Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Life Cycle Assessment of Power-to-Gas: Approaches, system variations

and their environmental implications
Xiaojin Zhang ⇑, Christian Bauer, Christopher L. Mutel, Kathrin Volkart
Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis, Paul Scherrer Institute, CH-5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

 Complete Life Cycle Assessment of

Power-to-Gas with system variations.
 System expansion provides more
meaningful results than subdivision.
 For Power-to-Hydrogen, the type of
electricity supply is essential.
 For Power-to-Methane, source of CO2
and the approach applied can make a
difference.
 Sensitivity analysis and impacts other
than climate change were explored.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Electricity generation from intermittent renewable sources is expected to increase rapidly in the next
Received 25 August 2016 decades. Integrating renewable energy requires energy storage during low-demand periods and potential
Received in revised form 21 December 2016 conversion of surplus electricity into other energy carriers. Power-to-Gas (P2G) is a promising technology
Accepted 22 December 2016
due to its potential to provide large-scale and long-term energy storage. However, this technology has
Available online 6 January 2017
many system variations, and their environmental performances need to be evaluated and compared with
conventional technologies before large-scale deployment. In this paper, we investigate the environmental
Keywords:
performance of P2G using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and mainly focus on the following three aspects:
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Power-to-Gas (P2G)
(1) discussion of differences as consequence of the approach applied for CO2 Capture and Utilization
Energy storage (CCU); (2) evaluation of technology variations including supply of electricity, alternative system pro-
CO2 Capture and Utilization (CCU) cesses (electrolysis technologies and CO2 sources), product gases (hydrogen and methane), and compar-
Hydrogen ison of these P2G systems with conventional technologies, and (3) investigation of further environmental
Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) impacts of P2G in addition to the impact of global warming potential. We argue that in case of P2M, sys-
tem expansion provides more meaningful results than subdivision for CCU, since it reflects the added
value of CO2 utilization providing electricity or cement with low GHG intensity. The results of system
variations show that P2G can, depending on electricity supply and CO2 source, reduce GHG emission
compared to conventional gas production technologies, and that P2H has higher potential of emission

