Carbon footprint analysis of advanced electrolysis technologies for industrial-scale green hydrogen production

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 885 - 908, 25.09.2025

Manolya Güldürek

https://doi.org/10.58559/ijes.1733704

Abstract

This study presents a comparative carbon footprint analysis of three advanced electrolysis technologies used for industrial-scale green hydrogen production — Alkaline Electrolysis (AEL), Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolysis (PEM), and Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell (SOEC). The environmentally sustainable production of hydrogen is directly related not only to energy efficiency but also to the greenhouse gas emissions generated throughout the life cycle of the production process. In this context, the mentioned technologies were analyzed using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method in accordance with ISO 14040/44 standards. Based on the production of 1 kg of hydrogen for each technology, three scenarios were created depending on the energy source (solar, wind, and grid electricity), and the carbon footprint was calculated using the ReCiPe method. The results indicate that the type of energy source used is a critical determinant of the carbon footprint. While systems operating with grid electricity result in significantly higher emissions (e.g., ~9.4 kg CO₂-eq/kg H₂ for AEL), using renewable energy sources can reduce this value by up to 70%. In particular, solar-thermal-assisted SOEC systems were found to have the lowest emission value, approximately 0.6 kg CO₂-eq/kg H₂. On the other hand, the production of rare-metal-based components used in PEM systems contributes to considerable environmental impacts. The findings demonstrate that green hydrogen technologies must be evaluated not only from a technical perspective but also in terms of their environmental performance to achieve carbon neutrality targets. In countries like Türkiye, which have high renewable energy potential, the level of integration between the selected hydrogen production technology and the energy source plays a critical role in minimizing the carbon footprint.

Keywords

Carbon footprint , Green hydrogen , Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) , Renewable energy , Electrolysis

