular weight of
water (g mol1), and F is the Faraday constant (C mol1). The
reactant solution is heated to 80  C and pressurized to 7 bar
using the pump, and fed into the reactor. The alkaline water
electrolyzer stack is simulated based on a water-splitting re-
action (Eq. (2)) at 80  C and the product will be separated into
cathode and anode parts, in each section.
H2 O / H2 þ 0:5O2
Lastly, H2 is separated for renewable urea production
through an alkaline water electrolysis system. Temperature,
pressure, current density, voltage, and active cell area are
affected by the performance of H2, results will be shown in the
comparison depending on the parameters for the perfor-
mance of renewable urea production in priority. For renew-
able urea production, H2 from an alkaline water electrolyzer
and N2 from the air separation unit are mixed and the mixture
is compressed to 150 bar; furthermore, the mixture is fed into
an NH3 synthesis loop. The reactant is heated to 480  C and
NH3 is produced from H2 and N2 under high-temperature and
high-pressure conditions, as follows in Equation (3).
N2 þ 3H2 4 2NH3
The NH3 synthesis reactor used the kinetic factors and
coefficients for the driving force constants are listed in Table
1.
NH3 is cooled to 100  C and 40  C through coolers in this
NH3 synthesis loop and the 80 wt% of vapor is recycled. CO2 is
reacted with NH3 to urea through the Basarov reaction as
follows (Eqs. (4) and (5)).
2NH3 þ CO2 / NH2COONH4
NH2COONH4 / (NH2)2CO þ H2O
Eventually, renewable urea was produced from the alka-
line water electrolysis system via an NH3 synthesis loop and
urea synthesis reactor, also.
Economic assessment
As previously stated, H2 production is dominant in urea pro-
duction; therefore, an economic assessment of urea produc-
tion was conducted focusing on the H2 production cost. For an
Table 1 e Parameters of chemical reaction kinetics for
ammonia synthesis [25].
Kinetic factor k E
3.945eþ10 1342.79 cal mol1
Coefficients for A B C D
driving force constant 5.3798 4003.2 5.38224 0.000110385
16151
economic analysis of H2 production from alkaline water
electrolysis system, consisting of electrolysis stack and bal-
ance of plant, supplement, electricity, maintenance, and other
costs are regarded. The six-tenth factor rule, which is the
(1)
relationship between the cost and equipment size using the
cost exponent as n factor of 0.6 for the facility with limited
cost information, is utilized for the calculation of capital costs
[26]. In addition, the chemical engineering plant cost index
(CEPCI) is considered price fluctuations over time as a whole
(Eq. (6)) [26].
 n  
Aa Ia
CC ¼ CR   (6)
Ab Ib
where CC is the capital cost, CR is the reference cost, n is a cost
(2)
exponent, I is the CEPCI, and A is the attribution of equipment.
The alkaline water electrolyzer stack is estimated using
Equation (7) [24].
CD  ðpr2 Þ  P
CAlkaline WE ¼  NS  NC  CStack (7)
1000
where P is the potential for alkaline water electrolyzer stack
such as voltage (V), NS is the number of the stack, and NC is
the number of cells. Electricity price is utilized with energy
consumption of alkaline water electrolyzer and electricity rate
as 0.06 $ kWh1 [27]. Based on the experimental results of
KIER, the cell efficiency of alkaline water electrolysis was 82%
(HHV); furthermore, the energy consumption is deduced as
47.56 kWh kg1. To calculate the overall energy consumption
(3) of alkaline water electrolysis, the system performance should
be considered, as follows (Eq. (8)) [24].