Abbreviations: CCU, CO2 Capture and Utilization; CGR, coal gasification and reforming; ENTSO-E, European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity; ESI,
Energy System Integration; GWP, global warming potential; ILCD, International Reference Life Cycle Data System; LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; LCI, Life Cycle Inventory; LCIA,
Life Cycle Impact Assessment; P2G, Power-to-Gas; P2H, Power-to-Hydrogen; P2M, Power-to-Methane; SNG, Synthetic Natural Gas; SMR, steam methane reforming.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xiaojin.zhang@psi.ch (X. Zhang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.098
0306-2619/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338
reduction than P2M. Concerning other impact categories, P2H can have lower impacts than conventional
hydrogen production, while P2M most often has higher impacts than using conventional natural gas.
1. Introduction
As penetration of stochastic renewable electricity has grown
rapidly in the global energy system in recent years, and is expected
to grow further in the future, energy storage is becoming more and
more important. Renewable energy sources, such as wind and
solar, have great potential to decrease our dependence on fossil
fuels and greenhouse gas emissions [1–4], but due to their inter-
mittent nature and challenges concerning grid integration [5,6],
storage facilities might be required to manage the fluctuation of
electricity generation, to reduce the curtailment, introduce addi-
tional installed capacity of renewable electricity generation [7],
and eventually facilitate the decarbonization of the electricity sec-
tor [8]. However, the balancing of power supply and demand will
be required at different time durations (season, day, hour) and
scales, resulting in different storage technologies being applied
for various applications [9].
1.1. Why Power-to-Gas?
It can be observed from previous studies [9,10] that many stor-
age technologies are able to provide short-term storage (i.e. rang-
ing from minutes to hours) with limited capacities, but when it
comes to large-scale seasonal or long-term storage (i.e. up to
months), the options are limited to pumped hydro, compressed
air storage, and P2G [11]. In many countries, the potential of
pumped hydro and compressed air storage is limited due to their
specific requirements on topography, geological locations, and eco-
nomic operating conditions [12]. In addition, compressed energy
storage may have considerable thermal loss for long-term energy
storage. Thus, P2G is regarded as a promising storage technology
to provide large storage capacity, with flexible storage durations
from minutes to months [13].
1.2. What is Power-to-Gas?
P2G starts with converting electricity to hydrogen through
water electrolysis. Hydrogen generated can be injected to natural
gas network up to a feasible volumetric percentage from 2% to
15% [14,15], or it can be used in other applications that require
hydrogen as feedstock or fuel. It can also further react with carbon
dioxide to produce Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG), which contains
mainly methane. The generated SNG can be dehydrated, com-
pressed (optional, depending on the applications), conditioned
and eventually supplied to meet natural gas demands, such as
being combusted in a gas boiler, supplied as fuel to power a vehi-
cle, or injected and stored in the existing natural gas network
[11,16,17]. Advantages of P2G are its flexibility to convert electric-
ity to gases for storage, and its utilization of existing natural gas
infrastructure, which reduces the capital investment.
1.3. Environmental assessment of P2G: previous research and purpose
of this work
Despite all these advantages of P2G and most discussions on its
techno-economic aspects [18–24], only limited studies have been
conducted to assess its life cycle environmental performance,
which results in several research gaps. First, the vast majority of
327
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
studies are focused on P2H [25,26] and do not address P2M, mak-
ing it difficult to compare these two technological pathways under
consistent boundary conditions and assumptions. Second, most
studies have covered limited system variations, for example by
focusing on biogenic CO2 sources and avoided the complexity of
burden allocation issue [27]. Third, all these studies barely explore
other environmental impacts than climate change for P2G. Last and
most importantly, discussion on methodological issues for P2G
environmental assessment in the context of CCU have not been
appropriately addressed. Reiter and Lindorfer have included some
of the above-mentioned aspects, and estimated the break-even
point of greenhouse gas intensity for electricity input to electroly-
sis compared to conventional hydrogen and methane generation
technologies [28]. However, their study didn’t consider the appli-
cation of product gas in an adequate way, resulting in an incom-
plete lifecycle, and in addition, the multi-functionality of CCU
(i.e. generation of CO2 as a co-product in addition to e.g. electricity
and cement, and supply of CO2 as a useful product and feedstock to
methanation) was not taken into account; moreover, P2G infras-
tructure was not considered, which could have important contri-
bution when the associated impact of electricity is low. Von der
Assen et al. [29] identified several pitfalls of considering CCU in
previous LCA studies based on the example of methanol synthesis
with CO2 from a coal power plant and direct air capture of CO2, and
recommended a comprehensive framework for applying LCA on
CCU. However, this framework has not yet been consistently
applied for P2G.
This study therefore aims at filling these gaps. We evaluate and
discuss the differences resulting from the LCA approach applied on
CCU, by comparing the subdivision and system expansion
approach to account for the multi-functionality of electricity/
cement production with CO2 capture. In addition, we investigate
P2G with a wide range of alternative system processes (electricity
supplies, electrolysis technologies, CO2 sources), various system
configurations, and operating conditions. Moreover, we quantify
environmental impacts other than climate change in order to pro-
vide a more complete picture concerning the environmental per-
formance of P2G.
2. Methodology
As defined by ISO 14040 [30], LCA is a methodology that quan-
tifies the potential environmental impacts throughout a product’s
life cycle, from raw material acquisition, production, use, to end-
of-life treatment, recycling and final disposal. In this study, we
carry out process-based, attributional LCA according to ISO
14044 [31]. System boundaries, subdivision and system expansion
approaches, functional units, scenarios and Life Cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA) methods applied are specified below. We use
the Simapro version 8.0.4.30 [32] as LCA software and version
3.1 of the ecoinvent database as source of background LCI data
[33].
2.1. System boundaries
The boundary of the foreground system we have analyzed
includes the processes visualized in Fig. 1, with detailed descrip-
tion of their coverage provided for each process in the Electronic
328 X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338
Supplementary Information (ESI) Table 2. Boxes with dashed lines
in Fig. 1 represent alternative process options. Due to data avail-
ability, only alternative process options in electrolysis and CO2 cap-
ture are considered in this study, while thermo-chemical
methanation is the only option considered for methanation. In
P2M, consumption of SNG in mobility is considered; in P2H, the
application is not specified and we set the system boundary at
the point of compressed hydrogen production. Specific applica-
tions of hydrogen, such as consumption in stationary fuel cells or
in mobility are out of scope of this analysis. Comparison of the
environmental performance of P2M with conventional natural
gas technologies requires adjustment of system boundaries,
depending on the approach used for CCU.
2.2. Dealing with CO2 capture and utilization in power-to-methane:
subdivision and system expansion
CO2 required for methanation in P2M can be obtained from var-
ious sources. In case of CO2 capture at power plants and cement
production, these processes are multi-functional due to the com-
bined production of CO2 and electricity or cement [29]. Besides
the multi-functionality (MF) in the CO2 capture process, the utiliza-
tion of CO2 as feedstock in methanation needs to be taken into
account in a consistent way in LCA. Von der Assen et al. discussed
different accounting approaches and system boundary issues of
CO2 Capture and Utilization, using the example of methanol syn-
thesis [29,34], and pointed out that, when joint functional units
for MF processes are impractical, or the product-specific environ-
mental performance has to be evaluated, allocation of environmen-
tal burdens based on economic value can be applied; however,
system expansion is recommended if joint functional units are pos-
sible, because it avoids the arbitrary choices of allocation criteria.
They also objected the avoided-burden approach, as it does not
distribute environmental benefits among all functions of the
system. In general, our analysis follows the framework and
Fig. 1. System boundary of Power-to-Gas with alternative process options.
recommendations from von der Assen et al. [29], and for the first
time applies it to the P2M systems, with consideration of various
CO2 sources, system configurations and multiple environmental
impact categories. We apply and compare two approaches: subdi-
vision and system expansion (visualized in Fig. 2 using the exam-
ple of capturing CO2 from power generation using fossil fuel):
 Subdivision: from the perspective of power/cement plant or
power-to-gas system operators, the environmental perfor-
mance of their own product is of primary interest. The multi-
functional process of electricity/cement and feedstock CO2 pro-
duction needs to be subdivided into two separate production
activities, so that the environmental burdens associated with
the specific products can be quantified. When subdivision is
applied in this study, all inputs and outputs at the power plant
or cement factory are categorized based on physical causalities,
and exclusively assigned to one of the joint products: either
electricity/cement or feedstock CO2, depending on the purpose
of their use or their origin. For example, in case of CO2 captured
from power plants, additional SO2 emissions removal (to avoid
reaction with the absorbent used for CO2 capture) and a fraction
of the electricity generated by the plant are required for CO2
capture. Such inputs are assigned to feedstock CO2 because
these are ‘‘caused” by CO2 capture. When the environmental
performance of only the P2G system needs to be evaluated, this
approach is applied to avoid allocation, as recommended by ISO
14044-2006 (Section 4.3.4.2) [31].
 System expansion: from a more general perspective of, for
example, policy regulator or society as a whole, the total envi-
ronmental impacts of the complete and expanded system,
including both electricity/cement production with CO2 capture
and power-to-gas, are decisive. These impacts need to be eval-
uated and compared with the conventional production of equiv-
alent amounts of electricity/cement without CO2 capture, as
well as the conventional production and use of natural gas
 X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338
Fig. 2. Power-to-Gas system with CO2 from electricity production with CO2 capture: product systems and system boundaries in case of subdivision and system expansion.
when P2M is not in place. System expansion does not require
the split of process between electricity/cement production
and captured feedstock CO2. Instead, electricity/cement produc-
tion with CO2 capture and the subsequent P2M system are con-
sidered as one expanded system. This approach is also
recommended by von der Assen et al. [29].
Note that although the term ‘‘allocation” was often used as
counterpart for ‘‘system expansion” in LCA [29,30], it is not used
in this study. Instead, ‘‘subdivision” is used, because we subdivided
process exchanges based on their causalities, whereas allocation is
usually performed based on properties of the products, such as
energy contents, economic values, etc.
In this study, results based on both subdivision and system
expansion approaches are compared with the results of conven-
tional technology scenarios without P2M. The difference in results
between these two approaches is further explored using the exam-
ple of a hard coal power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture
in Section 3.1.
2.3. Reference products and functional units
P2G can produce hydrogen or SNG, which can be used in differ-
ent ways as alternatives for various products and services (Fig. 1).
Therefore, multiple reference products and functional units need to
be considered in this study: for P2H, we analyze 1 MJ of hydrogen
generated; for P2M where SNG is used as fuel in mobility, we ana-
lyze 1 km of distance travelled by a compressed natural gas (CNG)
fueled mid-size passenger vehicle when we apply the subdivision
approach for CCU. In these cases, reference products are the same
as the functional units.
The functional unit of 1 kWh of electricity input to electrolysis
is chosen when the system expansion approach is applied in order
to account for the multiple reference products of the expanded sys-
tem (as shown in Fig. 2), namely electricity or cement produced at
329
the source of CO2 capture, and product or service provided by the
P2G system. Electricity input is the only common dimension for
expanded systems with different CO2 sources and thus different
quantities of multiple products. The other reason to define the
functional unit this way is that P2G is supposed to be an energy
storage technology to integrate surplus electricity from renewable
sources; the functional unit of 1 kWh of electricity input represents
the most useful basis for comparing the environmental benefits
and drawbacks of storing 1 kWh of surplus electricity via different
storage technologies [35].
In both subdivision and system expansion approach, the com-
bustion of SNG has to be included for P2M, to take into account
the complete cycle of CO2 from the point that it enters the system
until it is emitted into the atmosphere after SNG being combusted.
2.4. Scenarios
Different scenarios were developed to investigate the impact of
system configurations and technology options on the environmen-
tal performance of P2G. The system variations considered in the
scenarios include:
 Electricity supply to electrolysis
– Electricity from renewable energy sources (power from wind
turbines and solar photovoltaics) in Switzerland, considering
the ranges of location-specific annual yield and lifetime
– Swiss grid supply (based on consumption mix in
Switzerland)
– European average grid supply (ENTSO-E mix)
 Electrolysis:
– Electrolysis technology: Alkaline electrolysis and Polymer
Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) electrolysis.
 CO2 capture technology and CO2 sources: CO2 capture consid-
ered in this study is based on previous work of one of the co-
authors [36] and includes CO2 captured from power plants with
330 X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338
different fuels via post-combustion capture technology, as well
as from cement plant with different energy supplies. In addi-
tion, direct atmospheric capture with waste heat utilization is
considered.
These P2G systems are compared to conventional technologies
of hydrogen and natural gas production and use. The conventional
hydrogen production technologies considered are steam methane
reforming (SMR) and coal gasification and reforming (CGR) [37].
In P2M, when subdivision for CCU is applied, the environmental
burdens of P2M are compared with the conventional supply and
use of natural gas for mobility in Switzerland [33]. When system
expansion for CCU is applied, the environmental burdens of the
expanded system are compared with a reference system including
both production of cement/electricity without CO2 capture [36]
and conventional natural gas supply and use.
Further analysis is performed to understand the sensitivity of
system parameters, such as lifetime, system sizes, electrolysis
operation point and system electricity consumption, which can
be found in the ESI Section 6.
2.5. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
The Institute for Environment and Sustainability in the Center
of European Union Joint Research performed a review study on a
range of midpoint LCIA methods for different impact categories
in 2011, under the framework of International Reference Life Cycle
Data System (ILCD), and it provided recommendations on global
models and characterization factors that can be used for the impact
assessment in LCA [38]. The resulting ‘‘ILCD 2011 Midpoints” as
implemented in Simapro 8.0.4.30 [32] were used in this study. A
table listing the impact categories included in this study, the rec-
ommended impact assessment methods by ILCD, and the unit of
characterization factors can be found in the ESI Section 4, Table 4.
2.6. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) inputs and assumptions
The data used in this study includes both background data from
ecoinvent version 3.1 [33], and foreground data collected by con-
sultation with the field experts, project partners and from
literature.
2.6.1. Electricity generation
Data for electricity generation used as supply for electrolysis are
all based on ecoinvent version 3.1 [33]. Four types of electricity
supply are used in the scenarios, namely electricity from wind tur-
bines, photovoltaics, Swiss (CH) grid, and average grid of European
Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-
E). Since the analysis focuses on the Swiss context, renewable
energy generated from wind and photovoltaics used in this study
correspond to the resources and performances in Switzerland.
The environmental impact of electricity generation with wind tur-
bines and PV will differ depending on the annual electricity gener-
ation affected by location-specific factors (such as wind condition,
solar irradiance) and technology parameters, as well as the lifetime
of the turbines and PV panels. Assuming that the same technolo-
gies are applied in different locations of Switzerland, ranges of
Table 1
Performance ranges of solar PV and wind electricity production in Switzerland.
Renewable electricity type Parameters
Electricity from solar PV Annual yield (kWh/kWp year)
Lifetime (years)
Electricity from wind turbines Full-load hour (h/year)
Lifetime (years)
potential environmental impacts are covered by considering
ranges of the following parameters (Table 1):
2.6.2. Electrolysis
Electrolysis that has been considered in this study represents
low-temperature electrolysis (PEM and alkaline electrolysis)
occurring in the range of less than 100 °C under the pressure of less
than 30 bars. The energy consumption (in kWh) per unit volume
(1 Nm3) of hydrogen varies depending on the system configura-
tions (e.g. electrolysis technology, system operations, etc.), and is
scaled based on different system sizes for PEM electrolyzers. Scal-
ing in alkaline electrolysis is not considered in this study due to
limited data availability.
For alkaline electrolysis, the LCI data for hydrogen generation
are based on Chapter 2.3.7 in Wokaun et al. [37] with slight mod-
ification on unit energy consumption per Nm3 of hydrogen gener-
ation, for consistency of data source used in alkaline and PEM
electrolysis, representing a facility around 300 kW in power rating,
which can generate up to 60 Nm3 of hydrogen per hour. Original
data were also modified to exclude high pressure compression
and storage, as well as hydrogen dispensing in all the P2M scenar-
ios, as hydrogen produced is used in the methanation process
downstream without being compressed to high pressure. Based
on Table 2 in Grond et al. [16], 5.2 and 4.9 kWh of electricity is con-
sumed on average per Nm3 of hydrogen generation from alkaline
and PEM electrolysis system respectively. Water consumption is
assumed to be constant at 1.1 kg per Nm3 of hydrogen production
in all scenarios, which is based on the foreground data collected
[42].
Material inputs used for BOP of PEM electrolyzer are derived
from PEM fuel cell data in ecoinvent version 3.1 [33], whereas
the stack material inputs are based on expert judgement [43]. Scal-
ing of electrolyzer is performed based on the approach by Remer
et al. [44]; more detailed equations and assumptions can be found
in the ESI Section 1.
In the P2H scenarios, the hydrogen generated is compressed
before supply. When hydrogen is used as a vehicle fuel, the pres-
sure after compression is usually at 350 bar or 700 bar. Based on
the DOE technology validation project by Gardiner [45], the aver-
age energy consumption for compression of hydrogen is assumed
to be 3.1 kWh/kg, which is the average energy demand of hydrogen
compression to 350 bar (1.7 kWh/kg) and to 700 bar (6.4 kWh/kg).
2.6.3. CO2 Capture and Utilization (CCU)
The atmosphere, cement and coal power production are consid-
ered as potential CO2 sources in this study. Transportation of CO2
from the sources to P2G system is not considered, due to its high
variability in real operation. Instead, we assume that P2G is oper-
ated in proximity of power or cement plants, which will most
likely be beneficial from an economic perspective.
Data for CO2 captured from the atmosphere is based on the tech-
nology of Climeworks [46,47]. Since the specification of the sorbent
is not disclosed, generic organic chemicals are used in the LCI, which
requires future refinement when more information is available. It is
assumed that the capture process operates at 95 °C, and to capture
1 kg of CO2, 0.875 kWh of waste heat from electrolysis and methana-
Lower value Reference average value according to ecoinvent [33] Higher value
850 [39] 922 1500 [39]
20 [40] 30 30 [40]
1000 [28] 1675 2600 [28]
10 [41] 20 30 [41]
 X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338 331

