Proceedings of ESCAPE 35ISSN: 2818-4734
Volume: 4 (2025)
Table of Contents
LAPSE:2025.0260
Published Article
LAPSE:2025.0260
Integrated LCA and Eco-design Process for Hydrogen Technologies: Case Study of the Solid Oxide Electrolyser
Gabriel Magnaval, Tristan Debonnet, Manuele Margni
June 27, 2025
Abstract
The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a solid oxide electrolyser (SOE) has been performed using publicly available data. The system for producing 1 kg of hydrogen at 25bar and 99.9% purity is represented by a modular structure, which includes the 20-kW solid oxide stack manufacturing, balance of plant equipment, operation consumables, and end-of-life processes. A parametrized life cycle inventory modeling approach was developed. The results illustrate that SOE performs better than steam methane reforming only if supplied by electricity from renewable or nuclear sources. The operation consumables have been identified as the most contributive life stage (67%-89% of potential impacts), followed by equipment manufacturing (7%-22%) and stack manufacturing (4%-11%). Considering the predominant contribution of electricity supply in the consumables, no compromise should be made on ensuring clean electricity sourcing and on the stack energy conversion efficiency. The lifetime of the stack and the balance of plant equipment, as well as the heat mix have been identified as sensitive parameters to minimize the environmental impact of the hydrogen technology. These LCA results have been used to produce a tailored eco-design process for hydrogen projects: (i) organization of an eco-design workshop to present LCA results & environmental hotspots and related key parameters where to leverage eco-design innovations through an open discussion (brainstorm); (ii) provide an eco-design tool obtained from a simplified version of the LCA model parametrized around a limited number key life cycle inventory parameters, enabling the designers/developers to independently test the environmental performance of their innovations.
Keywords
Eco-design Process, Life Cycle Assessment, Parametrized Life Cycle Inventory, Solid Oxide Electrolyser
Suggested Citation
Magnaval G, Debonnet T, Margni M. Integrated LCA and Eco-design Process for Hydrogen Technologies: Case Study of the Solid Oxide Electrolyser. Systems and Control Transactions 4:674-680 (2025) https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.171756
Author Affiliations
Magnaval G: CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, Montréal, Canada; HES-SO Valais-Wallis, Sion, Switzerland
Debonnet T: HES-SO Valais-Wallis, Sion, Switzerland
Margni M: CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, Montréal, Canada; HES-SO Valais-Wallis, Sion, Switzerland
Journal Name
Systems and Control Transactions
Volume
4
First Page
674
Last Page
680
Year
2025
Publication Date
2025-07-01
Version Comments
Original Submission
Other Meta
PII: 0674-0680-1712-SCT-4-2025, Publication Type: Journal Article
Record Map
Published Article

LAPSE:2025.0260
This Record
External Link

https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.171756
Article DOI
Data

LAPSE:2025.0030
Integrated LCA and Eco-design Proce...
Download
Files
Jun 27, 2025
Main Article
License
CC BY-SA 4.0
Meta
Record Statistics
Record Views
806
Version History
[v1] (Original Submission)
Jun 27, 2025
 
Verified by curator on
Jun 27, 2025
This Version Number
v1
Citations
Most Recent
This Version
URL Here
http://psecommunity.org/LAPSE:2025.0260
 