 
ETotal kWh y1 ¼ FH2  NC  8; 760  SF  EEC kWh kg1 (8)
where EEC is energy consumption, FH2 is the mass flow rate of
hydrogen production (kg h1 cell1) obtained from ASPEN
PLUS® simulator, and SF is the stream factor. For renewable
urea production, NH3 reactor, urea reactor, compressor, flash
drum, pump, cooler, and supplement are regarded as capital
costs, and electricity, nitrogen, process water, captured CO2,
(4)
H2 from alkaline water electrolysis, labor, maintenance, and
other costs are considered as operating costs. First of all, the
(5)
cost of NH3 synthesis reactor, pump, and cooler are calculated
using cost functions by Turton et al. [26] (Eq. (9)).
 2
log10 C0C ¼ K1 þ K2 log10 ðTÞ þ K3 log10 ðTÞ (9)
where T is size or duty of equipment and K values are used in
correlation. Each K values of the NH3 reactor are 3.4974,
0.4485, and 0.1074 (m3) for K1, K2, and K3, respectively, and the
respective K values of the pump are 3.3892, 0.0536, and 0.1538
(kW) for K1, K2, and K3, respectively, K values of cooler are
4.0336, 0.2341, and 0.0497 (m2) for K1, K2, and K3, respectively.
Urea reactor is calculated using cost function as follows in
Equation (10) [28].
CR ¼ 1:6917  8; 000  3; 600  FU (10)
1
where FU is the mass flow rate (kg s ) of urea synthesis.
Compressor and flash drum are estimated using cost func-
tions as follows (Eq. (11) and (12)) [29,30]. In addition, the
respective cost exponents for the compressor and flash drum
are 0.82 and 0.8, respectively.
16152 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 6 1 4 8 e1 6 1 5 8
CD ¼ 2:47  9:832  ðFG Þ0:8
 0:82
WCP
CCP ¼ 8; 650 
hCP
where FG is the feed rate (kg s1) of gas into the drum, WCP is
compressor power (hp), and hCP is the efficiency of the
compressor (%). For reactant such as N2, H2O, and captured
CO2, respective unit price are 0.01 [31] ($ kg1), 0.067 ($ ton1),
and (50e100 $ ton1) [32], respectively. Supplement cost is
estimated by assuming 20% of the sum of capital costs [33].
Respective labor, maintenance, and other costs are calculated
by assuming 0.3% [34], 2% [33], and 1% [33] of the sum of capital
costs, respectively. Annual costs are evaluated considering the
capital recovery factor (CRF) as follows (Eq. (13)) [35].
pð1 þ pÞn
CRF ¼
ð1 þ pÞn  1
where n is the project period and p is the discount rate.
Moreover, unit urea production cost could be obtained by
dividing the sum of annual cost ($ y1) by urea production
capacity (kg y1).
Life cycle assessment
Life cycle assessment is performed for investigation of envi-
ronmental impact through gathering literature and analysis.
Through the four steps: 1) goal and scope definition, 2) making
an inventory, 3) impact assessment method application on the
result, and 4) interpretation of results, life cycle assessment is
conducted [36]. For these results, four ISO standards are
covered ISO 14040 for common principles, ISO 14041 for goal
and scope definition, ISO 14042 for impact assessment, and
ISO 14043 for interpretation [37]. SimaPro (9.1.1.7) is a life cycle
assessment software to analyze the environmental aspects of
products or services. SimaPro (9.1.1.7) supports environ-
mental product declarations, greenhouse gas, and interna-
tional reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook, which
the document provides technical guidance for life cycle
assessment with specific criteria and guides. The Swedish
environmental product declaration impact assessment
method is used for SimaPro software. Contributions of energy,
transport, waste, and other parts of the production system are
allowed for new grouping functions following product cate-
gory rules. Also, SimPro provides various impact categories as
well: non-renewable resources and renewable resources,
global warming, acidification, ozone layer depletion, photo-
chemical oxidant formation, and eutrophication. ReCiPe 2016
Midpoint (H) is applied for environmental assessment as the
method in this boundary system [38]. In addition, Ecoinvent 3
e allocation, cut-off by classification e system is considered in
this system. The system boundary was cradle to gate and the
functional unit was kg-urea1.