tion can be utilized, which results in reduced electricity demand of
0.37 kWh per kg CO2 captured.
Data for wood fuel production is from ecoinvent [33], which
uses a simplified model, and does not consider, for example,
potential carbon emissions resulting from the change of land-use.
However, based on sustainable forestry in Switzerland (i.e. har-
vesting only at the natural growth rate), this is supposed to result
in negligible net CO2 emissions, as opposed to other climatic
regions and clear-cutting [48].

CO2 capture from atmosphere

electricity for capture facility,

CO2 from CO2 capture material and energy CO2 emissions
(a) atmosphere consumpon

CO2 Power-to- Fuel

Capture Methane Combuson
CO2 CO2 CH4
captured

CO2 captured from cement producon

clinker
produced
electricity for CO2 emissions
capture facility,
CO2 CO2 capture material and energy
(b) release consumpon

Clay and CO2 Power-to- Fuel

carbon Lime Stone
Clinker Producon
Capture Methane Combuson
CO2 CO2 CH4
emissions captured

CO2 captured from biomass-based fuel power producon

electricity sent
electricity for CO2
to the grid
capture
CO2 from electricity for capture facility,
(c)
atmosphere other demand material and energy CO2 emissions
CO2 at plant consumpon
release
Electricity CO2 Power-to- Fuel
Biomass
Producon Capture Methane Combuson
CO2 CO2 CH4
emissions captured

CO2 captured from fossil fuel power producon

electricity sent to
the grid electricity for CO2
capture

electricity for capture facility, CO2 emissions

(d) other demand material and energy
CO2 at plant consumpon
release
Fossil Electricity CO2 Power-to- Fuel
carbon Fuel Producon Capture Methane Combuson
CO2 CO2 CH4
emissions captured

indirect CO2 from fossil or underground sources indirect CO2 from biogenic sources
direct CO2 from fossil or underground sources direct CO2 from biogenic sources or atmosphere
electricity facility, material and other energy consumpon

Fig. 3. System boundaries and carbon flows for CO2 capture from (a) atmosphere, (b) cement production, (c) power generation from biomass, (d) power generation from fossil
fuel (coal or gas).
332 X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338

g of CO2 eq /MJ of Hydrogen from Electrolysis

300 Others

with Different Electricity Supply

Electricity
250

200

150

100

50

0
PEM Alkaline PEM Alkaline PEM Alkaline PEM Alkaline Steam Coal
Electrolysis Electrolysis Electrolysis Electrolysis Electrolysis Electrolysis Electrolysis Electrolysis Methane Gasificaon
(Wind) (Wind) (PV) (PV) (CH Mix) (CH Mix) (ENTSO-E (ENTSO-E Reforming Reforming
Supply) Supply)
P2H Convenonal

Fig. 4. Life cycle GHG emissions of hydrogen production: Power-to-Hydrogen vs. conventional hydrogen production (100 kW electrolyzer; based on lower heating value
(LHV) of hydrogen of 10.8 MJ/Nm3 [52].) category ‘‘others” include contributions from inputs other than electricity supply to electrolysis, such as facilities, water, and
chemicals required for electrolysis; error bars represent variation in wind and PV power generation performance.