Record Owner
PSE Press
Links to Related Works
Directly Related to This Work
Article DOI
Supplementary Material
References Cited
  1. Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking. Hydrogen roadmap Europe - A sustainable pathway for the European energy transition. Publications Office; 2016
  2. Gramc J, Stropnik R, Hojkar D, Sekavcnik M, Iribarren D, Dufour J, et al. Ecodesign as a key concept for improving the life cycle environmental performance of proton-exchange membrane fuel cells. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2024 Aug; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.08.020
  3. Bovea MD, Pérez-Belis V. A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. J Clean Prod. 2012 Jan;20(1):61-71 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.012
  4. Brisse A, Schefold J, Zahid M. High temperature water electrolysis in solid oxide cells. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2008 Oct;33(20):5375-82 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.120
  5. Mehmeti A, McPhail SJ, Pumiglia D, Carlini M. Life cycle sustainability of solid oxide fuel cells: From methodological aspects to system implications. J Power Sources. 2016 Sep;325:772-85 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.06.078
  6. Bicer Y, Khalid F. Life cycle environmental impact comparison of solid oxide fuel cells fueled by natural gas, hydrogen, ammonia and methanol for combined heat and power generation. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2020 Jan;45(5):3670-85 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.11.122
  7. Lee YD, Ahn KY, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Environmental impact assessment of a solid-oxide fuel-cell-based combined-heat-and-power-generation system. Energy. 2015;79(C):455-66 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.035
  8. Häfele S, Hauck M, Dailly J. Life cycle assessment of the manufacture and operation of solid oxide electrolyser components and stacks. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2016 Aug;41(31):13786-96 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.05.069
  9. Zhao G, Kraglund MR, Frandsen HL, Wulff AC, Jensen SH, Chen M, et al. Life cycle assessment of H2O electrolysis technologies. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2020 Sep 3;45(43):23765-81 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.05.282
  10. Gerloff N. Comparative Life-Cycle-Assessment analysis of three major water electrolysis technologies while applying various energy scenarios for a greener hydrogen production. J Energy Storage. 2021 Nov 1;43 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2021.102759
  11. Wei X, Sharma S, Waeber A, Wen D, Sampathkumar SN, Margni M, et al. Comparative life cycle analysis of electrolyzer technologies for hydrogen production: Manufacturing and operations. Joule. 2024 Dec;8(12):3347-72 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2024.09.007
  12. Di Florio G, Macchi EG, Mongibello L, Baratto MC, Basosi R, Busi E, et al. Comparative life cycle assessment of two different SOFC-based cogeneration systems with thermal energy storage integrated into a single-family house nanogrid. Appl Energy. 2021 Mar 1;285 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116378
  13. ISO. ISO 14040:2006 - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. 2006
  14. ISO. ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines. 2006
  15. Melideo D, Ortiz Cebolla R, Weidner Ronnefeld E. Life cycle assessment of Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies. Luxembourg; 2020
  16. Lozanovski A, Schuller O, Faltenbacher M. Guidance Document for performing LCAs on Fuel Cells and H2 Technologies . 2011
  17. Bargiacchi E, Puig-Samper G, Iribarren D, Dufour J. D2.2 Definition of FCH-LCA Guidelines. 2022
  18. Cooper JS, Noon M, Kahn E. Parameterization in Life Cycle Assessment inventory data: review of current use and the representation of uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2012 Jul 3;17(6):689-95 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0411-1
  19. Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2016 Sep 1;21(9):1218-30 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
  20. Simoes SG, Catarino J, Picado A, Lopes TF, di Berardino S, Amorim F, et al. Water availability and water usage solutions for electrolysis in hydrogen production. J Clean Prod. 2021 Sep;315:128124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128124
  21. Santecchia A, Castro-Amoedo R, Nguyen TV, Kantor I, Stadler P, Maréchal F. The critical role of electricity storage for a clean and renewable European economy. Energy Environ Sci. 2023;16(11):5350-70 https://doi.org/10.1039/D3EE02768F
  22. Bulle C, Margni M, Patouillard L, Boulay AM, Bourgault G, De Bruille V, et al. IMPACT World+: a globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2019 Sep 1;24(9):1653-74 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01583-0
  23. Memorial Institute, Fuel Cell Systems for Primary Power and Combined Heat and Power Applications. 2017. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2025. Available:https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/02/f49/fcto_battelle_mfg_cost_analysis_1_to_25kw_pp_chp_fc_systems_jan2017_0.pdf
  24. X. Zhang, C. Bauer, C. L. Mutel, and K. Volkart, "Life Cycle Assessment of Power-to-Gas: Approaches, system variations and their environmental implications," Appl Energy, vol. 190, pp. 326-338, Mar. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.098
  25. Greffe T, Margni M, Bulle C. An instrumental value-based framework for assessing the damages of abiotic resources use in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2023 Jan 16;28(1):53-69 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02107-z