Results and discussion
Performance of hydrogen production
Basically, experimental results were obtained from KIER and
specific operating conditions are presented in Table 2.
(11) Table 2 e Experimental results of the alkaline water
electrolysis stacks from the Korea Institute of Energy
Research (KIER).
(12)
Parameter Value Unit
Operating temperature 80 
C
Operating pressure 7 bar
Potential 1.8 V
Current density 0.8 A cm2
Cell radius 100 cm
Number of cell for stack 200 Cells
Faradaic efficiency 82 %
Cell efficiency 82 % (HHV)
Number of stack 5 Stacks
KOH concentration 30 wt%
(13)
Firstly, the performance of H2 production was 0.85 kg hr1
under the operating conditions as above mentioned. The
performance of H2 production for the KIER model under
operating conditions of commercial electrolyzers was per-
formed (Fig. S1 eFig. S11).
Overall, the operating temperature between 65 and 90  C
was designed and the scales of operating pressure were widely
distributed as 5e32 bar. General trend of IeV curves, which
data gained from Buttler et al. [39], was shown increasing
voltage with increasing current density. To compare the in-
dividual results of the supplier with the results of KIER, each
supplier of alkaline water electrolysis was listed as DLR, FZ
Julich HPEL, Lurgi, GHW, Metkon Alyzer, FZ Julich (Phoebus),
Stuart Energy, Casale Chemicals, HT-Hydrotechnik, Hydro-
genics, ELB (Lurgi). Most of the suppliers of alkaline water
electrolysis were shown that cell voltage at a current density
of 0.4 A cm2 varies between 1.7 and 2.1 V except HT-
Hydrotechnik. As an exception of HT-Hydrotechnik, the sup-
plier has high overpotentials with a low current density of
0.25 A cm2. Like all the alkaline water electrolysis have in
common, the performance of H2 production rate was
increased with increasing voltage and increasing current [40];
also, production rate was decreased with increasing current
density given that high energy consumption and low effi-
ciency of production [41]. However, the process simulation
model applied experimental results from KIER indicated that
the H2 production rate maintained an increasing tendency.
Because some experimental aspects such as durability, life-
time, and load range were not considered for the model.
Through the performance of H2 production with IeV curves,
the guidelines of H2 production rate would be obtained under
the operating conditions of each supplier except for durability
and some experimental aspects, only assuming that have
ideal conditions.
Economic assessment of renewable urea production
On the basis of the experimental results of KIER, the perfor-
mance of urea production combined with H2 production from
alkaline water electrolysis was investigated. Firstly, Fig. 2
shows the performance of urea production with current
density and voltage of alkaline water electrolysis. Overall, the
urea production rate was increased when the voltage
increased, and the current density was fixed. Likewise, when
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 6 1 4 8 e1 6 1 5 8 16153

Fig. 2 e Effects of stack performances considering system voltage and current density on renewable urea production rates.

current density increased and voltage was fixed, the urea
production rate also increased as well. The urea production
rate shows the same tendency as the performance of the H2
production rate. As aforesaid, the tendency was presented due
to the high effects of H2 on urea production.
At urea production capacity of 0.18 ton d1, itemized cost
estimation was performed and the result shows that the
process has an obvious key factor as H2 production cost;
therefore, the pie diagram was shown except hydrogen factor.
And considering that the compressor (39.56%), electricity
(18.3%), and captured CO2 (15.88%) were the main parameters
of the process. Fig. 3 presents the cost estimation of unit urea
production as capacity grows as 0.18, 1, 5, 10, 50, and 100 ton
d1. At the capacity of 0.18 ton d1, cost estimation was
calculated as 141.88 $ kg1; however, at the 100 ton d1, the
result was reduced to 11.75 $ kg1 due to economies of scale.
H2 production costs and electricity prices significantly impact
urea production, and the commercialization of large-scale
processes is expected to reduce prices.
