Comparative Review of Hydrogen and Electricity As Energy Carriers For The Energy Transition

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 57 (2024) 660–678
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he
Comparative review of hydrogen and electricity as energy carriers for the

energy transition
Michael M. Aba *, Ildo Luís Sauer, Nilton Bispo Amado
Energy Program at the Institute of Energy and Environment of the University of Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 1.289, 05508-010, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Handling Editor: Dr J Ortiz Researchers and policymakers are seeking alternatives to oil products. Hydrogen and electricity could be the
answer. This review compares both carriers and their technologies across the production chain. This study in
Keywords: dicates electricity is more mature and advanced on a large scale. It also presents greater Energy Returns on
Hydrogen Investment (EROI) over hydrogen, which portends a viable alternative to oil products. Hydrogen is not adaptable
Electricity
to traditional uses and comes with significant transportation losses, so it’s recommended as an energy storage
Energy production
option instead of a carrier. It is a competitive option in areas where grid extension is not feasible and is hard to
Energy transport
Energy storage abate industries. The primary resource of carriers is crucial for their energy and environmental sustainability.
Energy transition Therefore, clean energy and carbon capture and storage technologies and their hybridization across the pro
duction chain could define the future energy landscape.
1. Introduction prices of the energy services provided by the energy carrier, the utility of
the carrier and its market dominance [3–6]. Currently, the focus is on
Petroleum, the primary energy resource for over a century, com finding energy sources to drive the global economy like oil has for the
prises crude oil and natural gas. It has been used as oil products and past century. The most promising and researched alternatives consid
natural gas as primary energy carriers. Oil products, the principal energy ered are electricity, hydrogen [7], and hydrogen derivatives such as
carrier, account for over 154 Exajoules (~40 %) of total global final formic acid, synthetic natural gas and Fischer-Tropsch products [8].
consumption (Fig. 1) leading natural gas (18 %) and electricity (23 %). These are low to zero-emission alternatives and potentially provide
Transport and industrial sectors collectively account for 58 % of global high-grade energy for end-uses, particularly for the transport sector.
energy consumption and 43 % of carbon dioxide emissions (see Fig. 2). Consequently, the dominance of either of these carriers would produce a
The combustion of petroleum has led to environmental issues and new dominant economy: hydrogen economy or electricity economy as
climate change, necessitating the exploration of new, sustainable energy against the current fossil fuel economy.
sources. This dilemma poses a global challenge, balancing the need for The hydrogen economy entails hydrogen use as an energy carrier to
energy with environmental sustainability. meet energy needs in place of fossil fuels. The key components of the
“An energy carrier is a compound capable of transferring energy. It allows hydrogen economy include production, storage, transport, distribution
energy from an external energy source, whether primary or secondary, to be and end-use, which are at different stages of development. Several au
stored and transferred over time, then released at the appropriate time” [2]. thors posit that the hydrogen economy would provide advantages to the
Energy carriers could be oil products (i.e. gasoline, diesel, etc.), elec future energy system. These are higher integration of renewable en
tricity, hydrogen, and so on. Since the Industrial Revolution, there has ergies into the existing energy infrastructure, accessibility, reliability,
been competition between the different energy carriers such as coal and affordability, energy system resilience, medium to long-term energy
natural gas for power generation [3] and for the oil market, this storage and so on [6–9]. Hydrogen is used in petroleum refineries,
competition has been most clear in transport [4]. Competition between ammonia and methanol synthesis, metals refineries, and is proposed as a
energy carriers is determined by factors like energy density, substitut residential energy source and fuel for vehicles. According to Acar et al.
ability, technology, transportability, cost, economic superiority, and [9], its production will meet 18 % of projected future energy demand,
government policies. These factors affect the costs (direct and indirect), resulting in a significant CO2 reduction annually (6 Gt) and creating
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.M. Aba).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.01.034
Received 13 March 2023; Received in revised form 27 November 2023; Accepted 3 January 2024
Available online 12 January 2024
0360-3199/© 2024 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.M. Aba et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 57 (2024) 660–678
integration and bottlenecks across each carrier’s production chain.

Furthermore, beyond considering these criteria, energy transitions are
slow and require significant investments across the production chain
[19]. It also implies providing energy carrier alternatives that are
adaptable to meet energy demand reliably at scale and sustainably,
hence the pertinent question “what is the most sustainable path for the
future of energy?”
There are few comparative studies of hydrogen, electricity and/or
hydrogen derivatives as energy carriers. In this context, Marchenko &
Solomin [11] compared the economic efficiency of the production and
storage of energy as hydrogen and electricity from carbon-free sources.
The results indicate that the efficiency of hydrogen production from
electrolysis (14.3 %) and nuclear energy (19.6 %) is 1.5–2 times less
than electricity production (31.6 %). Furthermore, electricity storage is
cost-effective for shorter periods (up to 110 h of power supply), while
Fig. 1. Total final energy consumption by source (2020). hydrogen storage becomes more economical for longer durations of
(Source: IEA [1]) power supply (over 110 h). This demonstrates electricity is a preferable
short-term storage medium, while hydrogen would be better as a
long-term medium and peak power fuel and heat supply system. Yang
[25] Presented an important connection between hydrogen and the
stationary electricity sector, and their coevolution. The author noted the
complementary qualities of energy carriers as interconversion among
themselves, competition for the same primary resources, and
co-production of both carriers for better resource use. d’Amor
e-Domenech et al. [26] Investigated the breakeven parameters for ma
rine transport of energy as either hydrogen or electricity. The study
indicated that renewable energy could be transported as liquefied
hydrogen at distances above 1000 km and below that high voltage direct
current, (HVDC) cables could be more economical. Other studies such as
Yang [25] compared the overall efficiency of hydrogen, and liquid
air/nitrogen, identifying nitrogen as a better energy carrier option than
hydrogen, both environmentally and efficiently. BACAS [27] Examined
the role of hydrogen in reducing residual emissions not captured by
electrification and bio-energy. However, these studies did not consider
the production chain approach, which was recommended by Oshiro &
Fujimoro [28] to compare hydrogen and electricity.
Fig. 2. Total final energy consumption by sector (2020). Therefore, this contribution aims to review and compare the progress
(Source: IEA [1]) of hydrogen and electric economies by applying the production chain
approach. Comparing technical, energetic, and environmental charac
about 30 million jobs by 2050. An IRENA report [10], also suggests that teristics to identify the best solution for the energy dilemma. We have
limited investment is required to adapt the current natural gas infra structured the remainder of the paper by describing the methodology
structure to supply hydrogen., however, this is case-specific. applied in this study in section 2, while section 3, compares a state-of-
The electricity economy entails meeting all energy demands with the-art review of the Hydrogen and Electricity economy. Section 4
electricity: the single, environmentally friendly, and easy-to-use energy covers discussions of the findings, while section 5 concludes the paper.
carrier. It also suggests the development of systems for electricity stor
age and transportation, i.e. storage batteries, super-capacitors and 2. Materials and methods
super-conductors [11]. The components of the electricity economy
consist of generation, transmission, distribution and end-use. Electricity This study takes a production chain approach, outlined in Fig. 3,
generation is also from renewable and non-renewable resources. The including energy transformations from sources to end-use [29]. This
end-use of electricity also provides the opportunity to shift unregulated approach is seldom considered in studies, as most studies are focused on
emissions like tailpipe emissions from conventional cars to only the a single stage of production. A full review of the production chain and
generation sector, where emissions can be measured, captured and available options would give a realistic view of the energy transition.
regulated [12]. Bressanin et al. [13] also project that electricity would Furthermore, the comparative approach across the production chain
account for approximately 50 % of energy consumption by 2050. would also elucidate possible opportunities for complementarity or
There are several proponents of the hydrogen economy such as competition across the supply chain of hydrogen and electricity. A
[12–16] or electricity economy such as [17–21] or even hybrid config critical examination and comparison of the energetic, technical, and
urations such as [8,22–24]. However, it is uncertain what the primary environmental performance of both alternatives is performed in recent
energy carrier of the future will be, due to various factors such as literature and data. Existing and promising technologies and pathway
end-use requirements, technology, infrastructure, industry, sector. alternatives are considered for both hydrogen and electricity.
Although there are several publications as proponents of either energy This approach reviews technological developments to identify po
alternative, most studies focus on the tank-to-wheel comparison of al tential opportunities, optimal configurations and bottlenecks. The
ternatives and do not apply a systemic perspective (production chain) to reviewed publications are selected through a database search for related
the investigations. The production chain approach investigates the topics, which are further streamlined to publications later than 2015
feasibility and viability of the carrier across its production chain from until the year of article submission. The databases considered include
the source to the sink. The production chain approach provides a sys Scopus, Science Direct and Google Scholar. We used a list of keyword
temic view of the chain and helps to identify opportunities for phrases such as “hydrogen production” “hydrogen storage”, “hydrogen
661
Fig. 3. Hydrogen versus electricity production chain.

LOHC: Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers, PHS: Pumped Hydropower Storage, SMR: Steam Methane Reforming, ATR: AutoThermal Reforming, CCS: Carbon Capture
Storage, CAES: Compressed Air Energy Storage, IGCC: Integrated coal Gasification Combined Cycle, NGCC: Natural Gas Combined Cycle.
(Source: Authors)
transport”, “energy transition”, “hydrogen mobility”, “electricity pro CO2. It is an endothermic and energy-intensive process that occurs at
duction” “electricity storage”, “electricity transport”, “electric vehicles”, 700–1100K and a pressure of 3.25 bar in the presence of a catalyst.