Fig. 3 shows that CO2 captured from biomass combustion or the lower CO2 emissions due to capture. The captured CO2 – further
atmosphere is balanced with the CO2 emitted back into the atmo- utilized in P2M – is no longer regarded as elementary flow, but
sphere during SNG combustion. The climate change impact assess- as feedstock and economic product flow in methanation [29]. This
ment method ILCD recommends is based on IPCC 2007 [49], in means all the burdens (e.g., energy and material required for cap-
which CO2 taken from the atmosphere and biogenic emissions ture) and benefits (e.g., negative emissions of NOx and SO2) result-
are considered with zero global warming potential (GWP). ing from CO2 capture are accounted for and assigned to feedstock
The LCI for CO2 capture from power plants and cement plants CO2.
are based on Volkart et al. [36], using the technology data from
the 2025 scenario, with extra emission removal of SO2 and NOx
required for the capture considered. Both the burdens and the 2.6.4. Methanation
resulting emission reductions in SO2 and NOx are accounted in Thermo-chemical methanation is assumed to be carried out
the CO2 capture process. CO2 cleaning processes such as N2 and between 300 °C and 550 °C; hydrogen produced from electrolysis
H2S removal might be required for methanation, but are not con- and CO2 captured from other processes are supplied at 20 °C to
sidered due to lack of data. In terms of capture technology, post- 25 °C. The heat required for the input hydrogen and CO2 is
combustion capture is considered, which separates CO2 from nitro- assumed to be met by the waste heat released from methanation.
gen in the flue gas after the fuel is combusted. There are other CO2 Energy required for compression of gas inflows to supplement the
capture technologies available from the same references, namely pressure loss in this reactor, as well as for the cooling of the reac-
oxy-fuel combustion capture and pre-combustion capture [36]. tor, is not considered in this study due to insufficient data. The effi-
For simplification, only results with CO2 from post-combustion ciency of methanation is assumed to be around 80%, and an
capture are discussed in detail, while the results with the other average demand of 9.3E-6 kg of Ni-based catalyst is needed per
two capture technologies are included in the ESI. The data for Nm3 of SNG generation according to Table 4 in Grond et al. [16],
CO2 capture from cement production refers to a cement plant in which corresponds to a catalyst lifetime of 2–3 years. The Ni-
Switzerland with inventory data based on Kellenberger et al. based catalyst consists of 19% nickel and 81% aluminum alloy by
[50], which represents the state-of-art cement production in Eur- mass. The energy requirement and facility needed in catalyst man-
ope. In post-combustion capture, according to Volkart [36], the ufacturing, as well as the treatment and disposal of catalyst mate-
emissions of SO2, NOx and PM are assumed to be further reduced rials are not considered in this study due to limited data. The
by 95%, 2.5% and 50%, respectively, due to CO2 capture, in both methanation reactor is assumed to have a lifetime of 20 years
power plant and cement plant. [16], and it is assumed to be made of 300 kg stainless steel (corre-
In Fig. 3, system processes associated with the CO2 flows out- sponding to a system with three-step methanation that could gen-
side and within the P2G system are illustrated for different CO2 erate 1 Nm3 of SNG per hour). The product gas from methanation is
sources. It shows that when CO2 is captured from fossil fuel com- SNG, and is assumed to have equivalent composition and energy
bustion and cement production, the CO2 emitted during SNG com- content as conventional natural gas.
bustion originates from fossil fuel or other underground sources Depending on the application, the produced SNG is injected into
(e.g., limestone in case of cement production), and these emissions the natural gas network (distribution network up to 5 bars) with-
are not compensated upstream in terms of global warming poten- out any compression, or is dehydrated and compressed to 200 bars
tial, as it is for CO2 from biogenic origin. CO2 capture at cement and before it is supplied for mobility purpose. Dehydration of gas is
fossil fuel power production partially shifts CO2 emissions from assumed to be carried out by two-phase heat exchange from
cement and power plants to the P2G system. 285 °C to 12 °C and from 12 °C to 5 °C. Energy demand for product
Note that when CO2 is captured from power plants with fossil gas compression from 10 bar to 200 bar is assumed to be 0.39 kWh
and biomass fuel, the additional electricity consumed for the cap- per Nm3 of SNG produced based on Edwards et al. [51]. In P2M for
ture process (modeled as internal consumption) is associated with mobility, it is assumed that one km travelled requires 0.077 Nm3 of
 X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338
Electrolysis (with PV supply)
Methanaon and Fuel Processing
Fuel Combuson
Road
Vehicle Construcon
500
450
g of CO2 eq/km travelled
400
350
300
250
249 245
200 125 125
150
8 4
100
50
0
atmosphere wood power
capture, with plant
waste heat
Fig. 5. Life cycle GHG emissions of Power-to-Methane for mobility: Power-to-Methane vs. conventional Swiss natural gas supply using the subdivision approach for CCU.
Swiss natural gas supply and vehicle according to ecoinvent version 3.1 [33]; electricity for electrolysis (100 kW PEM electrolyzer) from PV in Switzerland; error bars
represent variation in PV power generation performance.
SNG according to the fuel consumption of a medium-size passen-
ger car consuming natural gas [33].
3. Results and discussion
The climate change impact of P2G is investigated in Sections 3.1
and 3.2, while the other impact categories according to ILCD 2011
are discussed in Section 3.3. Results based on subdivision (Sec-
tion 3.1.1) and system expansion (Section 3.1.2; applicable only
to P2M) are presented and compared in Section 3.1.3. When sys-
tem expansion is applied, the amounts of reference products per
functional unit are always listed in tables above the results in the
figures. Within the P2G system, the climate change impacts of
P2H and P2M are compared (Section 3.2). Sensitivity analyses on
the impact of important system parameters on life cycle GHG
emissions are performed (ESI Section 6), including electrolysis sys-
tem electricity demand, scale of electrolyzer, operation point of
electrolyzer (load density), and electrolyzer lifetime.
3.1. Subdivision versus system expansion
3.1.1. Subdivision: Power-to-Gas vs. conventional gas production
Life cycle GHG emissions of P2H and conventional hydrogen
production are shown in Fig. 4. Alkaline and PEM electrolysis are
considered and compared to hydrogen generation from SMR of
natural gas as well as CGR. The variability of renewable electricity
generation from wind and solar PV in Switzerland, and the result-
ing range on system life cycle GHG emissions is represented by the
error bars. It shows that PV exhibits a higher variability than wind
in absolute terms. Electrolysis supplied by wind power can achieve
a higher reduction of emissions because of the lower GHG emis-
sions per kWh from wind (ranging from 8 to 62 g CO2 eq/kWh,
with a reference value of 19 g CO2 eq/kWh) than PV (ranging from
50 to 132 g CO2 eq/kWh, with a reference value of 81 g CO2 eq/
kWh). The contribution of electricity input to electrolysis is domi-
nant concerning climate change impacts of the P2G system. How-
ever, its contribution is comparable to electrolysis facility, if the
GHG emissions of input electricity are lower than about 20 g of
CO2 eq/kWh. With the same electricity supply, PEM electrolysis
performs slightly better than alkaline electrolysis in terms of life
333
CO2 Capture
Conv. Natural Gas Producon
SNG Dispense
Vehicle Maintenance
Life Cycle Emissions
390 392 385
125 125 125
282
7 9 3 33
natural gas power hard coal power Cement plant Convenonal CH
plant plant with EU grid and Natural Gas
waste heat supply Supply
cycle GHG emissions due to its higher average efficiency. Using
electricity with very low GHG intensity reduces life cycle GHG
emissions by more than 90% compared to the conventional produc-
tion of hydrogen from fossil fuel. Using the average power supply
from the Swiss grid (consumption mix, to a large extent supplied
by hydro and nuclear) still reduces life cycle GHG emissions by a
factor of about two compared with conventional production,
whereas electrolysis powered by the average European grid mix
(with a high share of fossil fuels) results in higher emissions.
Similarly, life cycle GHG emissions of P2M for mobility using
the subdivision approach are shown in Fig. 5. In this figure, elec-
trolysis technology and the electricity supplied to electrolysis
(from photovoltaics) are the same for all scenarios, and only CO2
sources are varied. CO2 is generated using post-combustion cap-
ture at power plants and cement plants (complete numerical
results for all technologies are included in the ESI). Using CO2 cap-
tured from the wood power plant and from the atmosphere results
in the lowest life cycle GHG emissions. Although CO2 capture from
atmosphere is relatively energy intensive [53], due to its assumed
utilization of low-temperature waste heat and the origin of CO2
from the atmosphere, the associated life cycle GHG emissions are
only slightly higher than those of the system with CO2 captured
from a wood power plant. For non-biogenic CO2 sources, using
SNG from P2G with electrolysis supplied by PV power can generate
higher emissions than using conventional natural gas as vehicle
fuel, given the electrolysis performance assumed. For biogenic
CO2 sources, whether (zero impact) biogenic GHG emissions from
fuel combustion are able to compensate the emissions difference
between conventional natural gas production and fuel production
from P2G, determines the performance of P2M for mobility com-
pared to vehicles fueled by conventional natural gas.
3.1.2. System expansion: Power-to-Methane with different sources of
CO2 vs. conventional gas production
The results above based on subdivision for CCU represent the
emissions of the P2G system only and do not reflect the CO2 emis-
sion mitigation achieved by CO2 capture at the power/cement
plant. In order to have a fair comparison between P2G and the con-
ventional technologies, the system needs to be expanded to
include both P2G system and electricity/cement production
334 X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338