Environmental assessment of renewable urea production
The system boundary of life cycle assessment is primarily a
cradle-to-gate examination technique to inspect detailed
processes and products. Based on process simulation results,
SimaPro (9.1.1.7) database was used, and the environmental
impact of 1 kg urea generation was chosen as the functional
unit. Figures present the detailed global warming results of
renewable urea production containing several information on
materials (Figs. 4e6).
The cell stack construction consists of a multifarious life
cycle inventory with copper, steel, nickel, aluminium,

Fig. 3 e Cost estimation results for unit urea production cost with various renewable urea production capacities.
16154 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 6 1 4 8 e1 6 1 5 8

Fig. 4 e Climate change impact of cell stack construction for alkaline water electrolysis under cradle-to-gate system
boundary.

polyphenylene sulfide, polysulfone, N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone,
zirconium oxide, carbon monoxide, water, industrial machine,
plaster mixing, calendaring, electricity, and heat. Among
them, steel, nickel, aluminium, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone,
water, electricity, and heat were influential factors as 0.018,
0.033, 0.0010, 0.00087, 0.0043, 0.438, and 0.001 kgCO2eq kg1 of
respective value for global warming. Definitely, the highest
value is 0.438 kgCO2eq kg1 as an electricity factor for cell stack
construction. Thus, the result of the global warming potential
of cell stack construction is 0.498 kgCO2eq kg1, in total. Table
S1 shows the inventory for 1 kg of cell stack construction. The
electricity resource was apparently taken up as the main
component even though various primary component was
made up for cell stack construction.
Fig. 5 shows the result of global warming potential for the
Haber-Bosch process from H2 production through the alkaline
water electrolysis process. The Haber-Bosch process from H2
production through alkaline water electrolysis consists of ni-
trogen, iron ore, operation, electricity, and cell stack con-
struction of alkaline water electrolysis. The cell stack
construction which is in charge of H2 production was a key
factor as 1.18 kgCO2eq kg1 for global warming impact. Also,
the electricity used for alkaline water electrolysis was a potent
factor as well. Respective value of global warming potential is
1.24 kgCO2eq kg1 for NH3 generation. Table S2 indicates the
inventory for 1 kg of Haber-Bosch process from H2 obtained
through alkaline water electrolysis. For renewable urea pro-
duction, the Haber-Bosch process as previously stated, and
captured CO2 from the coal power plant was considered.
Especially, the inventory of captured CO2 from the coal power
plant was obtained from Koornneef et al. [42]. The captured
CO2 process containing CO2 capture infrastructure,
compressor infrastructure, onshore pipeline infrastructure,
CO2 injection facility, and pulverized coal power plant infra-
structure was considered for life cycle assessment. Table S3
shows an entire inventory of renewable urea production
including captured CO2 from the coal power plant.
The renewable urea production process considering cell
stack construction, the Haber-Bosch process for NH3 synthe-
sis, and captured CO2 from the coal power plant was assessed
to determine the total global warming results. Renewable urea
production consists of the Haber-Bosch process from H2 pro-
duction through alkaline water electrolysis, pulverized coal
power plant infrastructure, and captured CO2 process with
CO2 capture infrastructure, CO2 compressor infrastructure,
onshore CO2 pipeline infrastructure, and CO2 injection facility.
In terms of the environmental aspect, the Haber-Bosch pro-
cess for NH3 synthesis was the most influential factor for

Fig. 5 e Climate change impact of ammonia production from Haber-Bosch process with alkaline water electrolysis under
cradle-to-gate system boundary.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 6 1 4 8 e1 6 1 5 8 16155

Fig. 6 e Climate change impact of renewable urea production with alkaline water electrolysis under cradle-to-gate
boundary.

renewable urea production because the respective value of
global warming result was 0.72 kgCO2eq kg1. Overall, 0.725
kgCO2eq kg1 was the global warming result for renewable
urea production. Renewable urea production was affected by
cell stack construction for alkaline water electrolysis in terms
of environmental aspects. To reduce the global warming
value, electricity has to draw from more renewable resources
such as solar energy, wind energy, biomass, hydropower, and
geothermal power.