“electrification for the industry”. Article titles were further screened to Natural gas (Methane) is the main feedstock but heavier hydrocarbons
eliminate unrelated articles. Results are further screened through ab can also be used for this process. The SMR process occurs in three steps.
stract screening to arrive at the most relevant articles reviewed herein. The first is the reaction between methane and water vapour to produce
the synthesis gas and the hydrogen. In the second step, synthesis gas
3. Comparative state-of-the-art review of the hydrogen and reacts with more water vapour to produce carbon dioxide and more
electric economy hydrogen and in the third and final step, gas separation occurs with CO2
adsorption and hydrogen purification [30,32,33,34]. The chemical
The comparative state-of-the-art review presents discussions on en equations that describe the processes are as follows in equations (1) and
ergy production, storage, transport and delivery and end-use technolo (2):
gies for hydrogen and electricity. These discussions are presented in the ( m)
following sections. Cn Hm + H2 O → nCO + n + H2 Eq. 1
2
3.1. Carrier production CO + H2 O → CO2 + H2 Eq. 2

Partial oxidation of hydrocarbons (POx) is an exothermic reaction
3.1.1. Hydrogen production involving the incomplete catalytic or non-catalytic oxidation of heavier
Hydrogen does not exist in nature but can be produced from con hydrocarbons in the presence of oxygen and steam to produce hydrogen
ventional sources via steam methane reforming, partial oxidation of and carbon dioxides. It occurs at moderately high pressure and tem
hydrocarbons, coal gasification and water electrolysis using renewable perature (1223 K for catalytic and 1473-1588 K for non-catalytic pro
energy sources sand as wind, solar, hydro, etc. They are classified by cesses). It is associated with the production of great amounts of carbon
industry experts according to their production source and associated monoxide and carbon dioxide. The basic reaction for partial oxidation of
carbon emissions. Gray hydrogen originates from fossil sources, result heavier hydrocarbon is shown in equation (3) [32,34].
ing in substantial carbon emissions. Blue hydrogen is produced from
fossil sources with carbon capture and storage, reducing CO2 impact. Cn Hm + n / 2O2 → nCO + (m/2) H2 Eq. 3
Turquoise hydrogen comes from fossil sources through pyrolysis, A process that combines the favorable features of reforming and
generating solid carbon waste. Green hydrogen is produced via elec partial oxidation of hydrocarbons is auto-thermal reforming (ATR). In
trolysis using renewable electricity. Lastly, yellow hydrogen is produced ATR, SMR and POx production devices are connected in series, thus, the
via electrolysis powered by nuclear electricity [11,17,28–30]. Other heat produced from the exothermic partial oxidation serves as an energy
authors, such as Ajanovic et al. [31] also refer to hydrogen produced by source for the endothermic SMR process for increased hydrogen pro
nuclear electricity as pink hydrogen. These production pathways are duction. It involves the injection of steam and oxygen or air into the
described in the following. reformer, causing reforming and oxidation reactions to occur simulta
Steam methane reforming (SMR) is the most common and matured neously [33,34]. Equation (4) describes the reaction.
gray hydrogen production process involving the catalytic conversion of
hydrocarbon and steam to hydrogen and byproducts such as CO and
662
()
1 1 1 1 sustainable solution in the long term.
Cn Hm + H2 O + nO2 → nCO + n + m H2 Eq. 4
2 4 2 2
3.1.2. Electricity production
Coal Gasification involves the reaction of coal with steam at 31.1 bar
Electricity can be produced from various sources such as natural gas,
and 1073-1173 K to produce H2, CO and CO2. It can be subdivided into
coal, fossil fuel, biomass, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal.
surface coal gasification (SCG) and underground coal gasification
However, the associated conversion technologies vary from one source
(UCG). It is an intermittent process that begins when coal is comminuted
to another. According to the IEA data [38], global electricity production
and fed into the gasifier, where it reacts with oxygen and steam at high
is dominated by coal (37 %), and natural gas (23 %) which are material,
temperatures to produce H2, CO and CO2. The CO2 gas is removed from
CO2 and energy-intensive and alter the Greenhouse gas (GHG) balance.
the final gas by washing using monoethanolamine or potassium hy
Coal’s power generation has the largest generation capacity and
droxide. It is also noteworthy that emissions for this process are twice
emissions globally, with 9914 TWh and 10178.02 Million metric tons of
the amount from SMR and have the highest global warming potential of
CO2, respectively [38]. Steam generation via the combustion of pul
all known hydrogen production methods [32,34].
verized coal (PC) is the most common coal power generation technology
Hydrocarbon pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of liquid and
globally. However, newer, cleaner coal technologies (CCT) are also
gaseous hydrocarbons into elemental hydrogen and solid carbon with no
being developed and deployed around the world. These include the In
production of CO2 in the presence of a catalyst. It happens in two steps:
tegrated Gasification Combined cycle (IGCC), Supercritical (SC) and
hydrogasification and cracking of methane. This process occurs at 1253
ultra-supercritical pulverized coal (USCPC) combustion, Circulating
K and atmospheric pressure and is perceived to be more environmentally
fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) [39], Integrated Gasification Fuel Cells
friendly, less costly and energy-intensive than Steam Methane Reform
(IGFC) [40], chemical looping combustion (CLC) coal-based plant [41]
ing and partial oxidation. Difficulty with separation of carbon resulting
to mention a few. Deployment of these CCTs incorporating Carbon
from low H2 partial pressures in the reaction mixture product charac
Capture and storage (CCS) holds a promise of greater energy efficiency
terization difficulty and low membrane durability because of high
and environmental friendliness for future energy generation; however,
temperatures also characterized this process. This process holds the
these new technologies are currently limited in scale and development.
promise of becoming a more environmentally friendly path for large-
Natural gas use for electricity was also responsible for 3124 million
scale hydrogen production if powered by renewable electricity, but
metric tons of CO2 emissions as of 2019 [38]. Since the 1940s, natural
high carbon production also limits it on a large scale beyond the current
gas has been the main fuel for electricity generation in simple cycle
market demand level [33,35].
turbines, however, in the 1970s the first combined-cycle natural gas
The discussed hydrogen production methods emit a great amount of
plant (NGCC) which provided greater efficiency compared to the simple
CO2 as a byproduct, making them unsustainable options in the context of
cycle system was built [42]. Natural gas power plants are the most
the energy transition unless coupled with carbon storage and storage
efficient thermal power plants on the grid (45–57 %) with the lowest
technologies. Therefore, sustainable hydrogen production options
environmental emissions.
would be “CO2 free” or “CO2 neutral” pathways concerning the process
Both natural gas and coal could still play a significant role in the
and energy source. Water electrolysis and biomass-based hydrogen
future electricity matrix in configurations with carbon capture and
production are two promising net-zero carbon paths for hydrogen
storage. Jiang et al. [43] simulated an NGCC using different CO2 capture
production.
adsorbents. The authors showed that NGCC adapted for CO2 capture had
Thermochemical and biological methods are used for hydrogen
energy and efficiency costs, but using activated carbon lowered the
production from biomass. Biological methods are bio-photolysis, photo
levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and energy demand for the desorp
fermentation and dark fermentation. Biological methods for hydrogen
tion of CO2 from adsorbents. Xia et al. [44] evaluated the prospect of a
production, unlike others, occur at room temperature and pressure and
near-zero-emission integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
do not require catalysts because the enzymes assume the catalytic
power plant in China. The authors found that incorporation of the CCS
function. They also have the minimum environmental impact but are
system resulted in increased cost of power generation ($42 per metric
limited in scale because of the inherently low yield. On the other hand,
ton CO2), which makes it uncompetitive against conventional pulverized
the thermochemical process includes biomass gasification, which is an
coal and IGCC power plants. Y. Jie Zhao et al. in Ref. [41] compared
endothermic process that occurs at temperatures of 973-1473 K. The
different coal-based power plant configurations with and without CCS.
main reactions involved in this process are biomass pyrolysis, tar
The authors found that the CLC coal-based plant was the most sustain
cracking, combustion of methane, dry reforming and steam reforming,
able option but with a lower net generation efficiency and higher costs
as well as Water-Gas-Shift (WGS) reactions to produce H2 and CO2 [33,
than conventional IGCC. A CLC plant integrated with carbon utilization
34]. Hydrogen may also be produced from biogas via SMR and ATR
and hydrogen generation systems may hold greater potential for emis
similar to the natural gas process however, the presence of H2S and
sion reduction [45] using solid amine-based CO2 capture, which is
carbon in the gas mixture affects catalysts performance, hence devel
competitive in energy consumption [46].
oping catalysts that are not limited by these contaminants would
The “greening” of electricity generation is a necessary step in
maximize biogas’ potential for hydrogen production [36].
achieving the energy transition. Cleaner technologies with fewer emis
Electrolysis is the decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen
sions have great potential for energy production; however, only CO2-
molecules using electricity (Reverse hydrogen oxidation). It entails
free generation sources like nuclear and renewables such as wind,
converting electrical energy to chemical energy and is associated with
solar, geothermal, biomass and hydropower are needed to push the
significant energy losses. Water electrolysis doesn’t produce greenhouse
energy transition. These are described in the following:
gasses (GHG) except for associated GHG emissions from the primary
Nuclear power, a mature and commercial technology for electricity
source of electricity [19]. In recent times, research has proposed the
generation, has expanded in capacity with more than 454 operational
application of hydrogen as a store of variable renewable energy during
power reactors, achieving an average 81 % capacity factor. It contrib
off-peak periods that can also reduce the curtailment of power plants
utes over 10 % of global electricity. Although most nuclear plants are
[10,19,32,33,34]. Bossel et al. [19] posit that electrolysis is the only link
large-scale plants dominated by the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)
between intermittent renewable energy and the non-stationary fuel cells
and Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), recent research is focused on devel
needed for transportation. It is a mature technology; however, there are
oping small modular nuclear reactors (SMNR) as well. SMNRs can
no large-scale deployments because of the associated energy intensity (i.
switch on and off in small power increments in response to the inter
e. high energy cost). Baykara [37] posits that hydrogen produced via
mittent supply and demand on the grid, especially with the high inte
water electrolysis and biomass using solar energy would be the most
gration of variable renewable energy. Adoption of SMNRs would reduce
663
build times from 8 to 3 years, reduce the emergency planning zone and complex structures of hydrothermal reservoirs at high temperatures,
imply lower initial capital outlay, making it accessible to more coun which are located close to tectonic place boundaries at a depth of
tries, especially new-to-nuclear countries. Some of the new designs approximately 2 km. These sites could also be classified by a specific
would be less dependent on water usage and hence can be deployed exergy Index (SEI) where a resource with SEI greater than 0.5 is clas
inland, where water scarcity is a concern [47,48]. Nuclear plants are sified as a high exergy resource and has an energy efficiency of 18.2 %.
also being envisioned for the integrated generation of electricity and There are several geothermal plant technologies including dry steam
compressed hydrogen [49,34], a nexus of energy, food, fuel and water systems used where geofluids exist as super-heated vapour, flash steam
production [50], and more efficient clean power from hybrid cycles for geofluids existing in two-phase mixtures under high temper
nuclear-solar systems [47]. However, this technology and its global ature and pressure and binary Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) to transfer
penetration are also faced with challenges such as nuclear waste man heat from geofluids to organic fluid in the ORC and well suited for
agement, operational safety, low thermal efficiencies, cost competi geofluids with low-grade heat. Hydrogen and electricity generation can
tiveness against other mature technologies especially in, petroleum-rich be successfully coupled to geothermal plants. However, limited suitable
countries lacking natural deposits of nuclear materials, unequal global geothermal sites limit its growth among renewable technologies
distributions of nuclear resources [51,52]. Despite the technological [63–66].