(Co-)products per kWh of electricity input to electrolysis

664m distance travelled
0.135kWh 0.278kWh 0.056 kWh
n.a 0.122kg cement
electricity electricity electricity
Mobility and Convenonal Scenario, in g of CO2 eq/kWh
Emission Reducon Comparing Scenario with P2M for
Detailed breakdown by process and comparison with
120 results from subdivision approach is illustrated in Figure 7
100
87.8 88.3
of Electricity Input to Electrolysis

80 84.6
78.3
73.5
60

40 41.6

20 21.8 25.0 25.5

15.5 10.7
0
-20 -21.2
-40

-60

-80
-100
Wind PV Wind PV Wind PV Wind PV Wind PV Wind PV
Atmosphere Cement plant w Cement plant w Hard coal power Natural gas Wood power
Capture grid & waste heat grid supply from plant power plant plant
supply hard coal

Fig. 6. Life Cycle GHG emission reduction comparing P2M for mobility with CO2 captured from different sources and conventional scenarios using system expansion
approach; functional unit: 1 kWh electricity input to electrolysis; electricity for PEM electrolysis in P2G is supplied by PV or wind in Switzerland. Conventional technologies
represent scenarios without P2M, i.e. distance travelled with a conventional natural gas and electricity/cement production without CO2 capture.

(Fig. 2) with its reduced GHG intensity. System expansion allows Taking into account the potential variability of PV and wind power
for comparing the environmental performance of P2G with con- in terms of their GHG intensities, the advantage of wind power
ventional energy carriers from a societal perspective. supply over PV is extended from 63 g CO2-eq, to a range between
Life cycle GHG emission reductions due to P2G in comparison 11 and 124 g CO2-eq emission reduction per kWh of electricity
with natural gas vehicles and electricity/cement production are input to P2G.
shown in Fig. 6. For comparison, only source of CO2 for methana- Fig. 6 also shows that, even by considering the worst wind
tion is varied, with the same electrolysis and methanation pro- power performance, system GHG reduction can always be
cesses in all scenarios (complete numerical results for CO2 achieved, which is not the case when the electrolyzer is supplied
sources and other impacts are included in the ESI Table 6–9). Elec- by electricity from PV.
tricity supplies from wind and solar PV are considered with possi- P2G with CO2 captured from a wood power plant can achieve
ble ranges of associated GHG emissions. Since system expansion is the highest reduction of GHG emissions; a cement plant using
applied, the functional unit is 1 kWh of electricity input to electrol- waste heat for CO2 capture and direct air capture of CO2 achieve
ysis, and there are two joint products from the expanded system: almost the same emission reductions. CO2 provided by cement
the co-product at the CO2 source (i.e. cement or electricity) and plant with heat for CO2 capture generated from hard coal combus-
distance travelled by the SNG vehicle. The amounts of H2, SNG tion results in the lowest potential reduction (actually, considering
and vehicle distance travelled corresponding to the functional unit the emission range of PV electricity supply, it could even increase
are equal for all scenarios independently of the source of CO2. the system emissions). Both CO2 captured from a wood power
However, due to the difference in capture technology and charac- plant and direct air capture are preferred sources of CO2 because
teristics of CO2 sources, the amounts of co-products are different of the biogenic origin of carbon; however, direct air capture must
in the scenarios (ESI Table 2). This has the following implication rely on clean electricity supply and utilization of waste heat in
in the interpretation of results: (1) comparison based on the abso- order to achieve high GHG emission reductions. In general, good
lute emissions of P2M systems with different CO2 sources are not CO2 sources provide comparatively high reductions of GHG emis-
meaningful, as they have different co-products; (2) The preferred sion at the source of capture, being determined by both the emis-
source of CO2 is determined by the highest absolute emission sion reduction per unit of co-product, and the amount of co-
reduction achieved, comparing the expanded system with electric- product produced.
ity or cement production without CO2 capture and distance trav- Comparing the variation of GHG emission reduction caused by
elled by the CNG vehicle powered by conventional natural gas. different CO2 sources and electricity supplies shows that – without
Reduction of overall system GHG emissions mainly depends on considering the uncertainties within each individual CO2 capturing
the electricity supplied to electrolysis and the source of CO2. P2G process – electricity supply causes higher variation on system GHG
with electrolysis using wind power can achieve higher life cycle emissions than different CO2 sources.
GHG emission reduction than with supply from PV. Based on the In the best case (both in terms of CO2 source and electricity sup-
reference performance of Swiss PV and wind (without considering ply, being wood combustion and high performance wind power),
variability), the reduction with wind power is 63 g CO2-eq higher system GHG emissions can be reduced by 99 g CO2-eq/kWh elec-
than the reduction with PV supply per kWh of electricity input. tricity input compared to the conventional scenario. In the worst
 X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338 335

