Carbon accounting tool for greenhouse gas emission sources in hydrogen production facilities
Farah Anissa Sukri, Syaza Izyanni Ahmad
Abstract. Hydrogen production facility stands out as one of the major CO2 contributors in oil and gas industry. As hydrogen has emerged as a clean energy source in the future, this research is conducted to focus on carbon footprint assessment in hydrogen production facilities. This study aims to quantify amount of carbon dioxide through direct and indirect emissions which comprised of stationary combustion, process emissions and energy consumption. A comparative analysis has been done between SMR facility in Hydrogen production plant in company A, partial oxidation (POX) and alkaline electrolysis (AEL). The study revealed that gridline-based electrolysis shows the highest CO2 emissions per production of 18 tCO2e/tH2, whereas hydropower-based electrolysis had the lowest emissions of 0 tCO2e/tH2. The study concluded that SMR exhibited the best efficiency among POX and AEL due to its overall low emissions per production of 8.6 tCO2e/tH2, high product throughput, and relatively low investment cost. Reforming technologies emit high amount of CO2 emissions due to large fuel consumption as feedstock, but greater hydrogen throughput compared to electrolysis. As SMR emerged as the most efficient technology, the study recommended implementing CO2 mitigation at process emissions, which accounted for the largest CO2 emissions.
Keywords
Carbon Footprint, Steam-Methane Reforming, Hydrogen, Carbon Capture
Published online 4/25/2025, 16 pages
Copyright © 2025 by the author(s)
Published under license by Materials Research Forum LLC., Millersville PA, USA
Citation: Farah Anissa Sukri, Syaza Izyanni Ahmad, Carbon accounting tool for greenhouse gas emission sources in hydrogen production facilities, Materials Research Proceedings, Vol. 53, pp 526-541, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903575-53
The article was published as article 53 of the book Decarbonization Technology
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
References
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Synthesis Report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). AR6 Synthesis Report Climate Change 2023.
[2] Gale (2021). Scholarly articles on global warming and climate change | gale. Global Warming.
[3] United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA). (2023). Global Emissions by Gas. Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Data | US EPA.
[4] Megía, P. J., Vizcaíno, A. J., Calles, J. A., & Carrero, A. (2021). Hydrogen Production Technologies: From Fossil Fuels Toward Renewable Sources. A Mini Review. Energy & Fuels, 35(20), 16403-16415. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c02501
[5] Rathee, D. (2023, July 31). Types of electrolysers: CEF explains. CEEW.
[6] Shiva Kumar, S., & Himabindu, V. (2019). Hydrogen production by PEM water electrolysis – a review. Materials Science for Energy Technologies, 2(3), 442- 454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2019.03.002
[7] Erickson, P. A., Tang, H.-Y. (Ray), & Vernon, D. R. (2014, July 29). Reformation of Hydrocarbon Fuels. Routledge Handbooks Online.
[8] Rapier, R. (2022, October 12). Estimating The Carbon Footprint Of Hydrogen Production.Forbes. production.
[9] Roy, S., & Tiwari, A. K. (2021). Efficient water-gas shift catalysts for H2O and co dissociation using Cu-Ni step alloy surfaces. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 125(25), 13819-13835. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c02363
[10] Voldsund, M., Jordal, K., & Anantharaman, R. (2016). Hydrogen production with CO2 Capture. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(9), 4969-4992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.01.009
[11] Zeng, K., & Zhang, D. (2010). Recent progress in alkaline water electrolysis for hydrogen production and applications. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 36(3), 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.11.002
[12] MyCarbon (2014). National Corporate GHG Reporting Programme for Malaysia. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) Malaysia
[13] Li, J., Wei, Y.-M., Liu, L., Li, X., & Yan, R. (2022). The carbon footprint and cost of coal-based hydrogen production with and without carbon capture and storage technology in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362, 132514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132514
[14] Lam, C. H., Hassim, M. H., & Ho, W. S. (2023). Carbon footprint of an offshore survey by oil and Gas Service Provider Company. Journal of Energy and Safety Technology (JEST), 5(2), 87-96. https://doi.org/10.11113/jest.v5n2.116
[15] Suer, J., Traverso, M., & Jäger, N. (2022). Carbon footprint assessment of hydrogen and steel. Energies, 15(24), 9468. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249468
[16] Tian, W., An, H., Li, X., Li, H., Quan, K., Lu, X., & Bai, H. (2022). CO2 accounting model and Carbon Reduction Analysis of iron and steel plants based on intra- and inter-process carbon metabolism. Journal of Cleaner Production, 360, 132190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132190
[17] Lewis, G. M., Eastin, I., & Keoleian, G. A. (2022). Life Cycle Carbon Accounting of thermally modified wood in the US inland northwest. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 10(31), 10252-10259. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c02023
[18] Huang, L., Liao, Q., Yan, J., Liang, Y., & Zhang, H. (2021). Carbon footprint of Oil Products Pipeline Transportation. Science of The Total Environment, 783, 146906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146906
[19] Liu, Y., Xu, H., Wang, Y., Cui, P., Sun, C., Zhu, Z., & Wang, Y. (2023). Life cycle water footprint and carbon footprint analysis of coal gasification to clean fuel dimethyl ether. Fuel, 357, 129884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2023.129884
[20] Rao, A., Francuz, D., Scherffius, J., & West, E. (2000). CO2 capture by partial oxidation – IEAGHG. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme.
[21] Buttler, A., & Spliethoff, H. (2018). Current status of water electrolysis for energy storage, grid balancing and sector coupling via power-to-gas and power-to-liquids: A Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 2440-2454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.003
[22] Campbell, L., Toolen, J., Grubert, D., & Napp, G. (2021a). Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies For The Natural Gas And Oil Industry. Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies.
[23] Darío, G. R., & John, W. D. (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC.
[24] Tonelli, D., Rosa, L., Gabrielli, P., Caldeira, K., Parente, A., & Contino, F. (2023). Global land and water limits to electrolytic hydrogen production using wind and solar resources. Nature Communications, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41107-x
[25] Grid Electricity Emissions Factors. (2023). 2022 grid electricity emissions factors v0.1 – February 2023.
[26] Smoot, G. (2023, July 20). What is the carbon footprint of Hydropower Energy? A life-cycle assessment. Impactful Ninja.
[27] Tenhumberg, N., & Büker, K. (2020). Ecological and economic evaluation of hydrogen production by different water electrolysis technologies. Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 92(10), 1586-1595. https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.202000090
[28] Editor. (2023, January 17). Gh2 facts: CO2 emissions per kg of hydrogen depending on the method of production. Hydrogen Newsletter.