advancements, these challenges limit the widespread adoption of nu A major concern regarding the future production potential of
clear power adoption. renewable energies is the impact of climate change. As studied by
Hydropower is quite a common and mature electricity generation Alirahmi et al. [67], worsening climate change will impact hydrological
technology globally. It currently accounts for 4329 TWh of electricity cycles for hydropower, biomass production, wind production, solar
generation as of 2019, with further expansions occurring in Asia and irradiation, and geothermal generation. However, the impact would be
Latin America [42,53]. However, the impact of climate change is positive in some regions and negative in others, such as increased hy
altering global hydrological cycles resulting in direct impacts on pre dropower, biomass, and solar energy production for some, while others
cipitation, evaporation, stream flow and soil moisture, spatial and would have diminished resources. In addition, geothermal generation
temporal redistribution of water resources, and thus leading to changes would be affected by changes in water availability, damage to infra
in global water balance [54]. Climate change’s impact on the Pearl River structure, flooding and ambient temperature. The associated challenges
in China is also projected to threaten hydropower reliability and resil would include water availability, damage to infrastructure, flooding and
iency in the future [55]. Carvajal et al. [56] make a similar prediction of an increase in ambient temperature. Hence, more work is done to
hydropower’s vulnerability to climate change in Ecuador. These pre improve the situation and provide security for a greener energy future.
dictions question hydropower participation in the future energy land The hybridization of renewable energy technologies for energy and/
scape. However, localized solutions may be adopted in different or hydrogen production has proven to be more beneficial than the
locations to improve the situation. To address climate change’s impact deployment of standalone technologies. Couto & Estanqueiro [68]
on hydropower, Chang et al. [54] simulated and proposed new opera investigated the complementarity between wind and solar PV in
tions roles for cascade hydropower plants in the Hanjin river, China, Portugal, which showed that hybrid wind and solar power plants
under climate conditions to improve power generation efficiency. The significantly reduced power curtailment associated with using wind
study indicated the proposed new rules resulted in an annual power resources alone. Song et al. [69] proposed a hybrid concentrated solar
generation increase of 16.1 %. The authors in Ref. [57] posit that an and geothermal power generation with supercritical CO2 as a working
increased profit is realizable when hydropower is combined with green fluid. The proposed system resulted in a 45 % higher power output and
hydrogen production from excess available hydropower. Tarroja et al. low specific power cost compared to the standalone supercritical CO2
[58] also investigated the impact of climate change-induced hydro (S-CO2) plant. Kaur et al. [70] also proposed hybrid biomass and solar
power variability on the future electric grid of California and revealed an systems for the cost-effective supply of renewable energy in developing
increase in GHG emissions but with a minimal effect on the LCOE and countries like India. Sen et al. [71] thermodynamically modelled a
renewable power use. The authors also revealed a growth in dis hybrid solar thermal and geothermal system to produce energy. The
patchable power plant capacity. Although hydropower is mature and a study revealed significant exergy losses (81.1 %) with subsequent con
common technology, its future is becoming uncertain considering the versions from electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity. A hybrid
impacts of climate change on hydrological cycles. Therefore, localized nuclear and concentrated solar power (CSP) plant is proposed and
innovative solutions are needed to sustain its participation in the future thermodynamically analyzed compared to a standalone CSP [47]. The
energy mix. study demonstrates a decrease in specific power cost (25 % reduction)
Wind power is growing fast with 732.4 GW of installed capacity and while net efficiency increased (up to 37.5 %) and a possibility of
a 5 % contribution to total electricity generation globally as of 2020 [53, continuous all-year-round operation. Summarily, hybridization of
59]. Wind turbine technology has evolved with bigger turbines con renewable energy technologies presents benefits such as reduce power
structed to harvest greater amounts of wind power [42]. In addition, curtailment, increased efficiency, lower costs and greater output.
solar power technologies convert solar energy to heat and electricity. Table 1 presents a comparison of technical and environmental sus
There are different types: solar photovoltaic (PV), which converts solar tainability criteria of hydrogen and electricity production technologies.
energy directly to electricity and concentrated solar power (CSP), which The table shows that most electricity production technologies are
uses reflective surfaces to concentrate solar energy, to generate elec mature or are in a commercial state of development while most
tricity and heat. Solar photovoltaics have a maximum energy efficiency hydrogen production technologies are still emerging except for con
of 25 % while the CSPs have a maximum of 16 % for commercially ventional SMR, coal gasification and electrolysis production
mature options [60]. Biomass energy is solar energy stored in the form of technologies.
chemical energy. It can be used as a transport fuel, as is the practice Exergy efficiency is one of two important sustainability indicators of
today, and for electricity generation via Combined Heat and Power exergy analysis, which assesses energy systems’ sustainability. It is the
(CHP) and biogas generation systems. It can also be hybridized with maximum work (or electricity) obtainable from a system or energy
other forms of renewable energy technologies, such as solar, wind, and relative to a reference environment. This differs from energy efficiency,
biogas [38,59–62]. which measures the ratio of output energy to input energy. The higher
Geothermal energy technology harnesses sub-surface heat for elec the system’s exergy efficiency, the more sustainable the system is and
tricity generation through the drilling of man-made fractures into the the less the irreversibility associated with such a system and vice versa
earth and circulating water to a depth that is sufficiently hot to transfer [72,118]. Comparing the technologies for electricity and hydrogen
heat into a working fluid. Potential geothermal sites are found in production in Table 1, the renewable electricity production technologies
664
Table 1
Exergy efficiency, emissions, energy return on energy investment (EROEI) and maturity of electricity and hydrogen production technologies.
Technology Exergy Efficiency Emission (KgCO2/ EROEI Maturity Source
(ψ%) kWh)
Electricity production
Coal-fired plant 36 1 46 Commercial [72,73]
NGCC 44 % 0.2 31 Mature [74,75]
NGCC w/CCS 39 % 0.02 21.2 Emerging [76–78]
Biomass 43 % 0.227 0.5–5.7 Mature [79–81]
Nuclear 49 % 0.099 59 Commercial [4–13,82,83, 14–23, 24–34,49,84–86, 35–48,50, 51–65, 66–81,
87–96]
Solar 11 % 0.04 4–25 Commercial [72,90,78]
Wind 71 % 0.00911 5–18 Commercial [97–99]
Geothermal (EGS 71 % 0.032 4 Commercial [64,100–102]
Binary)
Hydro 80 % 0.273 59–84 Mature [89,103–106]
Hydrogen production
SMR 65.2 % 0.27 2.5 Commercial [33,103,104]
SMR w/CCS 27–36 % 0.14 N.A Emerging [35,105,106]
POX 58 % 0.37 N.A Commercial [32,107,108]
ATR 89 % 0.27 N.A Emerging [108,109]
Coal Gasification 40.98 % 0.88 26 Commercial [32,110,111]
Coal Gasification w/CCS 27–36 % 0.23 N.A Emerging [104–106]
CHs pyrolysis 47 % 0.17 N.A Emerging [15,35,112]
Biomass pyrolysis 45–54 % 0.01–0.26 N.A Emerging [104,106]
Biomass gasification 21–39 % 0.01 0.39a Commercial [105,106]
Electrolysis (Wind) 27 % 0.02–0.03 1.8 Commercial [106,113,114]
Electrolysis (Solar) 3–5% 0.05–0.19 1.7–6.31 Commercial [112,115–117]
Electrolysis (Nuclear) 35–37 % 0.02–0.03 2.1 Emerging [33,106,113,114]
Electrolysis (Nat gas) 0.69 N.A Commercial [114]
have greater exergy efficiency than renewable hydrogen sources how invested energy needed to make this energy useable. It can have eco
ever; comparing fossil-based production technologies, hydrogen tech nomic implications, as it determines the value of fuel technology and its
nologies indicate greater exergy efficiencies. This portends that using economically useful energy output. It also determines the economic
renewable electricity is more environmentally sustainable for the energy viability of the fuel production technology compared to other alterna
transition. tives. As it concerns energy carriers such as electricity and hydrogen,
Emissions from natural gas and coal-based hydrogen production are EROEI is important in comparing the amount of useful energy obtained
significant (Fig. 4). However, the adoption of carbon capture and storage from a primary resource across its entire supply chain [78,119]. Thus,
technologies leads to reduced emissions of up to 90 %, but with asso EROEI demonstrates the best production chain technologies and routes
ciated energy and efficiency costs. Technological progress can reduce for optimal energy supply to society. Computing EROI could also be
CCS energy costs, allowing fossil fuels to have a large role in future affected by system boundary and type of energy end-use [120,115],
energy production, as proposed by IPCC. Renewable energy and nuclear therefore this comparison is only limited to production of hydrogen and
technologies indicate significantly lower emissions compared to their electricity.
fossil fuel counterparts, while nuclear plants produce the minimum Moliner et al. [119] have documented that the Energy Return on
emissions. Energy Invested (EROEI) for electricity production technologies exceeds
A metric seldom considered for comparative evaluation of energy that of hydrogen production technologies, surpassing the crucial
carriers is the energy return on energy invested (EROEI). EROEI refers to threshold of seven for economically viable energy systems (as illustrated
the ratio of the useable energy returned over a system’s lifetime to all the in Fig. 5). Furthermore, conventional electricity generation methods
Fig. 4. Comparison of the carbon footprint of electricity and hydrogen production technologies (kgCO2/kWh).
(Source: Authors based on Table 1).
665
Fig. 5. Comparison of Energy Return on Energy Invested for electricity and hydrogen production.
(Source: Authors, based on Table 1).
relying on coal and natural gas exhibit higher EROEI values when applied to the Nyos and Monoun lakes demonstrated a potential storage
compared to most renewable electricity technologies, with the excep capacity of 756 MWh of electricity and some other socio-economic
tions being hydropower and nuclear technology. It is noteworthy that benefits. Hunt et al. [123] also conducted a computational evaluation
the EROEI of hydrogen production via coal gasification is relatively of the energy generation and storage potential of the Indus River basin to
high, but this method is marred by substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) overcome the seasonal energy challenge in Asia. The authors’ study
emissions, rendering it environmentally unsustainable. However, it is showed that the Indus River basin offered a vast and inexpensive energy
feasible to capture these emissions at the expense of energy and effi production and storage option at 12 USD MWh− 1 and 1 USD MWh− 1,
ciency. In summary, the evidence suggests that electricity production respectively. Ternary Pumped Storage Hydropower was examined by
stands as a more economically and technically promising alternative to Nag & Lee [124] to provide primary frequency regulation for both
traditional oil-based products. pumping and generating modes with low inertia power. The findings
confirmed the ability to regulate and smoothly transition between
generation and pumping functions within a few seconds. Hunt et al.
3.2. Energy carrier storage [125] present a compendium of existing and planned global PSH
projects.