References

• [1] Global hydrogen review 2022: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2022; updated 02.07.2025.
• [2] Staffell I, Scamman D, Abad AV, Balcombe P, Dodds PE, Ekins P, Shah N, Ward KR. The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy Environmental Science 2019; 12(2): 463-91.
• [3] 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. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018; 82: 2440-54.
• [4] Carmo M, Fritz DL, Mergel J, Stolten D. A comprehensive review on PEM water electrolysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2013; 38(12): 4901-34.
• [5] Laguna-Bercero MA. Recent advances in high temperature electrolysis using solid oxide fuel cells: A review. Journal of Power Sources 2012; 203: 4-16.
• [6] Finkbeiner M. The international standards as the constitution of life cycle assessment: the ISO 14040 series and its offspring. Background Future Prospects in Life Cycle Assessment 2014: 85-106.
• [7] Bhandari R, Trudewind CA, Zapp P. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via electrolysis–a review. Journal of Cleaner Production 2014; 85: 151-63.
• [8] Ursua A, Gandia LM, Sanchis P. Hydrogen production from water electrolysis: current status and future trends. Proceedings of the IEEE 2011; 100(2): 410-26.
• [9] Wokaun A, Wilhelm, E., Eds. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production. Transition to Hydrogen: Pathways Toward Clean Transportation 2011: 13-57.
• [10] Spath PL, Mann MK. Life cycle assessment of renewable hydrogen production via wind/electrolysis: National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden, CO; 2004.
• [11] Gerloff N. Comparative Life-Cycle-Assessment analysis of three major water electrolysis technologies while applying various energy scenarios for a greener hydrogen production. Journal of Energy Storage 2021; 43: 102759.
• [12] Boyano A, Blanco-Marigorta A, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Exergoenvironmental analysis of a steam methane reforming process for hydrogen production. Energy 2011; 36(4): 2202-14.
• [13] Dufour J, Serrano DP, Gálvez JL, González A, Soria E, Fierro JL. Life cycle assessment of alternatives for hydrogen production from renewable and fossil sources. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2012; 37(2): 1173-83.
• [14] Geerken T, Lassaux S, Renzoni R, Timmermans V. Review of hydrogen LCAs for the Hysociety project. Final Report; 2004.
• [15] Palmer G, Dargaville R, Wang C, Hamilton S, Hoadley A. Considering the greenness of renewable hydrogen production in Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production 2025: 145776.
• [16] Alonso AM, Huber D, Komai K, Takeda M, Coosemans T. The effect of carbon taxonomy on renewable hydrogen production: A techno-economic and environmental assessment. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2025.
• [17] Stafford WH, Chaba KJ, Russo V, Goga T, Roos TH, Sharp M, Nahman A. Life cycle assessment of green ammonia production at a coastal facility in South Africa. Frontiers in Energy 2025: 1-21.
• [18] Rangel GP, Domingos MG, Lopes JC, Neto B. Sustainable green hydrogen production: Trading off costs and environmental impacts. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2025; 100: 994-1009.
• [19] Rodríguez-Aburto C, Poma-García J, Montaño-Pisfil J, Morcillo-Valdivia P, Oyanguren-Ramirez F, Santos-Mejia C, Rodriguez-Flores R, Virú-Vasquez P, Pilco-Nuñez A. Bibliometric analysis of global publications on management, trends, energy, and the innovation impact of green hydrogen production. Sustainability 2024; 16(24): 11048.
• [20] Al-Ghussain L, Alrbai M, Al-Dahidi S, Lu Z. Integrated assessment of green hydrogen production in California: life cycle Greenhouse gas Emissions, Techno-Economic Feasibility, and resource variability. Energy Conversion Management 2024; 311: 118514.
• [21] Bacatelo M, Capucha F, Ferrão P, Margarido F, Bordado J. Life cycle assessment of synthetic natural gas production from captured cement’s CO2 and green H2. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2024; 83: 102774.
• [22] Ganguly A, Sun P, Liu X, Delgado HE, Sun L, Elgowainy A. Techno-economic and life cycle analysis of bio-hydrogen production using bio-based waste streams through the integration of dark fermentation and microbial electrolysis. Green Chemistry 2025; 27(21): 6213-31.
• [23] Patel GH, Havukainen J, Horttanainen M, Soukka R, Tuomaala M. Climate change performance of hydrogen production based on life cycle assessment. Green Chemistry 2024; 26(2): 992-1006.
• [24] Rodríguez-Aburto C, Poma-García J, Montaño-Pisfil J, Morcillo-Valdivia P, Solís-Farfán R, Curay-Tribeño J, Pilco-Nuñez A, Flores-Salinas J, Tineo-Cordova F, Virú-Vasquez P. Applications of renewable energies in low-temperature regions: a scientometric analysis of recent advancements and future research directions. Energies 2025; 18(4): 904.
• [25] Güleroğlu H, Yumurtacı Z. Life cycle assessment of green methanol production based on multi-seasonal modeling of hybrid renewable energy and storage systems. Sustainability 2025; 17(2): 624.
• [26] Lee HE, Ling JLJ, Pae KP, Solanki BS, Park HS, Ahn HJ, Seo HW, Lee SH. Comparative life cycle assessment of carbon-free ammonia as fuel for power generation based on the perspective of supply chains. Energy 2024; 312: 133557.
• [27] Proniewicz M, Petela K, Szlęk A, Adamczyk W. Life cycle assessment of selected ammonia production technologies from the perspective of ammonia as a fuel for heavy-duty vehicle. Journal of Energy Resources Technology 2024; 146(3).
• [28] Vinardell S, Fenske CF, Heimann A, Cortina JL, Valderrama C, Koch K. Exploring the potential of biological methanation for future defossilization scenarios: Techno-economic and environmental evaluation. Energy Conversion Management 2024; 307: 118339.
• [29] Shaya N, Glöser-Chahoud S. A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies for hydrogen production technologies through water electrolysis: Recent advances. Energies 2024; 17(16): 3968.
• [30] Ribeiro TM, Capaz RS, Barros RM, Battle EO, dos Santos IFS, Tiago Filho GL. Carbon footprint analysis of biohydrogen derived from urban solid waste in southeastern Brazilian. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2024; 83: 660-72.
• [31] Lueckel FB, Scott F, Aroca G. Comparative techno-economic and carbon footprint analysis of 2, 3-butanediol production through aerobic and anaerobic bioconversion of carbon dioxide with green hydrogen. Chemical Engineering Journal Advances 2024; 20: 100659.
• [32] Osman AI, Nasr M, Mohamed A, Abdelhaleem A, Ayati A, Farghali M, Al‐Muhtaseb AaH, Al‐Fatesh AS, Rooney DW. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production, storage, and utilization toward sustainability. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy Environment 2024; 13(3): e526.
• [33] Jolaoso LA, Duan C, Kazempoor P. Life cycle analysis of a hydrogen production system based on solid oxide electrolysis cells integrated with different energy and wastewater sources. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2024; 52: 485-501.
• [34] Osorio-Tejada J, Van't Veer K, Long NVD, Tran NN, Fulcheri L, Patil BS, Bogaerts A, Hessel V. Sustainability analysis of methane-to-hydrogen-to-ammonia conversion by integration of high-temperature plasma and non-thermal plasma processes. Energy Conversion Management 2022; 269: 116095.
• [35] Goswami RK, Agrawal K, Upadhyaya HM, Gupta VK, Verma P. Microalgae conversion to alternative energy, operating environment and economic footprint: an influential approach towards energy conversion, and management. Energy Conversion Management 2022; 269: 116118.
• [36] Energy system of Türkiye 2023. Available from: https://www.iea.org/countries/turkiye
• [37] Hossain MS, Wadi Al-Fatlawi A, Kumar L, Fang YR, Assad MEH. Solar PV high-penetration scenario: an overview of the global PV power status and future growth. Energy Systems 2024: 1-57.
• [38] Xu K, Chang J, Zhou W, Li S, Shi Z, Zhu H, Chen Y, Guo K. A comprehensive estimate of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from onshore wind energy in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022; 338: 130683.
• [39] Evrendilek F, Ertekin C. Assessing the potential of renewable energy sources in Turkey. Renewable Energy 2003; 28(15): 2303-15.
• [40] Basaran ST, Dogru AO, Balcik FB, Ulugtekin NN, Goksel C, Sozen S. Assessment of renewable energy potential and policy in Turkey–Toward the acquisition period in European Union. Environmental Science Policy 2015; 46: 82-94.
• [41] Akusta E, Ari A, Cergibozan R. Barriers to renewable energy investments in Turkiye: A fuzzy AHP approach. Renewable Energy 2025; 240: 122161.