On the whole, life cycle impact assessment was investi-
gated with perspectives of global warming, stratospheric
ozone depletion, ionizing radiation, ozone formation, fine
particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification, fresh-
water eutrophication, marine eutrophication, ecotoxicity,
human carcinogenic toxicity, land use, mineral resource
scarcity, fossil resource scarcity, and water consumption.
From the results (Fig. 7), electricity was the dominant factor
for global warming (88%), stratospheric ozone depletion
(84.8%), ionizing radiation (97.6%), ozone formation (78.4%),
freshwater eutrophication (90%), marine eutrophication
(86.3%), human carcinogenic toxicity (65.2%), land use (85.5%),
and fossil resource scarcity (88.2%). Definitely, electricity is a
significant factor that can affect a lot of the environmental
side. The results of the environmental impact assessment will
be changed a lot if the source of electricity changes. Secondly,
the nickel material was a substantial factor in fine particulate
matter formation (54.7%), terrestrial acidification (62.5%),
terrestrial ecotoxicity (83.4%), freshwater ecotoxicity (52.1%),
marine ecotoxicity (51.6%), and mineral resource scarcity
(86.9%).
The cell stack construction was the dominant factor for all
characterization in terms of environmental aspects; it means
that the electricity used for alkaline water electrolysis had
affected ammonia production. Especially, nitrogen used for

Fig. 7 e Life cycle assessment results in terms of diverse environmental characterizations of cell stack construction for
alkaline water electrolysis.
16156 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 6 1 4 8 e1 6 1 5 8

Fig. 8 e Life cycle assessment results in terms of diverse environmental characterizations of ammonia production with
alkaline water electrolysis.

the ammonia production process significantly impacted
various environmental terms when the cell stack construction
was excluded. Expectably, electricity was also the predomi-
nant item except for alkaline water electrolysis unit as follows
Fig. 8. Consequently, the alkaline water electrolysis unit as a
H2 production system was an influential item in terms of
economic and environmental perspectives, both of them.
Conclusions
The proposed concept was renewable urea production with
hydrogen production through alkaline water electrolysis
based on experimental results from the Korea Institute of
Energy Research (KIER). The concept was investigated from
economic and environmental perspectives. Technical anal-
ysis, itemized cost estimation, scaled-up cost estimation, and
life cycle assessment for renewable urea production were
performed, totally. The analyses were conducted based on
process simulation using ASPEN PLUS® for the performance of
hydrogen and urea production. The performance of the
hydrogen production rate was increased with increasing
voltage and current; also, the production rate was decreased
with increasing current density due to high energy con-
sumption and low efficiency of production. In addition, the
urea production rate was increased with increasing voltage
and fixed current density; also, the opposite case as well.
Respective unit urea production costs were 141.88, 70.77,
37.26, 28.31, 15.15, and 11.75 $ kg1 for urea production ca-
pacity of 0.18, 1, 5, 10, 50, and 100 ton d1. Also, compressors,
captured CO2, and electricity were significant items for
renewable urea production when hydrogen production from
alkaline water electrolysis as the predominant factor was
excepted. Global warming potential was assessed for cell
stack construction, the Haber-Bosch process from hydrogen
production through alkaline water electrolysis, and renewable
urea production, respectively. Individual values are 0.498,
1.24, and 0.725 kgCO2eq kg1 for cell stack construction, the
Haber-Bosch process for NH3 synthesis, and renewable urea
production, respectively. The cell stack construction was a
high impact on several characteristics of the environmental
impact such as global warming, stratospheric ozone, ionizing
radiation, ozone formation, freshwater eutrophication, ma-
rine eutrophication, human carcinogenic, land use, and fossil
resource scarcity for life cycle assessment. In terms of eco-
nomic and environmental perspectives, alkaline water elec-
trolysis as a clean hydrogen production method was a highly
dominant impact on renewable urea production. Develop-
ment of renewable urea production with regard to economic
and environmental aspects could be achieved with the tech-
nological development of alkaline water electrolysis.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the Hydrogen Energy Inno-
vation Technology Development Program of the National
Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean govern-
ment (Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT)) [NRF-
2019M3E6A1064290], the National Research Foundation of
Korea grant funded by the Korea government [NRF-
2019M1A2A2065614], and the Carbon Neutrality Demonstra-
tion and Research Center of UNIST (Ulsan National Institute of
Science and Technology).