Energy storage would play an important role in the energy transition Other studies on the innovative application of PHS include the
by providing a carbon-free energy source of flexibility to operations, simulation of a hybrid solar-wind-hydropower system where the PHS
aiding higher integration of renewable energy, and improving capacity effectively reduce the fluctuations from wind and solar power and en
utilization of generation assets [116]. hances the absorptive capacity of the power grid. However, the PHS
Several types of energy storage technologies are applied for sec system encountered several fatigue failures due to the unstable and non-
ondary energy storage. They can be classified according to the energy rated operations mode [124]. A similar study performed by Salimi et al.
form of the storage systems, such as mechanical, electrochemical, [126], demonstrated increased penetration of wind power when wind
chemical energy, electrical, and thermal. Hydrogen can be stored power and PHS are simultaneously operated. The technical feasibility of
through liquefaction, compression, and chemical (i.e., NH3, formic acid, underground PHS systems in Northern Spain coal mines was established
methanol etc.) and physical storage media. Whereas for electricity by Menendez et al. [127]. Furthermore, Zheng & Sahraei [128]
storage, pumped hydropower storage (PHS), Flywheel, Compressed air demonstrated the feasibility of leveraging existing water and waste
energy storage (CAES), electrochemical storage: batteries, ultra- water infrastructure for the state of California, the USA, for energy
capacitors, etc [83,117,121], Flux batteries, compressed air systems, storage with a capacity of over 280 MWh. Pradhan et al. [129]
or reversible pumping hydroelectric installations are the best applica demonstrated the feasibility of using seawater PHS to reduce fossil fuel
tions for meeting demands in the order of MWhs, given their discharge power dependency and increase renewable power penetration in small
times at peak hours [122]. islanded locations.
Pumped Hydropower storage (PHS), a store of gravitational potential However, there are unique situations like the National Inter
energy is the most prevalent, efficient large-scale electricity storage connected System (SIN) in Brazil with 212 TWh of storage capacity,
technology used to provide daily peak load hours. During off-peak times, when reservoirs are full, accounting for one-third of total annual power
water is pumped from the lower basins to the upper basins to generate production, thus allowing operational flexibility to accommodate sig
electricity during peak demand. It usually comprises two reservoirs–an nificant insertion of intermittent sources like solar and wind capacity.
upper and lower reserve which acts as the store of water. The PHS has a The Brazilian system is unique for its dual function as a hydroelectric
low energy density of 0.5–1.5 Wh/kg and an effective efficiency of plant and as an energy storage system (reservoir). This combination
65–80 % for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity produced. This provides enough storage to permit greater penetration of variable
technology can only be deployed in special sites and has long lead times renewable energy resources and reliable clean electricity generation,
[117,121]. which provides a multiplier effect on energy storage capacity [130,131].
Nzotcha et al. [123] proposed a strategy to remove carbon dioxide This type of hydrological storage may be referred to as “Hydropower
(CO2) and methane (CH4) from deep waters without disrupting the with Accumulation Reservoirs (HPAR)” in this article. PHS may also be
balance of the water body, using a special PHS arrangement. The study
666
hybridized with different power sources, as demonstrated by Wang et al. few have large-scale electric vehicles, load levelling and industrial ap
[55] in the simultaneous operation of wind and pumped storage hy plications such as lithium-ion and sodium nickel chloride batteries. They
dropower plants, which increased the effectiveness of wind power are classified as electrochemical or redox flow batteries. Electrochemical
plants. In addition, combining large hydropower plants with seasonal batteries include Lead-acid batteries, nickel-based batteries, sodium-
pumped hydro storage results in complementarity adding long-term sulfur batteries, sodium nickel chloride batteries lithium-ion batteries
water and energy storage with fewer sediments, and social and envi and metal-air batteries, accumulators, ultra-capacitors etc. [134]. Flow
ronmental impacts [123]. batteries are one of the promising technologies being considered for
Compressed air energy storage (CAES) entails the storage of excess long-term and large-scale energy storage. This is described in the
electricity by mechanically compressing air in a natural and mechani following.
cally formed cavern that is used to generate electricity in the future. The Flow batteries are relatively new and promising for long-term, large-
CAES technology can be either adiabatic or diabatic. In diabatic tech scale applications. They are highly scalable and provide ease of
nology, the air is compressed with heat gain during the process, which is replacing or increasing the number of electrolytes. They store electrical
removed by cooling before storage. The process is reversed in the energy by charging two liquid electrolyte solutions and releasing the
discharge of compressed air by first heating the air in a combustion stored energy when discharged. The electrolytes are stored externally in
chamber, which then drives the turbines to produce electricity. Whereas tanks and cycled through the electrochemical fuel cell separated by a
in the adiabatic process, compressed air is stored in a heated state which selective membrane that converts electrical energy directly to chemical
facilitates the discharge for electricity production. This configuration energy and vice versa. These batteries offer certain advantages, such as
results in increased system efficiency of up to 20 % [132]. It acts as a no self-discharge rate, no degradation for deep discharge, long lifetime
large-scale, long-duration energy-saving solution (usually within a few and low maintenance requirements. Different types of flow batteries
days) just like the PHS. The CAES has a quick startup and operates with have been developed over the years, such as vanadium redox flow bat
an efficiency between 60 % and 80 % and with a lifespan of 40 years but teries (VRB), polysulfide bromide batteries (PSB), and zinc-bromine
has a low energy density [133,134]. The typical capacity of a CAES plant batteries (ZBR). VRBs offer the advantages of high efficiency, long life
ranges between 100 and 300 MW. Llamas et al. [135] simulated a hybrid cycle, low operating and maintenance costs and safety. However, they
system integrating biogas as heat and energy sources in the CAES sys have lower energy density and thus require large space. ZBRs have
tem. This innovative approach increases the efficiency of the CAES to 70 similar characteristics as the VRB, but with higher energy density and
% and makes the system 100 % renewable. Zhao et al. [136] also sur discharge time of up to 10 h and can be applied as seasonal storage due
veyed the hybridization of combined heat and CAES systems (CH-CAES), to their low self-discharge. PSBs offer lower efficiency due to their
demonstrating the smoothing of different frequencies from fluctuations pumping requirement and pose an environmental risk in case of pump
of wind power. In general, PHS and CAES technologies are already failure [134].
commercialized and have been implemented in several countries how The discharge time, application and system capacity ratings of
ever, does not provide power for seasonal energy storage [117]. Other different energy storage media are provided in Fig. 6. It can be observed
forms of renewable energy storage include Onsite fuel storage, com that of the electrical storage devices PHS, CAES, and TES indicate the
bined with generating capacity (OFSC), which provides resource flexi greatest capacity and discharge time for large-scale grid and energy
bility for both transmission and distribution level stability. A good management applications. However, these storage mechanisms may be
example is the biogas plant, a renewable resource that additionally limited by their site-specificity.
provides environmental services to treat organic residues [137]. Hydrogen is an energy carrier just like electricity and some studies,
Batteries are the most popular and mature electricity storage devices, such as [141–143] describe it as a store of excess electrical energy.
which directly convert electricity to chemical binding energy. The en Hydrogen has a low density of 0.09 kg per cubic meter at ambient
ergy efficiencies of the batteries discussed herein are presented in temperature and pressure, which limits its widespread use. This neces
Table 2 in the following. Electrochemical batteries are the most mature sitates compression or liquefaction for storage and transport purposes.
and widely used for both small and large applications. However, only a Hydrogen energy storage (HES) is one of the proven and promising
Table 2
Comparison of electricity storage options and hydrogen for large-scale applications.
Energy storage Capacity (MW) Round trip efficiency (%) Power rating (MW) Energy rating (MWh) The energy density (Wh/L) Self-discharge rate (%/day)
PSH 169,557 65–85 0.1–5000 1000+ 0.5–1.5 0.01

D-CAES 406.96 40–60 5-300+ 1000+ 3–12 0.5
A-CAES 75–95 0.1–10 1-100+ 3–13 0.5
Flywheel 931 75–95 0.1–10 0.01–5 20–80 55–100
Lead-acid 68.173 70–90 0.001–50 0.1–100 50–90 0.1–0.3
Ni-Cd 30.385 60–73 0.01–40 0.01–1500 kWh 60–150 0.2–0.6
Li-ion 1629.367 85–95 0.1–50 0.01–500 kWh 200–500 0.1–0.2
NaS 201.315 70–90 0.05–50 0.01 kWh-100 MWh 150–250 0.05
ZEBRA 85–90 0.001–1 0.12–5 MWh 150–180
Metal Air 15.987 ~50 0–0.01 500-10 000 0.001–0.05
Flow batteries 71.87
VRB 60–85 0.005–7 10-10 000 kWh 16–33 0.15
ZBB 60–75 0.025–2 50-4000 kWh 30–60 ~0
PSB 1–15 0.01–10+ 16–60 ~0
Hydrogen 18 30–50 0.1–1000+ 100-1000+ 500–3000
Fuel Cell ~50 0–50 500–3000 ~0
SMES 90–95 0.01–10 0.1–100 kWh 0.2–2.5 10–15
Capacitor 30.9 90–95 0.001–10 0.001–10 kWh 10–30 0.5–5
Hot water TES 117 50–90 0.05–1
Coldwater TES 142 50–90 120–500 0.05–1
aquifer TES 50–90 0–5 120–200 0.05–1
Molten salt 2452 40–93 0–60 120–500
Data source [82,132,134,138].
667
Fig. 6. Comparison of Energy Storage Technologies by power capacity and discharge time.
CAES: Compressed air energy storage, HPAR: Hydropower with Accumulation Reservoirs
OFSC: Onsite fuel storage, PHS: Pumped hydropower storage, SMES: Superconducting magnetic energy storage, TES: Thermal Energy Storage.
(Adapted from Refs. [134,139,140])
long-term energy storage (months) techniques with the potential to ammonia (NH3), methanol, formic acid, metal hydrides, carbohydrates,
bridge several sectors, such as transport and electricity. Electricity can synthetic hydrocarbons, and liquid organic hydrogen carriers. Ammonia
be converted and stored as hydrogen. HES offers the benefit of high is the most common and widely distributed chemical storage. It can be
energy density, modular design, low maintenance need, low toxic mixed with existing fuels, produce no CO2 and burns efficiently. How
emissions, and low noise and vibrations. HES, when coupled with ever, it is toxic at normal temperature and pressure, energy-expensive
renewable energy, can also reduce GHG emissions [83,117,134]. and even after decomposition leaves traces in the produced hydrogen
Currently, compression is the most common way of hydrogen storage [83]. These demerits make Ammonia unfit for the widespread storage of
but the mechanical work input and compression cost are greater than energy except handled by skilled professionals and in a controlled
the energy stored resulting in an inefficient gravimetric and volumetric environment. Formic acid is a carboxylic acid that is gaining a lot of
density of 13 wt% and lower than 40 kg/m3 (0.03 kg/L), respectively. research attention because it produces hydrogen without carbon mon
This method is also faced with safety and hydrogen loss issues and it is oxide (CO), however, CO2 is produced as a byproduct [145].
unlikely to be used in future applications. Energy used in compression Methanol is another chemical storage option. It is liquid at ambient
(>2.21 kWh/kg) amounts to about 13–18 % of the lower heating value temperature and pressure and can be directly combusted as fuel, stored
(LHV) of the stored hydrogen. Liquefaction, on the other hand, entails and transported easily at low costs, which makes it a suitable hydrogen
hydrogen storage in cryogenic tanks (at temperatures 20.15K) through a carrier but has high initial costs. It serves as an attractive compound
double-step compression and cooling process in a heat exchanger. An because of the direct application and ease of the CO2-free de-
estimated 15.2 kWh/kg of work is needed to achieve 70.8 kg/m3 (0.07 hydrogenation process. The low heating demand of the de-
kg/L) volumetric density at atmospheric pressure. This method is also hydrogenation and the high storage capacity make methanol an
plagued by high costs, high energy consumption (up to 45 % of the appealing option for long-distance transport. For long-distance imports,
hydrogen energy content), safety issues, contamination of hydrogen methanol is not only economical but also energetically advantageous.