case (CO2 supply from a cement plant with heat for CO2 capture from P2M, used as fuel in a passenger vehicle, are higher than
from hard coal combustion, and with worst performance PV those of conventional natural gas. System expansion instead takes
power), system GHG emissions increase by 72 g CO2-eq/kWh elec- into account the mitigation by CO2 capture in electricity produc-
tricity input compared to the conventional scenario. tion, resulting in lower overall emissions for the system including
both P2M and electricity production. The comparison between
3.1.3. Comparison of system expansion and subdivision subdivision and system expansion for CCU in P2G shows that only
Although both system expansion and subdivision have shown system expansion provides meaningful results from an overall per-
biomass combustion with CO2 capture as the preferred CO2 source spective, since subdivision does not reflect the reduced emissions
among all the options, the ranking of the technology options and of electricity (or cement) production with CO2 capture.
the conclusions for some of them are quite different when different
approaches are applied. As opposed to subdivision, applying sys-
tem expansion shows that P2M systems with CO2 from cement, 3.2. Power-to-Hydrogen vs. Power-to-Methane
coal and natural gas power plants can reduce overall GHG emis-
sions. In addition, the system expansion results shows that using When excess electricity is generated by intermittent renewable
CO2 from a cement plant can achieve slightly higher emission sources and P2G is chosen as a storage (or conversion) technology,
reduction than direct air capture of CO2 with waste heat the environmental performances of P2H vs. P2M need to be evalu-
utilization. ated. Fig. 8 shows the potential reduction of GHG emissions, if elec-
In order to further investigate the differences between subdivi- tricity from wind power or PV is fed into P2G system, and H2 from
sion and system expansion, a more detailed breakdown of life cycle P2H replaces conventional hydrogen production from fossil fuels,
GHG emissions by process is shown using CO2 from a hard coal while SNG from P2M replaces natural gas as vehicle fuel. When
power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture (Fig. 7). The func- P2H is powered by wind or PV, the GHG emissions of hydrogen
tional unit is 1 kWh of electricity input to electrolysis, supplied by production are much lower than those from conventional tech-
solar PV or wind power. In case of subdivision, GHG emissions nologies using fossil fuel reforming. Previous studies indicated that
associated to CO2 capture is shown, whereas in system expansion the storage and transportation of hydrogen is a challenge [54,55],
approach, GHG emissions associated with CO2 capture is not sepa- but this can be avoided if hydrogen is produced at the fueling sta-
rated, and included as part of joint production of electricity and tion. The potential emission mitigation P2M could bring is much
CO2 (in the category of electricity production w/wo CO2 capture lower. It is known from Fig. 6 that, by applying system expansion
in the figure). The GHG emissions of SNG compression, transport, and thus considering the emission mitigation at the source of
supply and combustion are equal to those of conventional natural CO2 supply, the scenario with the highest life cycle GHG reduction
gas, and the GHG emissions associated with vehicle and road achieved is the system with CO2 captured from a wood power
infrastructure are equal in all scenarios. Differences in GHG emis- plant with wind electricity supply (Fig. 6). However, even with this
sions between scenarios are mainly from the emission difference best-performing P2M system, when comparing it to vehicle dis-
of fuel production and joint accounting of electricity production tance driven by consuming conventional natural gas, the climate
and CO2 capture. change mitigation is less than P2H per 1 kWh of electricity input
In case of subdividing burdens between electricity production to electrolysis. P2H can also always bring emission mitigation in
and captured feedstock CO2, the life cycle GHG emissions of SNG compared to conventional hydrogen production, even when the

(Co-)products per kWh of electricity input to electrolysis

664m distance travelled
0.135kWh electricity
g CO2 eq/kWh of Electricity Input to Electrolysis

Electrolysis CO2 Capture

Methanaon and Fuel Processing SNG/NG Compression
Conv. Natural Gas Producon Electricity Producon w/wo CO2 capture
400 Fuel Combuson SNG Dispense
Road Vehicle Maintenance
350
300 corresponding emission 21
250 reducons in Figure 6 83
83 20 114
200 20
6 6 21 32 32
150
100
50
0
Wind, CO2 from PV, CO2 from Convenonal Wind, CO2 PV, CO2 from Convenonal
post-combuson post-combuson natural gas captured from post-combuson natural gas
of hard coal of hard coal supply post-combuson of hard coal supply & Hard
power plant power plant of hard coal power plant & Coal Power Plant
power plant & Electricity Electricity
Electricity producon with Producon
producon with CO2 capture without CO2
CO2 capture capture
Subdivision (P2G) System Expansion (P2G +Electricity Producon with
CO2 capture)