Nomenclature
KIER Korea Institute of Energy Research
ILCD International reference life cycle data system
FE Faradaic efficiency (%)
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 6 1 4 8 e1 6 1 5 8 16157

CD Current density (A cm2) 2021;46:22685e706. https://doi.org/10.1016/

R Cell radius (cm) J.IJHYDENE.2021.04.104.
[8] Zhang H, Wang L, Van herle J, Mare
chal F, Desideri U.
HHV Higher heating value
Techno-economic comparison of green ammonia production
MWwater Molecular weight of water (g mol1)
processes. Appl Energy 2020;259:114135. https://doi.org/
F Faraday constant (C mol1) 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114135.
CC Capital cost ($) [9] Zincir B. Environmental and economic evaluation of
CR Reference cost ($) ammonia as a fuel for short-sea shipping: a case study. Int J
CEPCI Chemical engineering plant cost index Hydrogen Energy 2022;47:18148e68. https://doi.org/10.1016/
n Cost exponent J.IJHYDENE.2022.03.281.
I CEPCI [10] Lee K, Liu X, Vyawahare P, Sun P, Elgowainy A, Wang M.
Techno-economic performances and life cycle greenhouse
A Attribution of equipment
gas emissions of various ammonia production pathways
P Potential (V) including conventional, carbon-capturing, nuclear-powered,
NS Number of stack and renewable production. Green Chem 2022;24:4830e44.
NC Number of cell https://doi.org/10.1039/d2gc00843b.
EEC Energy consumption (kWh y1) [11] Nosherwani SA, Neto RC. Techno-economic assessment of
FH2 Mass flow rate of hydrogen production (kg h1) commercial ammonia synthesis methods in coastal areas of
Germany. J Energy Storage 2021;34:102201. https://doi.org/
SF Stream factor
10.1016/j.est.2020.102201.
FU Mass flow rate of urea synthesis (kg s1)
[12] Wang M, Khan MA, Mohsin I, Wicks J, Ip AH, Sumon KZ, et al.
FG Feed rate of gas into drum (kg s1) Can sustainable ammonia synthesis pathways compete with
WCP Compressor power (hp) fossil-fuel based Haber-Bosch processes? Energy Environ Sci
hCP Efficiency of compressor (%) 2021;14:2535e48. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ee03808c.
CRF Capital recovery factor [13] Alfian M, Purwanto WW. Multi-objective optimization of
green urea production. Energy Sci Eng 2019;7:292e304.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.281.
[14] Castellani B, Rinaldi S, Morini E, Nastasi B, Rossi F. Flue gas
Appendix A. Supplementary data treatment by power-to-gas integration for methane and
ammonia synthesis e energy and environmental analysis.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at Energy Convers Manag 2018;171:626e34. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.01.062. 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.025.
[15] Koponen J, Poluektov A, Ruuskanen V, Kosonen A, Niemela € M,
Ahola J. Comparison of thyristor and insulated-gate bipolar
references transistor -based power supply topologies in industrial water
electrolysis applications. J Power Sources 2021;491:229443.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JPOWSOUR.2020.229443.
[16] Valente A, Iribarren D, Dufour J. Prospective carbon footprint
[1] Sazali N. Emerging technologies by hydrogen: a review. Int J
comparison of hydrogen options. Sci Total Environ
Hydrogen Energy 2020;45:18753e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
2020;728:138212. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.IJHYDENE.2020.05.021.