stream with air, storage and transport equipment embrittlement, and However, pure methanol is toxic, and cannot be sold in the current
daily boil-off losses into the atmosphere within a range of 0.06–0.4 % for petroleum retail infrastructure [83,142,146].
volumes within 50-20,000 cubic meters. There is no large-scale imple Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers (LOHC) are also able to store large
mentation of liquid hydrogen storage up to 600 cubic meters. This amounts of hydrogen with gravimetric densities of about 6 wt% and
method is promising, but research is still needed to address these issues hydrogenated when needed. LOHCs hold great potential for long-
[9,32,137,144–146]. distance hydrogen transport but to be technically and economically
Chemical methods can also be used to store hydrogen. Chemical feasible, the provision of dehydrogenation heat is required [83,142].
storage uses chemical substances/compounds as a storage media and Carbohydrates are considered the most abundant renewable
source of the generation of hydrogen. Some identified materials include hydrogen storage with high hydrogen densities. The carbohydrate-to-
668
hydrogen technology can be classified as chemical catalysis (including A comparison of technical efficiencies of the energy storage in
gasification, pyrolysis, gasification in supercritical water (SCW), and Table 2 shows that electrochemical storage options have greater effi
aqueous-phase reforming (APR)), biological transformations (including ciencies than hydrogen storage, although hydrogen storage has greater
dark fermentation, light fermentation, their combination, electrically specific energy. The low hydrogen storage efficiency would imply sig
assisted microbial fuel cells (MFCs), microbial ethanol fermentation nificant energy losses as compared to other technologies. The self-
followed by ethanol partial oxidation reforming, and cell-free SyPaB) or discharge rate of hydrogen is almost zero and is comparable to long-
hybrids. The current theoretical maximum yield of carbohydrate-to- term electricity storage options.
hydrogen production with water is 12 mol of hydrogen per mole of Implementing the hydrogen storage methods discussed in the fore
hexose and 10 mol of hydrogen per mole of pentose. Although this going would require the development of a new infrastructure, which is
technology seems to be devoid of the demerits of other technologies, it is still in the developmental stages. On the other hand, mature options are
limited by the cost of enzymes and their stability, the cost of non-protein technically and economically infeasible for widespread application
chemical compounds and their stability, and low reaction rates [83, [141]. However, hydrogen can be stored as synthetic fuels such as
147]. methane, or synthetic hydrocarbons through the conversion of excess
Metal hydrides are compounds capable of absorbing hydrogen and power-to-gas (PtG) and power-to-liquids (PtL). These methods of storage
releasing it when required. They are compact because of their high ab would leverage existing mature petroleum and industrial processes and
sorption capacity and are safe for use at low pressure. However, ab infrastructure to provide long-term energy storage. PtG and PtL pro
sorption is an exothermic process, while desorption is endothermic, thus cesses offer the flexibility of producing different industrial compounds
they require thermal management. Metal hydrides have a hydrogen and extra revenue streams. However, they are regarded as options for
storage capacity of 5-7 wt% and tend to bond strongly with hydrogen, storage of excess electricity, not a means of satisfying gas demand, as
creating a need for high temperatures (393-473 K). Despite the merits of this would require large capital investments [149].
metal hydrides, they suffer from violent reactions when exposed to moist Methanation is the principal process of converting hydrogen to
air, cause skin and eye irritation, and reduce tank lifetime due to the synthetic fuels and chemicals. It involves the production of methane
uptake of impurities during hydrogen absorption [83,134]. from hydrogen and carbon dioxide [150,151]. Methanation can be
Other hydrogen storage methods include physisorption by weakly referred to as either CO or CO2 methanation, which are both exothermic
bonding the hydrogen molecules to the surface of materials such as reactions, associated with the release of great amounts of heat and
carbon-based materials, fullerenes, carbon nanotubes, graphene, oxides, require heat management. This process and technology development
chalcogenides, group III-nitride etc. However these methods are still at has been described in detail by Ref. [150]. There have also been ad
experimental stages and have not been commercialized for hydrogen vances in research such as biological methanation [152], direct
storage [83,148]. methanation of biogas [153], and methanation catalyst improvement
Technological development of both electricity and hydrogen energy [154–158]. Italiano et al. [159] described CO and CO2 methanation
storage shows that the most matured and developed technologies for using Nickel catalysts, Ye et al. [154] studied the enhanced stability of
large-scale long-term energy storage are electric, hydrogen storage is Ni/SiO2 catalyst for CO2 methanation, Vrijburg [155] studied the Ni
still under research and development (Fig. 7) and the most mature Mn/TiO2 catalysts for CO2 methanation, while Frontera et al. [156]
hydrogen storage technology (compression and liquefaction) are revie3ed the various catalysts supported for methanation process.
economically and energetically infeasible for widespread usage. How Production of synthetic methane or synthetic natural gas (SNG) from
ever, Marchenko & Solomin [11] posit that both hydrogen and elec renewable energy has an efficiency of about 63.6 % because of the losses
tricity storage could complement each other in the future where associated with the conversion of electricity to hydrogen and hydrogen
electricity storage provides short-term (Seconds-Minutes) and to natural gas. According to Schaaf et al. [151], when SNG is applied to
Medium-term (Minutes-hours) energy storage while hydrogen provides electrical power generation, overall efficiency is reduced to approxi
long-term storage (hours-months). mately 38 % and up to 54 % when applied to combined heat and power
Fig. 7. Developmental stages of energy storage technologies.

(source: Authors)
669
(CHP). In addition, greater efficiencies are achieved by the direct com were suited for long-distance electricity transport while HVAC is suited
bustion of hydrogen, but the authors did not consider the efficiency of for permitting various voltage levels in different forms of generation,
electricity production technologies. On the other hand, Preuster et al. transmission and distribution. Environmentally, Kalair et al. [163] posit
[8] postulate that there are limits to synthetic natural gas storage due to that HVDCs are best suited for electricity transport in the energy tran
the difficulty of recovering hydrogen from SNG and the devaluation of sition. Semeraro [164] compared the cost of transporting renewable
the hydrogen stored in SNG. However, SNG can be used directly for energy via pipelines and transmission lines. The author posits that
energy instead of re-hydrogenation. Robles et al. [158] provided effi hydrogen pipeline transport is more economical and cheaper than using
ciencies of different power-to-gas process chains illustrated in Fig. 8. HVDCs, but this is dependent on the assumption of maturation of all
Other synthetic but unfavourable hydrogen storage options include technologies and cost reduction of technologies across the hydrogen
formic acid and Fischer-Tropsch Syncrude production [8]. However production chain. This research was limited because it did not consider
[82], study indicates significant gaps between fossil-based products’ the options of leveraging natural gas infrastructure or grid
cost and synthetic chemical storage, making synthetic fuels modernization.
uneconomical. Grid modernization implies the smartening of the grid. This involves
Despite the plethora of hydrogen storage options, selecting the the adoption of monitoring and control devices for grid management
appropriate option that meets manufacturers’ and end-user re [165]. Smart grids combine smart meters, enabling management of
quirements remains a pertinent issue because the available options do demands, higher renewable energy integration, CO2 emissions re
not currently meet the widespread application of hydrogen storage. ductions, enabling the provision of quality electricity, smooth opera
Therefore, there is a need for further improvement of methods and tions and system security [166,167]. Kapustin & Grushevenko [168],
materials to improve efficiency, considering cost and safety [83]. the authors posit that the expansion of the electric fleet globally would
require a deep modernization of the grid to permit the integration of
3.3. Energy transport energy storage technologies. According to the IEA [169], an annual in
vestment of US$600 billion is required until 2030 to get on the Net Zero
Energy transport is critical in getting carriers from the generation Scenario trajectory, which is double current investment levels.
source to the point of end-use. The efficiency, cost, adaptability, safety, Hydrogen transport can be achieved via bulk transport modes, such
reliability, and capacity of the transport medium are thus important in as storage vessels, trucks, trailers, railway tanks, and containers and
determining the feasibility of a widespread application. The use of pipelines. Conventional bulk transport modes are characterized by high
pipelines, trucks, trailers; transmission and distribution grids have delivery costs because of the low carrying capacity coupled with low
dominated the energy transport sector for decades with over 4.7 million handling capability [10,33,170]. According to an IRENA report [10], the
kilometres, and over 40,600 transformers capacity. The electricity grid use of pipelines for hydrogen transport is currently technically feasible
has attained maturity and widespread adoption globally over this time and has been used for decades, but has been limited and does not pro
[160]. Therefore, the adoption of existing infrastructure with minimal mote rapid large-scale deployment. Leveraging existing natural gas
modification costs in the energy transition would yield a rapid and pipeline infrastructure without significant investment is also possible by
sustainable process. blending hydrogen with natural gas at low shares (10–20 %). However,
The electricity transmission and distribution grid has been used for Nikolaidis et al. [33] postulate that higher shares would lead to signif
electricity transport since the 20th century. High–voltage lines are used icant transport losses of up to 20 % compared to that of natural gas,
to transport electricity over long distances efficiently and cheaply while which ranges between 5 and 7% thus, significant innovations and up
low-voltage electricity is transported over a shorter distance and is more grades are needed to reduce the transport losses.
suited for homes and businesses. The electricity grid transport also is Transportation of renewable energy stored as hydrogen over long
associated with low energy losses (5 %), making it quite efficient in distances could be economically attractive where there is insufficient
delivering high-grade energy for industrial and domestic end-users grid capacity or where grid extension is impractical or more expensive
[161]. However, grid modernization is necessary to make it ready for than hydrogen transport. Such as with harnessing remote renewable
the transition. Niermann et al. in Ref. [142] posit that high-voltage energy such as offshore wind etc via indirect electrification, i.e. con
direct current (HVDC) electricity is a promising technology for version of electricity to hydrogen and/or synthetic fuels [171]. This
long-distance electricity transport via existing or new power lines transportation is via liquid-ships, according to Table 3. However,
because energy losses are significantly lower than the existing method of long-distance transport of hydrogen by shipping is associated with the
using alternating current lines. The authors also posit that compressed highest investment cost, and significant losses in pressurization
hydrogen can bridge shorter distances more efficiently or a combination (compression) and liquefaction as already described in the previous
of HVDC with onsite hydrogen production. Akinte et al. in Ref. [162] section. Transportation of hydrogen stored as ammonia, although con
also justified the applications of both HVAC and HVDC, where HVDCs taining 1.7 times more hydrogen than liquefied hydrogen, is associated
Fig. 8. Power to gas process chains and their efficiencies.

(Source: Authors)
670
Table 3
Comparison of electricity and hydrogen transport and delivery modes.