Fig. 7. Power-to-Methane for Mobility – Subdivision vs. System Expansion: life cycle GHG Emissions of P2G using subdivision (left) and system expansion (right); CO2
captured from a hard coal power plant by post-combustion capture. Electrolysis in P2G is supplied by PV or wind power; error bars indicate variability of GHG intensities of
electricity from PV and wind in Switzerland. SNG (in P2G scenarios) and NG (in conventional technology scenarios) are used for vehicle operation.
336
Emission Reducon Comparing Scenario with P2G
and Convenonal Scenario, g of CO2 eq/kWh of
450
Electricity Input to Electrolysis
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
Fig. 8. Life cycle GHG emission reduction comparing P2H and P2M for mobility with conventional scenarios (fossil fuel pathways): with PV and wind electricity supply to
100 kW PEM electrolyzer; error bars indicate variability of GHG intensity of electricity from PV and wind in Switzerland.
emissions of renewable electricity production are not ideal, which
is not the case of P2M.
3.3. LCIA – other impact categories
The LCIA characterization results using ILCD midpoint indica-
tors of selected scenarios in P2H and P2M for mobility are shown
in ESI Table 5–9, while the normalized results are shown in ESI
Table 10–12. Since normalized impacts help to quantitatively
relate absolute impact with the annual impacts of an average per-
son, we refer to it to first narrow down the discussion to the rela-
tively important impact categories, and then to the other impact
categories. The LCIA results consider high and low performances
of renewable electricity production, based on the assumptions in
Section 2.6.1.
In P2H, normalized results (ESI Table 10) are substantially
higher in two impact categories than for the other impact cate-
gories: ‘‘human toxicity cancer” and ‘‘freshwater eco-toxicity”.
Since steam methane reforming (SMR) is the dominant technology
for conventional hydrogen production, we discuss P2H vs. H2 from
SMR. The results in ESI Table 5 show that except for P2H with PEM
electrolyzer and best performance of renewable electricity produc-
tion, hydrogen production from SMR has lower human toxicity
cancer impacts than all the other P2H scenarios. This is because
of the relatively low human toxicity cancer impact associated with
natural gas supply compared to P2H, in which relatively high
impacts are associated with material consumption such as steel
and aluminum in the infrastructure of wind and PV power plants,
and the consumption of copper and fossil fuel when electricity is
supplied by the Swiss consumption mix. Concerning freshwater
eco-toxicity, conventional production of hydrogen has lower
impacts than all the P2H scenarios, mainly due to the high fresh-
water eco-toxicity impact of copper mining: consumption of cop-
per in the infrastructure for electricity supply needed by
electrolysis is higher than in the natural gas supply chain. How-
ever, in the other impact categories, P2H may have lower impacts
than SMR.
Among the normalized LCIA results of P2M using the system
expansion approach (ESI Table 11, ESI Table 12), results are rela-
tively high in four impact categories indicating comparatively
higher importance: ‘‘human toxicity cancer” and ‘‘human toxicity
X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338
(Co-)products per kWh of electricity input to electrolysis
Product: 0.204 Nm3 hydrogen Products: 664m distance
0.056 kWh electricity
Compared to Compared to Compare to Compared to CO2 from wood CO2 from wood
SMR CGR SMR CGR power plant power plant
Compared to Compared to
Convenonal Convenonal
P2H with PV Supply P2H with Wind Supply P2M for P2M for
Mobility with Mobility with
PV Supply Wind Supply
non-cancer”, ‘‘freshwater eco-toxicity” and ‘‘resource depletion”
(mineral, fossil and renewable). In all these four impact categories,
P2M for mobility scenarios perform worse than the scenarios of
expanded systems with conventional technologies (natural gas
supply and cement/electricity production without CO2 capture),
even when considering performance variability and different types
of renewable electricity production that feeds into electrolysis (ESI
Table 6–9). This is because methanation reduces the efficiency of
the system and the capture of CO2 requires additional energy and
materials. When electricity supply to electrolysis is switched from
PV to wind power (ESI Table 11 vs. ESI Table 12), the differences in
most impact categories between P2M and conventional scenarios
are reduced, but P2M still has higher impacts.
In general, the LCIA results of other impact categories besides
climate change show that P2H may cause lower impacts than con-
ventional technologies, while P2M most often does not perform
better than conventional technologies. However, it should also be
considered that the methodological uncertainties in water
resource depletion, freshwater toxicity and human toxicity are rel-
atively high in the ILCD 2011 mid-point indicators, according to
Table 1 in Hausschild et al. [38].
3.4. Sensitivity analysis
Results of a sensitivity analysis are provided in the Electronic
supplementary information (ESI 6) and shows that the electricity
consumption for electrolysis is the most sensitive parameter con-
cerning life cycle GHG emissions as well as for most other impact
categories. This is followed by the system operation point (density
on a unit area (W/cm2)), while the sensitivity of electrolyzer size
and lifetime are much less influential.
4. Conclusions and outlook
By considering different P2G technology and system variations,
our analysis provides quantitative reference to support the tech-
nology selection for the system design of P2G from the environ-
mental perspective. The discussion of CCU related LCA
methodology – subdivision vs. system expansion – and its applica-
tion to P2G reveals its complexity and also shortcomings of previ-
ous studies and provides a benchmark for further analysis.
 X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338
We compared the environmental performance of P2G with con-
ventional hydrogen and natural gas production and utilization as
vehicle fuel, applying both subdivision and system expansion for
joint electricity/cement and feedstock CO2 production in case of
P2M. We found that within the P2G system, the type of electricity
and source of CO2 dominate the life cycle GHG emissions and the
reduction potential compared to conventional, non-renewable
sources: only with renewable electricity supply that has low
GHG-intensity and feedstock CO2 from particular, preferably bio-
genic sources including direct air capture, life cycle GHG emissions
of P2G can be lower than those of conventional technologies. When
the supply of electricity is largely based on fossil fuels (e.g. average
EU supply), P2G causes higher life cycle GHG emissions than con-
ventional technologies. Comparing the variation of GHG emission
reduction caused by different CO2 sources and electricity supply
options shows that, electricity supply causes higher variation of
system GHG emissions than different CO2 sources.
Our results using two different approaches of dealing with CCU
in P2M – system expansion and subdivision of joint production of
electricity/cement and CO2 – show that in case of fossil sources of
CO2, only applying system expansion allows for meaningful con-
clusions: subdivision does not account for the reduced GHG inten-
sity of cement and electricity production with CO2 capture and
therefore, P2M performs worse than producing and using conven-
tional natural gas. System expansion reveals the full potential of
P2M in terms of GHG reduction and shows that P2M based on fossil
CO2 sources can – although with smaller benefits than biogenic
CO2 sources – contribute to climate change mitigation. Comparing
P2H and P2M shows that P2H replacing hydrogen from fossil
sources can more effectively contribute to reduction of GHG emis-
sions than SNG replacing natural gas as vehicle fuel. However, tak-
ing into account the existing natural gas infrastructure and the
large range of options for using natural gas, large-scale conversion
of electricity to SNG might be more realistic than large-scale P2H.
In addition to impacts on climate change, the LCIA results for
the ILCD midpoint indicators show that P2H could perform better
than hydrogen from fossil resources with renewable electricity
supply, while using SNG from P2M as vehicle fuel, compared to
natural gas, most often have higher impacts.
Although many scenarios are explored in the study, there are
still some questions that have not been addressed and require fur-
ther analysis. For example, further analysis should be carried out
for technological variations in methanation, as soon as more data
concerning heat generation, external energy demand and catalysts
will be available. Also the utilization of hydrogen, e.g. in fuel cell
vehicles, needs to be addressed and compared to vehicles using
other fuel types. In addition, the environmental performance of
P2G used as electricity storage should be compared against other
large-scale seasonal storage technologies, such as pumped hydro
storage and compressed air energy storage.
Even if our analysis shows that only applying system expansion
for joint production processes in P2G systems provides meaningful
results from the societal perspective, further approaches for alloca-
tion based on physical properties should be explored, primarily
according to product price or revenue. Furthermore, our analysis
exclusively addresses the environmental aspects, but economic
and social issues need to be considered in parallel for decision
making. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) can be performed
on top of these evaluations to establish a more comprehensive
understanding of Power-to-Gas under various boundary conditions
and decision criteria.
Acknowledgement
The work was carried out as part of the activities of The Swiss
Competence Center for Energy Research for Storage of Heat and
337
Electricity (SCCER-Hae) from 2014 to 2016 and supported by the
Energy System Integration (ESI) platform of PSI. We acknowledge
the funding provided by the SCCER-Hae and the ESI platform,
and would like to thank our colleagues Felix Büchi, Tilman Schild-