J.SCITOTENV.2020.138212.
[2] Alfian M, Purwanto WW. Multi-objective optimization of
[17] Grigoriev SA, Fateev VN, Bessarabov DG, Millet P. Current
green urea production. Energy Sci Eng 2019;7:292e304.
status, research trends, and challenges in water electrolysis
https://doi.org/10.1002/ESE3.281.
science and technology. Int J Hydrogen Energy
[3] Hanson DS, Wang Y, Zhou X, Washburn E, Ekmekci MB,
2020;45:26036e58. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Dennis D, et al. Catalytic urea synthesis from ammonium
J.IJHYDENE.2020.03.109.
carbamate using a copper(II) complex: a combined
[18] Xie F, Shao Z, Hou M, Yu H, Song W, Sun S, et al. Recent
experimental and theoretical study. Inorg Chem
progresses in H2-PEMFC at DICP. J Energy Chem
2021;60:5573e89. https://doi.org/10.1021/
2019;36:129e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/
ACS.INORGCHEM.0C03467/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/
J.JECHEM.2019.07.012.
IC0C03467_0004.JPEG.
[19] Varela C, Mostafa M, Zondervan E. Modeling alkaline water
[4] Sergeev YA, Anderzhanov Rv, Vorob’ev AA. Energy- and
electrolysis for power-to-x applications: a scheduling
resourse-saving technologies and equipment in urea
approach. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:9303e13. https://
production. Russ J Gen Chem 2020;90:1168e72. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2020.12.111.
doi.org/10.1134/S1070363220060328/FIGURES/5.
[20] Caravaca A, Garcia-Lorefice WE, Gil S, de Lucas-Consuegra A,
[5] Liu Y, Paskevicius M, Humphries TD, Buckley CE.
Vernoux P. Towards a sustainable technology for H2
Simultaneous preparation of sodium borohydride and
production: direct lignin electrolysis in a continuous-flow
ammonia gas by ball milling. Int J Hydrogen Energy
Polymer Electrolyte Membrane reactor. Electrochem Commun
2022;47:25347e56. https://doi.org/10.1016/
2019;100:43e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ELECOM.2019.01.016.
J.IJHYDENE.2022.05.262.
[21] Wu Y, Li Y, Wang Y, Liu Q, Chen Q, Chen M. Advances and
[6] Ishaq H, Siddiqui O, Chehade G, Dincer I. A solar and wind
prospects of PVDF based polymer electrolytes. J Energy Chem
driven energy system for hydrogen and urea production with
2022;64:62e84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JECHEM.2021.04.007.
CO2 capturing. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:4749e60.
[22] Jang D, Cho HS, Kang S. Numerical modeling and analysis of
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2020.01.208.
the effect of pressure on the performance of an alkaline
[7] Ali Khan MH, Daiyan R, Neal P, Haque N, MacGill I, Amal R. A
water electrolysis system. Appl Energy 2021;287:116554.
framework for assessing economics of blue hydrogen
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2021.116554.
production from steam methane reforming using carbon
[23] Guo Y, Li G, Zhou J, Liu Y. Comparison between hydrogen
capture storage & utilisation. Int J Hydrogen Energy
production by alkaline water electrolysis and hydrogen
16158 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 6 1 4 8 e1 6 1 5 8
production by PEM electrolysis. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ
Sci 2019;371:042022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/371/4/
042022.
[24] Lee B, Cho HS, Kim H, Lim D, Cho W, Kim CH, et al.
Integrative techno-economic and environmental assessment
for green H2 production by alkaline water electrolysis based
on experimental data. J Environ Chem Eng 2021;9:106349.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JECE.2021.106349.
[25] Lin B, Wiesner T, Malmali M. Performance of a small-scale
haber process: a techno-economic analysis. ACS Sustainable
Chem Eng 2020;8:15517e31. https://doi.org/10.1021/
ACSSUSCHEMENG.0C04313/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/
SC0C04313_0014.JPEG.