Transport and Transport Suitability Investment Costs Efficiency Capacity Energy required
delivery mode
Electricity Grid Short, medium, and large $0.00075 M -$0.0033 M for long-distance & 97 % (3 % loss) per 1000 km up to 7 GW No external energy
(HVDC) distance transfer of bulk $0.0012M-$0.0066 M for lower voltage required
electricity transmission per MW-km depending on
geography
Pipeline Bulk H2 gas transport over $0.2M-$1 M per km depending on the terrain >99.2 % per 100 km Up to 100 tons Electricity for
Short, medium, and large h− 1 (3.9 GW) pipeline
distances. compressors
Tube trailer Short distance delivery Around $0.3 M + per truck 94 % per 100 km Up to 0.4 tons Vehicle fuel
(gas) per truck
Liquid–road Bulk liquid transport over $0.3M-$0.4 M per truck 99 % per 100 km Up to 4 tons per Vehicle fuel and
short and medium distances (liquefaction efficiency is truck liquefaction energy
approximately 75 %)
Liquid–ships International delivery (long $465 M -$620 M per LH2 barge 0.3 % boil-off per day Up to 10,000 Transport fuel
distance) of Very large gas tons per
quantities shipment
Source [172,173].
with up to 45 % energy losses, and transport losses of hydrogen stored as cell technology, such as fuel cost, poor water management, degradation
methyl-cyclohexane (MCH) are up to 43 %. Although the future of cell material. A Swiss case - study by Çabukoglu et al. [177] also posits
hydrogen transport and distribution networks would look like the cur that fuel-cell electric vehicles would only be feasible with established
rent natural gas network, they would require significant upgrades in infrastructure and green hydrogen production.
equipment such as compressors which is capital intensive [10,22]. On the other hand, electric mobility has been developed and adop
Table 3 presents a comparison of the major delivery modes for tion has grown to over 10 million vehicles in circulation as of the year
hydrogen and electricity. The table shows the suitability of transport 2020, dominated by battery electric vehicles (BEV) and plug-in hybrid
modes for electricity and hydrogen-based on their investment costs, electric vehicles (PHEV) [178]. Despite the growth of EVs, Nadel [21]
efficiency, capacity, and energy requirements. The table shows that both identified barriers limiting EV adoption to include upfront cost, range
hydrogen and electricity transport modes are suitable for both short anxiety, inadequate charging infrastructure, and weather impacts on
(0–100 km), medium (100–1000 km) and long-distance (>1000 km) performance and variety. However, tax credits and fuel and mainte
transfer [172,173], however, the investment costs for hydrogen trans nance savings often offset upfront costs over the life of the vehicle.
port modes are significantly greater than electricity grid modernization Newer models also have increased ranges up to 1000 km on a single
using HVDC transmission lines. Furthermore, the electricity grid por charge. These developments build the case for increased feasibility of
tends greater efficiency and less loss per 100 km than hydrogen trans higher electrification of the transport sector in the future. Transport
port options. In addition, electricity grid transport also does not require electrification also portends GHG mitigation potential. However, this is
an external energy supply for transport in contrast to hydrogen delivery dependent on the electricity generation structure, as shown in
modes. Ref. [179]. Hou et al. [179] estimated the GHG mitigation potential of
electrification of transport to range from 40 to 215 Mt CO2e by 2030. In
addition, Nadolny et al. [180] evaluated the feasibility of a fully elec
3.4. End-use trified land transport system in a 100 % variable renewable electricity
generation scenario using Australia as a case study. The authors posit
The energy transition would affect energy usage and result in the this pathway is feasible in regions with wind and solar resources coupled
substitution of prevailing energy carriers (fossil-fuel derivatives) in with storage options such as PSH.
certain sectors. However, adopted alternatives must sustainably meet A comparative analysis of hydrogen and charging refuelling infra
the requirements of safety, ease of use, reliability, minimal infra structure by Robinius et al. [181] shows that high penetration of electric
structural investment, and efficiency. As identified in the introduction vehicles is more economically feasible compared to hydrogen fuel-cell
section, the transport and industry sectors are the highest consumers of vehicles due to its higher efficiency, and high cost of electricity gener
energy and emitters of CO2 emissions. These are the focus of this section. ated for electrolysis and geological storage for excess renewable energy.
The study shows that the availability of excess renewable energy during
3.4.1. Transport sector off-peak hours makes complementary operations of electric vehicles and
The transition to a CO2-free transport sector would require fuel hydrogen fuel cell vehicles possible to create sustainable solutions with
substitution from the fossil-dominated scenario to emission-free alter high relevance and efficiency where electric vehicles meet the need for
natives. In this context, electric mobility and hydrogen-powered engines short-distance travel while hydrogen fuel cell electric and hydrogen
dominate research proposals. Hydrogen fuel cells have been developed refuelling would meet the need of long-distance travels. This is also
and used in both light and heavy-duty vehicles. They offer higher effi corroborated by the IRENA report [82] which posits that direct elec
ciency than internal combustion engines (ICE), no end-use GHG emis trification has a higher end-use efficiency than the hydrogen alternative.
sions and can be applied at various scales [83]. Hydrogen can also be The study in Ref. [176] also concluded that the future of mobility is
used in internal combustion engines (ICE) or hybrid internal dependent on electric mobility. Despite these merits of electric vehicles
combustion-fuel cell engines that leverage the maturity of the ICE. The over its hydrogen alternatives, the long refuelling time of electric ve
feasibility of hydrogen use in ICEs makes it a transition fuel for land hicles compared to hydrogen refuelling time is still a major challenge
transport and also promises greater efficiencies over conventional fuel [182].
options, but is still plagued with abnormal combustion and backfiring
problems [174]. However, Ajanovic & Haas [175] identified limited 3.4.2. Industry and power sector
deployment of infrastructure, low infrastructure utilization, cost and Industrial application of energy is mainly in the form of electricity
lack of regulation and coordinated action among stakeholders. In and heat. And to decarbonize it, Thiel and Stark [23] posit that heat
addition, Wilberforce et al. [176] identified other challenges to the fuel
671
must be decarbonized. The authors identified several research path Pumped Storage Hydro (PSH), batteries, and Compressed Air Energy
ways, which include zero-carbon fuels, zero-carbon heat sources, elec Storage (CAES) offer round-trip efficiencies ranging from 40 to 95 %.
trification of heat and better heat management. However, since the focus Despite lower energy densities (50-500 Wh/L), these technologies serve
of this article is on hydrogen and electricity alternatives, these would be as long-term storage solutions. Addressing low efficiency challenges,
the focus. Metal-Air and ZEBRA batteries, with up to 30,000 Wh/L, show promise.
Electrifying industrial processes is currently difficult and technically Conversely, hydrogen storage boasts higher energy density (500–3000
infeasible for processes with high-temperature heat requirements. It Wh/L) but lower round-trip efficiency (30–50 %) compared to batteries.
would result in significant technological changes in the industrial sector Improving the efficiency of hydrogen storage would enhance its viability
and increased electricity demand [22]. According to Nadel [21], some for long-term electricity storage, minimizing energy loss.
electrothermal technologies may apply to some industrial processes like Energy transfer for end-use is also a critical aspect of the production
steel production but may be infeasible in several others. However, heat chain. In this study, the major transport modes for hydrogen and elec
pumps may be applied to low-to-medium temperature heat supply. This tricity transport were evaluated for suitability and electricity, the most
is also corroborated by Thiel and Stark [23] who posit that heat pumps mature and viable technology is presented as the most efficient transfer
provide more than one unit of useful heat per unit of electricity and can mode owing to the significant losses associated with hydrogen transport
be used with renewable electricity but are associated with high upfront and the low energy density of large-scale hydrogen transport in addition
costs, long payback periods and low temperature and small capacities. to its significant infrastructure investment requirement. However, an
Wei et al. [183] postulate that the application of solar thermal electricity transport medium (grid) already exists, although still
technology and hydrogen for indirect electrification and decarbon requiring new investment and modernization; it still portends a more
ization of the industrial sector using renewable energy could be a so viable option for large-scale energy transport than the available options.
lution. However, applying renewable electricity is limited by its Furthermore, the carrier form must meet the end-use requirement in
variability and limited capacity. HYBRIT, a Swedish venture, has terms of its adaptability, handling and safety of use. Hydrogen, either in
developed a process to produce fossil-free steel using hydrogen instead the liquid or gaseous state, cannot be applied to current major end-uses
of coal. Although it is still on a small scale and expensive, the venture without technological modifications, and efforts are still being made to
aims to produce this commercially and economically by 2026 [184]. modify existing engines to run on hydrogen however, their direct
For power generation, gas turbines and diesel engines dominate hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are being developed by major automakers
current large-scale power-generation technologies and can attain up to and companies such as HYBRIT have applied hydrogen in industrial
500 MW power levels per engine and 60 % maximum thermal efficiency production of steel [184]. Despite these efforts, cost remains an issue
in the combined cycle or combined heat and power plants [174]. Ac with hydrogen use thus, it would be more suitable to convert hydrogen
cording to IRENA [82], the application of hydrogen in current gas tur from excess renewable electricity to other forms of energy for ease of
bines is limited to 1–2% and can be increased to 10–15 % without major end-use. This implies that hydrogen would rather serve as a store of
retrofits to the infrastructure. However, Nowakowski et al. [185] found energy for future end-uses.
that hydrogen levels in the gas mixture must be monitored and adjusted
accordingly to minimize negative effects on the industrial combustion 4.2. Environmental sustainability
process. Niaz et al. [83] posit that hydrogen-based steam generators are
better for industrial and medical purposes, while catalytic burners may Contrary to the claims of the environmental friendliness of both
be applied for cooking and heating purposes. However, the adoption of energy carriers considered in this study, the production chain approach
fuel cells for power generation is also an alternative because of their adopted in this study shows that both carriers may produce significant
higher efficiency, but it is still not economically feasible in comparison emissions at the production stage of the lifecycle. The conventional and
to existing engines [174]. mature production technologies for both hydrogen and electricity pro
duction had greater emissions than renewable and nuclear energy op
4. Findings and discussion of findings tions. This points to the importance of considering the energy source for
each energy carrier and the production route [186]. Only low emissions
This section presents a discussion of the findings of the review in technologies such as wind, solar, hydro and nuclear energy currently
terms of energy efficiency, environmental efficiency, technology readi promise environmental sustainability for large-scale applications.
ness level, and complementarity/competition. However, adopting carbon capture and storage for conventional tech
nologies like the NGCC and IGCC presented opportunities for
4.1. Energy sustainability low-emission production from fossil fuels as well as energy and effi
ciency costs.