hauer and Sinan Levent Teske, who provided insight and expertise
that greatly assisted this research.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.
12.098.
References
[1] Beaudin M, Zareipour H, Schellenberglabe A, Rosehart W. Energy storage for
mitigating the variability of renewable electricity sources: an updated review.
Energy Sustain Develop 2010;14:302–14.
[2] Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Assessment of utility energy storage options for
increased renewable energy penetration. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16:4141–7.
[3] Denholm P, Ela E, Kirby B, Milligan M. The role of energy storage with
renewable electricity generation; 2010.
[4] Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K,
et al., editors. Climate change 2014 mitigation of climate change. contribution
of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental
panel on climate change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2014.
[5] Luo G, Li Y, Tang W, Wei X. Wind curtailment of China’s wind power operation:
evolution, causes and solutions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:1190–201.
[6] Solomon AA, Kammen DM, Callaway D. The role of large-scale energy storage
design and dispatch in the power grid: a study of very high grid penetration of
variable renewable resources. Appl Energy 2014;134:75–89.
[7] Johnson JX, De Kleine R, Keoleian GA. Assessment of energy storage for
transmission-constrained wind. Appl Energy 2014;124:377–88.
[8] de Sisternes FJ, Jenkins JD, Botterud A. The value of energy storage in
decarbonizing the electricity sector. Appl Energy 2016;175:368–79.
[9] Luo X, Wang J, Dooner M, Clarke J. Overview of current development in
electrical energy storage technologies and the application potential in power
system operation. Appl Energy 2015;137:511–36.
[10] Chen H, Cong TN, Yang W, Tan C, Li Y, Ding Y. Progress in electrical energy
storage system: a critical review. Prog Nat Sci 2009;19:291–312.
[11] Hofstetter D, Battke B, Cox B, Hughes J. Power-to-Gas in Switzerland - demand,
regulation, economics, technical potential. Erdgas Zürich, Elektrizitätswerk der
Stadt Zürich (ewz), Swissgrid AG, Swiss Gas Industry Association (VSG),
Electrochaea, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; 2014.
[12] Rehman S, Al-Hadhrami LM, Alam MM. Pumped hydro energy storage system:
a technological review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;44:586–98.
[13] Lehner M, Tichler R, Steinmüller H, Koppe M. Power-to-gas technology and
business model. Austria: Springer; 2014.
[14] Garmsiri S, Rosen MA, Smith GR. Integration of wind energy, hydrogen and
natural gas pipeline systems to meet community and transportation energy
needs: a parametric study. Sustainability 2014;5:2506–26.
[15] Altfeld K, Pinchbeck D. Admissible hydrogen concentrations in natural gas
systems. DIV Deutscher Industrieverlag GmbH; 2013.
[16] Grond L, Schulze P, Holstein J. Systems analyses power to gas deliverable 1:
technology review. Part of TKI project TKIG01038 – systems analyses Power-
to-Gas pathways. Groningen: DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability; 2013.
[17] Bünger U, Landinger H, Pschorr-Schoberer E, Schmidt P, Weindorf W, Jöhrens J,
et al. Power-to-Gas (PtG) in transport - status quo and perspectives for
development. Study in the context of the scientific supervision, support and
guidance of the BMVBS in the sectors transport and mobility with a specific
focus on fuels and propulsion technologies, as well as energy and
climate. Munich, Heidelberg, Leipzig, Berlin: Federal Ministry of Transport
and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI); 2014.
[18] Guandalini G, Campanari S, Romano MC. Power-to-gas plants and gas turbines
for improved wind energy dispatchability: energy and economic assessment.
Appl Energy 2015;147:117–30.
[19] Qadrdan M, Abeysekera M, Chaudry M, Wu J, Jenkins N. Role of power-to-gas
in an integrated gas and electricity system in Great Britain. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2015;40:5763–75.
[20] Schiebahn S, Grube T, Robinius M, Tietze V, Kumar B, Stolten D. Power to gas:
technological overview, systems analysis and economic assessment for a case
study in Germany. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:4285–94.
[21] Zoss T, Dace E, Blumberga D. Modeling a power-to-renewable methane system
for an assessment of power grid balancing options in the Baltic States’ region.
Appl Energy 2016;170:278–85.
[22] Bensmann B, Hanke-Rauschenbach R, Müller-Syring G, Henel M, Sundmacher
K. Optimal configuration and pressure levels of electrolyzer plants in context
of power-to-gas applications. Appl Energy 2016;167:107–24.
338 X. Zhang et al. / Applied Energy 190 (2017) 326–338
[23] Giglio E, Lanzini A, Santarelli M, Leone P. Synthetic natural gas via integrated
high-temperature electrolysis and methanation: part I—Energy performance. J
Energy Storage 2015;1:22–37.
[24] Giglio E, Lanzini A, Santarelli M, Leone P. Synthetic natural gas via integrated
high-temperature electrolysis and methanation: part II—Economic analysis. J
Energy Storage 2015;2:64–79.
[25] Burkhardt J, Patyk A, Tanguy P, Retzke C. Hydrogen mobility from wind energy
– a life cycle assessment focusing on the fuel supply. Appl Energy
2016;181:54–64.
[26] Bhandari R, Trudewind CA, Zapp P. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen
production via electrolysis – a review. J Cleaner Prod 2014;85:151–63.
[27] Collet P, Flottes E, Favre A, Raynal L, Pierre H, Capela S, et al. Techno-economic
and Life Cycle Assessment of methane production via biogas upgrading and
power to gas technology. Appl Energy.
[28] Reiter G, Lindorfer J. Global warming potential of hydrogen and methane
production from renewable electricity via power-to-gas technology. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 2015;20:477–89.
[29] von der Assen N, Jung J, Bardow A. Life-cycle assessment of carbon dioxide
capture and utilization: avoiding the pitfalls. Energy Environ Sci
2013;6:2721–34.
[30] ISO. 14040 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles
and framework. 2nd ed. Switzerland 2006.
[31] ISO. 14044 Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assesment - Requirements
and Guidelines; 2006.
[32] PRé. SimaPro 8.0.4.30 Multi user. PRé Consultants bv, Stationsplein 121, 3818
LE Amersfoort, The Netherlands 2014.
[33] ecoinvent. ecoinvent version 3.1, allocation, cut-off by classification system
model. July 8 ed.; 2014.
[34] von der Assen N, Voll P, Peters M, Bardow A. Life cycle assessment of CO2
capture and utilization: a tutorial review. Chem Soc Rev 2014;43:7982–94.
[35] Sternberg A, Bardow A. Power-to-What? - Environmental assessment of
energy storage systems. Energy Environ Sci 2015;8:389–400.
[36] Volkart K, Bauer C, Boulet C. Life cycle assessment of carbon capture and
storage in power generation and industry in Europe. Int J Greenhouse Gas
Control 2013;16:91–106.
[37] Wokaun A, Wilhelm E, Schenler W, Simons A, Bauer C, Bond S, et al. Transition
to hydrogen - pathways toward clean transportation. New York: Cambridge
University Press; 2011.
[38] Hausschild M, Goedkoop M, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, et al.
Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context -
based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors
(International Reference Life Cycle Data System - ILCD handbook). 1st ed.,
European Commission-Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and
Sustainability; 2011.
[39] Borgna L, Geissbühler C, Häberlin H, Kämpfer M, Zwahlen U. Photovoltaik-
Systemtchnik (PVSYSTE) Schlussbericht; 2007.
[40] Flowers ME, Smith MK, Parsekian AW, Boyuk DS, McGrath JK, Yates L. Climate
impacts on the cost of solar energy. Energy Policy 2016;94:264–73.
[41] Raadal HL, Vold BI, Myhr A, Nygaard TA. GHG emissions and energy
performance of offshore wind power. Renew Energy 2014;66:314–24.
[42] Cianelli C. Personal Communication on the HSR Power-to-Gas Pilot Plant;
2014.
[43] Büchi F. Personal communication on the energy consumption of PEM
electrolysis system; 2014.
[44] Remer DD, Chai LH. Estimate costs of scaled-up process plants. Chem Eng
1990:138–75.
[45] Gardiner M. Energy requirements for hydrogen gas compression and
liquefaction as related to vehicle storage needs; 2009.
[46] Timofte A. A Life Cycle Assessment of the Climeworks technology for direct air
capture of carbon dioxide, a semester project in the ecological systems design
group. Institute of Environmental Engineering of ETH Zurich; 2013.
[47] Goeppert A, Czaun M, Surya Prakash GK, Olah GA. Air as the renewable carbon
source of the future: an overview of CO2 capture from the atmosphere. Energy
Environ Sci 2012;5:7833–53.
[48] Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, et al. Use
of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions
from land-use change. Science 2008;319:1238–40.
[49] IPCC. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. contribution of working
group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA; 2007.
[50] Kellenberger D, Althaus H-J, Jungbluth N, Künniger T. Life cycle inventories of
building products. Final report ecoinvent data v2.0 No. 7.: Swiss Centre for Life
Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, CH.; 2007.
[51] Edwards R, Larivé J-F, Beziat J-C. Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive
fuels and powertrains in the European context JRC scientific and technical
reports. Luxembourg: European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute
for Energy and Transport; 2011.
[52] Waldheim L. Heating value of gases from biomass gasification. Report
prepared for: IEA bioenergy agreement, Task 20 – thermal gasification of
biomass; 2001.
[53] Keith DW, Ha-Duong M, Stolaroff JK. Climate strategy with CO2 capture from
the air. Climatic Change 2006;74:17–45.
[54] Sharma S, Ghoshal SK. Hydrogen the future transportation fuel: From
production to applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;43:1151–8.
[55] Parfomak PW. Energy Storage for power grids and electric transportation: a
technology assessment. In: Congressional research service report for congress
prepared for memebers and commitees of congress; 2012.