[26] Turton R, Bailie RC, Whiting WB, Shaeiwitz JA, Bhattacharyya
D. Analysis, synthesis, and design of chemical processes 4th
ed.. n.d.
[27] Lee B, Lim D, Lee H, Lim H. Which water electrolysis
technology is appropriate?: critical insights of potential
water electrolysis for green ammonia production. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2021;143:110963. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.RSER.2021.110963.
[28] Abbaspour H, Ehyaei MA, Ahmadi A, Panahi M,
Abdalisousan A, Mirzohosseini A. Energy, exergy, economic,
exergoenvironmental and environmental (5E) analyses of the
cogeneration plant to produce electrical power and urea.
Energy Convers Manag 2021;235:113951. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2021.113951.
[29] Ahmad F, Lau KK, Shariff AM, Murshid G. Process simulation
and optimal design of membrane separation system for CO2
capture from natural gas. Comput Chem Eng 2012;36:119e28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.08.002.
[30] Atsonios K, Panopoulos KD, Kakaras E. Investigation of
technical and economic aspects for methanol production
through CO2 hydrogenation. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41:2202e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.12.074.
[31] Ebrahimi A, Meratizaman M, Reyhani HA, Pourali O,
Amidpour M. Energetic, exergetic and economic assessment
of oxygen production from two columns cryogenic air
separation unit. Energy 2015;90:1298e316. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENERGY.2015.06.083.
[32] Is carbon capture too expensive? e Analysis - IEA n.d. https://
www.iea.org/commentaries/is-carbon-capture-too-
expensive (accessed June 29, 2022).
[33] Lee B, Chae H, Choi NH, Moon C, Moon S, Lim H. Economic
evaluation with sensitivity and profitability analysis for
hydrogen production from water electrolysis in Korea. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:6462e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.IJHYDENE.2016.12.153.
[34] Nordio M, Wassie SA, Van Sint Annaland M, Pacheco
Tanaka DA, Viviente Sole JL, Gallucci F. Techno-economic
evaluation on a hybrid technology for low hydrogen
concentration separation and purification from natural gas
grid. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021;46:23417e35. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2020.05.009.
[35] Detz RJ, van der Zwaan B. Cost projections for microwave
plasma CO production using renewable energy. J Energy
Chem 2022;71:507e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.JECHEM.2022.04.014.
[36] Byun M, Lim D, Lee B, Kim A, Lee IB, Brigljevic
B, et al.
Economically feasible decarbonization of the Haber-Bosch
process through supercritical CO2 Allam cycle integration.
Appl Energy 2022;307:118183. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.APENERGY.2021.118183.
[37] Sadhukhan J, Sen S, Gadkari S. The Mathematics of life cycle
sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 2021;309:127457.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.127457.
[38] Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G,
Verones F, Vieira M, et al. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life
cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint
level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2017;22:138e47. https://doi.org/
10.1007/S11367-016-1246-Y/TABLES/2.
[39] Buttler A, Spliethoff H. Current status of water electrolysis
for energy storage, grid balancing and sector coupling via
power-to-gas and power-to-liquids: a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2018;82:2440e54. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2017.09.003.
[40] Grigoriev SA, Fateev VN, Bessarabov DG, Millet P. Current
status, research trends, and challenges in water electrolysis
science and technology. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2020;45:26036e58. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2020.03.109.
[41] Schalenbach M, Tjarks G, Carmo M, Lueke W, Mueller M,
Stolten D. Acidic or alkaline? Towards a new perspective on
the efficiency of water electrolysis. J Electrochem Soc
2016;163:F3197e208. https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0271611JES/
XML.
[42] Koornneef J, van Keulen T, Faaij A, Turkenburg W. Life cycle
assessment of a pulverized coal power plant with post-
combustion capture, transport and storage of CO2. Int J
Greenh Gas Control 2008;2:448e67. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijggc.2008.06.008.