The efficiencies of conventional hydrogen production through SMR, The actual end-use of hydrogen and electricity is not associated with
POx, and ATR, are greater than electricity generation technologies. the release of carbon emissions since hydrogen is a clean-burning fuel
However, hydrogen’s dependency on electricity input makes it less and electricity requires no combustion to produce work. However, the
efficient than the direct production of electricity because of associated energy sources play an important role in determining their environ
losses in energy conversion processes. Electricity production pathways mental sustainability thus making renewable, nuclear energy and con
also demonstrate greater energy return on energy invested for both fossil ventional fossil energy adapted with CCS technologies the most
and renewable energy and exergy efficiency for renewable electricity in plausible options for an environmentally sustainable energy future.
comparison to energy returns via hydrogen production, making elec
tricity a more energetically viable replacement for oil products as an 4.3. Technical readiness level
energy carrier.
Electricity production pathways also demonstrate greater energy As discussed in the foregoing, electricity production technologies for
return on energy invested (EROEI) for both fossil and renewable energy both renewable and non-renewable energy have attained commercial
and exergy efficiency for renewable electricity in comparison to energy and matured status and have existed for a long period. Despite this, a
returns via hydrogen production (Table 2), which may imply greater global energy access deficit still exists. Consequently, the radical adop
viability for electricity to replace oil products as an energy carrier. tion of new technologies requiring significant infrastructural changes to
However, this only applies to renewable energy production attain a sustainable energy future is a difficult and unrealistic path to
technologies. follow. Building on this premise, a radical adoption of hydrogen tech
Various energy storage options exhibit different characteristics. nology may be physically and economically inviable [19,158,187]. In
672
addition, although fossil-based hydrogen production technologies are solution, addresses some limitations associated with electricity, such as
quite mature and commercial, technologies to support large-scale storage challenges. However, the maturity and efficiency of electricity
hydrogen transport and end-use are still in development and yet to systems, coupled with a diverse and cleaner energy generation portfolio,
technically and economically compete with alternative technologies position it as a robust and established player in the current energy
[188]. landscape.
Furthermore, hydrogen is just as flammable as most other flammable The findings suggest that a hybridized approach, combining the
liquid or gaseous fuels and may even portend to be safer because of its strengths of both hydrogen and electricity, could define the future en
low density, high auto-ignition temperature and high diffusion coeffi ergy scenario. As technologies evolve, addressing weaknesses and
cient. However, safety concerns increase when handling it without leveraging opportunities becomes crucial. Green hydrogen production,
special training and equipment because of its high flammability, diffu advancements in energy storage, and smart grid implementation emerge
sivity, higher flame temperature, explosion energy, flame emissivity, as key areas for further research and development.
volatility, and ability to attack and cause leakage in storage vessels [158,
187]. Electricity, on the other hand, also has viable applications in 4.5. Complementary and competitive roles of hydrogen and electricity
almost every industry but can still contribute significantly to the
replacement of fossil fuel usage, especially in transport, power and in Both electricity and hydrogen are produced from similar energy
dustrial sectors. Although some authors posit that electricity may not be sources hence; there is an inherent competition that exists when they are
suitable for industrial heating functions, using renewable hydrogen produced from depletable sources such as fossil fuels and nuclear
would be thermodynamically inefficient compared to the direct appli sources. Whereas, considering renewable sources, this competition is
cation of electricity [19]. Industrial heating is still a major area of reasonably minimized because of their renewable nature, however;
research where the development of sustainable alternative carriers is variability and climate change impacts may affect their sustainability.
still required. Furthermore, Hydrogen can be produced from electricity making it a
The large-scale development of hydrogen projects is mostly in the good store of electricity and vice versa, which portends a complemen
development phase in contrast to electricity, which has been established tary role for hydrogen where it can be the solution to electricity gen
for decades and is still gaining rapid adoption such as growth in electric eration curtailment or excess renewable electricity losses. In addition,
vehicle adoption in the last decade. Therefore, studies focused on the hydrogen can be used to generate electricity, which can be transported
large-scale evaluation of hydrogen deployment must be scaled carefully, over long and short distances with minimal losses and costs compared
as detailed studies are still required to understand and quantify large- to hydrogen transport (interconversion). There is also an opportunity
scale hydrogen applications [189]. for both carriers to be co-produced from the same sources as has been
demonstrated in this study (co-production) [168]. Hence, both
4.4. Comparative SWOT analysis of hydrogen and electricity hydrogen and electricity could provide complementary roles to each
other. The latter is also evident in fuel cell electric vehicles where
A SWOT analysis of the trends in the hydrogen economy and elec hydrogen is converted to electricity to drive the electric motors.
tricity economy proposals is shown in Fig. 9. The comparative SWOT Although the current energy infrastructure does not provide oppor
analysis emphasizes the complementary and competitive roles that tunities for the co-transport of hydrogen and electricity, electricity is in a
hydrogen and electricity can play in a sustainable energy future. state of transition to accommodate smart technologies and higher inte
Hydrogen, with its potential as a versatile carrier and energy storage gration of renewable energy. Thus, Rödl et al. [168] propose a future
Fig. 9. Comparative SWOT Analysis of hydrogen and electricity economies adapted from [190–192].
673
where both carriers can be co-delivered in a super grid with hydrogen scale compared to hydrogen and portends a viable alternative physically
acting as cooling to the electrical grid enabling superconductivity and and economically to oil products, even when both carriers are produced
minimizing transmission losses. It would also improve grid reliability from renewable sources. Furthermore, the study shows that the energy
and higher integration of renewable energy. source for the production of either hydrogen or electricity is critical in
Considering the complementarity and competitiveness of both en determining their energy and environmental sustainability. Therefore,
ergy carriers, co-production and interconversion of both carriers from renewable energy technologies, nuclear and carbon capture and storage
renewable energy sources in the short to medium term could be the most could define the future energy landscape. Hybridization of technologies
optimal configuration. In this scenario, hydrogen would serve as an across the production chain also proves to be more efficient than the use
electricity storage medium in most cases except for onsite production of standalone technologies.
and applications and electricity would be best suited for most end-uses. Furthermore, hydrogen is proposed to be an energy storage medium
However, hydrogen may also feature in industrial applications like in the short to medium term than a carrier because of its associated high
heating processes where applying electricity would be infeasible or losses during transfer, infrastructural requirements and little or no
costlier. As newer and cheaper hydrogen technologies are developed current end-use adaptability unless transformed into synthetic fuels,
and challenges associated with hydrogen transport and end-uses are which can be combusted in engines or electricity for direct consumption.
overcome, this configuration would be modified to accommodate both Electricity, on the other hand, already has several end-uses in all in
hydrogen transport and end-use at competitive rates. Table 4. Syntheses dustries. Despite hydrogen being proposed as a long-term energy storage
of the findings and future research considerations for the across the medium, its round-trip efficiency is still quite low compared to other
production chains of the carrier alternatives. electricity storage alternatives, thus efficiency improvement coupled
with its high energy and power density would make it more competitive
5. Conclusion among seasonal storage alternatives.
Electrification of transport has been the major driver for growth in
As the world is plagued with a sustainable energy dilemma, the electric vehicles and has seen significant growth in the last decade. More
question of which energy alternative could replace oil products as an growth is also still expected as several governments have made pledges
energy carrier remains pertinent to policymakers and researchers. to net-zero emission transport thus, electrification has the potential to
Hydrogen and electricity are the most promising alternatives considered define the future of passenger transport however, other heavy-duty and
among researchers and policymakers. However, most studies have been long-distance transport sectors like aviation and shipping sectors should
focused on discussing individual energy technologies based on economic be the target of the hydrogen economy.
terms and are mostly optimistic. This study thus compared the hydrogen However, some obstacles threaten the viability of these alternative
and electricity economies for future environmental and energetic sus energy sources. Obstacles to hydrogen include limited economic bene
tainability. A comparative review of both technologies was performed to fits, immature technologies, inadequate infrastructure availability,
compare recent studies and their developmental trajectories across the competition from alternative renewable energy sources, and expensive
production chain to attempt to answer the question of “What is the most investment needs. Similar problems with electricity include the need for
sustainable path to follow?” significant modifications to its old infrastructure, limited availability of
The findings demonstrated that electricity is the most mature tech critical minerals, the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources,
nology and presents greater energy returns on energy invested than high transmission losses, and insufficient energy storage mediums.
hydrogen. It is also already more infrastructurally advanced on a large These difficulties show how important it is to use multidisciplinary
Table 4
Hydrogen versus Electricity as alternative carriers to oil products: current state and unresolved issues.
Description Production Storage Transport/Distribution End-use
Current state • Existing competition for primary •Storage is important to facilitate •The existing electricity Transport
resources for carriers. the transition to a carbon-free infrastructure is extensive but needs
•Hybridization of production economy. modernizing for a carbon-free tech •Hydrogen finds use in ICEVs, fuel
technologies for electricity and/or •Current electricity storage transition. cell vehicles, and hybrids.
hydrogen production proved more mechanisms are suited for short- •Needed: New infrastructure for •Electric vehicles excel in short-range
beneficial than standalone term large-scale storage. widespread hydrogen adoption, due and passenger use, while hydrogen
technologies. •Hydrogen is a plausible solution to high conventional transport costs suits long-range and heavy-duty
•Renewables, nuclear and fossil to the generation curtailment of and limited carrying capacity. transport.
energy with CCUS most plausible renewable energies and long- •Hydrogen transport in pipelines, up Industry & Power
production routes. term electricity storage. to 20 % possible in current natural
•Current hydrogen storage gas infrastructure; greater shares •Decarbonization focuses on
methods are plagued with safety, necessitate network upgrades. industrial heating.
energy efficiency; loss and cost •Electrification of high-temperature
issues. industrial processes is currently diffi
cult and technically infeasible.
•Indirect electrification via
conversion of electricity to hydrogen
is a solution to industrial heating
demand.
Unresolved issues •Incorporation of climate change •Development of novel hydrogen • Engineering equipment to • Challenges in electric and hydrogen
& possible impact on renewable energy storage materials to enhance enhance natural gas networks for mobility: limited infrastructure,
research generation in model development. safety, efficiency and costs. increased hydrogen integration. high costs, regulatory gaps, and
directions •Addressing competition from •Creating affordable new battery • Upgrading grid for greater stakeholder coordination.
existing petroleum carriers and chemistries for large-scale use. renewable integration and EVs. • Fuel cell costs exceed those of
vested interests. •Enhancing Power-to-X chemical conventional natural gas power
•Improvement in efficiency of green storage for efficient energy and plants.
hydrogen production methods. cost efficiency.
•Adaptation of existing engines
for chemical storage like
methanol.
674
efforts and creative ideas to create resilience. schemes. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. Jun. 2013;47(2):76–88. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.SEPS.2012.09.004.
In conclusion, electricity and hydrogen face storage and trans
[13] Bressanin JM, et al. Advanced technologies for electricity production in the
portation challenges, respectively, that make their future roles uncer sugarcane value chain are a strategic option in a carbon reward policy context.
tain. Hence, their functional roles may change with the advancement of Energy Pol Dec. 2021;159:112637. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
technology. ENPOL.2021.112637.
[14] Singh S, et al. Hydrogen: a sustainable fuel for future of the transport sector.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev Nov. 2015;51:623–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CRediT authorship contribution statement RSER.2015.06.040.
[15] Machhammer O, Bode A, Hormuth W. Financial and ecological evaluation of
hydrogen production processes on large scale. Chem Eng Technol Jun. 2016;39
Michael M. Aba: Methodology, Investigation, Visualization, Writing - (6):1185–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/CEAT.201600023.
original draft, Writing - review & editing, Validation. Ildo Luis Sauer: [16] Schönauer AL, Glanz S. Hydrogen in future energy systems: social acceptance of
the technology and its large-scale infrastructure. Int J Hydrogen Energy Jun.
Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing - review &
2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2021.05.160.
editing, Funding acquisition, Supervision. Nilton Bispo Amado: [17] Noussan M, Raimondi PP, Scita R, Hafner M. The role of green and blue hydrogen
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. in the energy transition—a technological and geopolitical perspective. Sustain
Times Dec. 2020;13(1):298. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13010298. 2021, Vol.
13, Page 298.
Funding [18] Pietzcker RC, et al. Long-term transport energy demand and climate policy:
alternative visions on transport decarbonization in energy-economy models.
Energy Jan. 2014;64:95–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2013.08.059.
The Fundação Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível [19] Bossel U, Eliasson B, Taylor G. The future of the hydrogen economy: bright or
Superior - CAPES, [grant number: 88887.631159/2021-00] and Petro bleak? Cogener Compet Power J 2003;18(3):29–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/
leum Technology Development Fund – PTDF [PTDF/ED/OSS/PHD/ 15453660309509023.
[20] Ruhnau O, Bannik S, Otten S, Praktiknjo A, Robinius M. Direct or indirect
MMA/2031/22] supported this work.
electrification? A review of heat generation and road transport decarbonisation
scenarios for Germany 2050. Energy Jan. 2019;166:989–99. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.114.
Declaration of competing interest [21] Nadel S. Electrification in the transportation, buildings, and industrial sectors: a
review of opportunities, barriers, and policies. Current Sustainable/Renewable
Energy Reports Dec. 01, 2019;6(4):158–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
019-00138-z. Springer Nature.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [22] Wei M, McMillan CA, de la Rue du S. Can, “electrification of industry: potential,
the work reported in this paper. challenges and outlook,”. Curr. Sustain. Energy Reports Dec. 2019;6(4):140–8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S40518-019-00136-1/TABLES/1.
[23] Thiel GP, Stark AK. To decarbonize industry, we must decarbonize heat. Joule
Acknowledgements Mar. 17, 2021;5(3):531–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.12.007. Cell
Press.
[24] Li J, Liu P, Li Z. Optimal design and techno-economic analysis of a hybrid
The authors acknowledge the financial support from CAPES and renewable energy system for off-grid power supply and hydrogen production: a
from the Institute of Energy and Environment of the University of São case study of West China. Chem Eng Res Des Jan. 2022;177:604–14. https://doi.
Paulo (IEE-USP) Center for Analysis, Planning and Energy Resources org/10.1016/J.CHERD.2021.11.014.
[25] Yang C. Hydrogen and electricity: parallels, interactions, and convergence. Int J
Development (CPLEN), FUSP project number 3827: “From organic
Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(8):1977–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
waste to bioenergy and biofertilizers: a proposal for innovation in ijhydene.2008.02.020.
management, regulation and technologies and integration of industrial [26] d’Amore-Domenech R, Leo TJ, Pollet BG. Bulk power transmission at sea: life
cycle cost comparison of electricity and hydrogen as energy vectors. Appl Energy
production chains.
Apr. 2021;288:116625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116625.
[27] BACAS. Hydrogen as an energy carrier. Brussel; Apr. 2006 [Online]. Available:
References https://kvab.be/sites/default/rest/blobs/1125/tw_BACAS_hydrogen_as_an_ener
gy_carrier.pdf. [Accessed 18 January 2023].
[28] Oshiro K, Fujimori S. Role of hydrogen-based energy carriers as an alternative
[1] IEA. Data & statistics - IEA. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-brow
option to reduce residual emissions associated with mid-century decarbonization
ser?country=WORLD&fuel=Energyconsumption&indicator=TFCbySource.
goals. Appl Energy May 2022;313:118803. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[Accessed 9 November 2021].
APENERGY.2022.118803.
[2] IBT Group. Energy carriers: what they are, and why they are the future. IBT
[29] Vasković S, Gvero P, Medaković V, Halilović V. Energy chains optimization for
ENERGIA; Feb. 15, 2022. https://www.ibtgroup.at/en/energy-carriers-what-the
selection of sustainable energy supply. In: Sustainable supply chain management.
y-are-and-why-they-are-the-future/. [Accessed 25 July 2022].
IntechOpen; 2016.
[3] Denny Ellerman A. The competition between coal and natural gas: the
[30] Liu X, Reddi K, Elgowainy A, Lohse-Busch H, Wang M, Rustagi N. Comparison of
importance of sunk costs. Res Pol 1996;22(1–2):33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/
well-to-wheels energy use and emissions of a hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle
s0301-4207(96)00017-7. SPEC. ISS.
relative to a conventional gasoline-powered internal combustion engine vehicle.
[4] Kulagin VA, Grushevenko DA, Kapustin NO. Fossil fuels markets in the ‘energy
Int J Hydrogen Energy Jan. 2020;45(1):972–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
transition’ era. Russ. J. Econ. 2020;6(4):424–36. https://doi.org/10.32609/J.
IJHYDENE.2019.10.192.
RUJE.6.55177.
[31] Ajanovic A, Sayer M, Haas R. The economics and the environmental benignity of
[5] Asche F, Oglend A, Osmundsen P. Gas versus oil prices the impact of shale gas.
different colors of hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2022;47(57):24136–54.
Energy Pol 2012;47(April 2010):117–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.02.094.
enpol.2012.04.033.
[32] Kothari R, Buddhi D, Sawhney RL. Comparison of environmental and economic
[6] Melsted O, Pallua I. The historical transition from coal to hydrocarbons: previous
aspects of various hydrogen production methods. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Feb.
explanations and the need for an integrative perspective. Can J Hist 2018;53(3):
2008;12(2):553–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2006.07.012.
395–422. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjh.ach.53.3.03.
[33] Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas A. A comparative overview of hydrogen production
[7] Anandarajah G, McDowall W, Ekins P. Decarbonising road transport with
processes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Jan. 01, 2017;67:597–611. https://doi.org/
hydrogen and electricity: long term global technology learning scenarios. Int J
10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.044. Pergamon.
Hydrogen Energy Mar. 2013;38(8):3419–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[34] Ji M, Wang J. Review and comparison of various hydrogen production methods
IJHYDENE.2012.12.110.
based on costs and life cycle impact assessment indicators. Int J Hydrogen Energy
[8] Preuster P, Alekseev A, Wasserscheid P. Hydrogen storage technologies for future
Nov. 2021;46(78):38612–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
energy systems. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng 2017;8:445–71. https://doi.org/
IJHYDENE.2021.09.142.
10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-060816-101334.
[35] Sánchez-Bastardo N, Schlögl R, Ruland H. Methane pyrolysis for zero-emission
[9] Acar C, Dincer I. Review and evaluation of hydrogen production options for
hydrogen production: a potential bridge technology from fossil fuels to a
better environment. J Clean Prod May 2019;218:835–49. https://doi.org/
renewable and sustainable hydrogen economy. Ind Eng Chem Res Aug. 2021;60
10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.02.046.
(32):11855–81. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.IECR.1C01679.
[10] IRENA. Hydrogen: a renewable energy perspective. September. 2019.
[36] Nahar G, Mote D, Dupont V. Hydrogen production from reforming of biogas:
[11] Marchenko OV, Solomin SV. The future energy: hydrogen versus electricity. Int J
review of technological advances and an Indian perspective. Renew Sustain
Hydrogen Energy Mar. 2015;40(10):3801–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Energy Rev Sep. 2017;76:1032–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ijhydene.2015.01.132.
RSER.2017.02.031.
[12] Dowds J, Hines PDH, Blumsack S. Estimating the impact of fuel-switching
between liquid fuels and electricity under electricity-sector carbon-pricing
675
[37] Baykara SZ. Hydrogen: a brief overview on its sources, production and [64] Sawle Y, Gupta SC, Bohre AK. Optimal sizing of standalone PV/Wind/Biomass
environmental impact. Int J Hydrogen Energy Jun. 2018;43(23):10605–14. hybrid energy system using GA and PSO optimization technique. Energy Proc
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2018.02.022. 2017;117:690–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.183.
[38] IEA. Data & statistics - IEA. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-bro [65] Ziółkowski P, et al. Different design aspects of an Organic Rankine Cycle turbine
wser?country=NIGERIA&fuel=Energyconsumption&indicator=TFCShareBy for electricity production using a geothermal binary power plant. Energy Convers
Sector. [Accessed 15 June 2021]. Manag Oct. 2021;246:114672. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[39] Burnard K, Bhattacharya S. Power generation from coal. 2011. https://doi.org/ ENCONMAN.2021.114672.
10.1787/5kg3n27ts06b-en. [66] Anderson A, Rezaie B. Applied energy. Geothermal technology: Trends and
[40] Peng S. Special issue on integrated gasification fuel cell (IGFC) technology. Int. J. potential role in a sustainable future Aug. 15, 2019;248:18–34. https://doi.org/
Coal Sci. Technol. Jul. 2021;8(3):325–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40789-021- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.102. Elsevier.
00454-0. 2021 83. [67] Alirahmi SM, Assareh E, Pourghassab NN, Delpisheh M, Barelli L, Baldinelli A.
[41] jie Zhao Y, et al. Life cycle energy-economy-environmental evaluation of coal- Green hydrogen & electricity production via geothermal-driven multi-generation
based CLC power plant vs. IGCC, USC and oxy-combustion power plants with/ system: thermodynamic modeling and optimization. Fuel Jan. 2022;308:122049.
without CO2 capture. J Environ Chem Eng Oct. 2021;9(5):106121. https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2021.122049.
org/10.1016/J.JECE.2021.106121. [68] Couto A, Estanqueiro A. Assessment of wind and solar PV local complementarity
[42] Rubin ES, Azevedo IML, Jaramillo P, Yeh S. A review of learning rates for for the hybridization of the wind power plants installed in Portugal. J Clean Prod
electricity supply technologies. Energy Pol Nov. 2015;86:198–218. https://doi. Oct. 2021;319:128728. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.128728.
org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2015.06.011. [69] Song J, Wang Y, Wang K, Wang J, Markides CN. Combined supercritical CO2
[43] Jiang L, Gonzalez-Diaz A, Ling-Chin J, Roskilly AP, Smallbone AJ. Post- (SCO2) cycle and organic Rankine cycle (ORC) system for hybrid solar and
combustion CO2 capture from a natural gas combined cycle power plant using geothermal power generation: thermoeconomic assessment of various
activated carbon adsorption. Appl Energy Jul. 2019;245:1–15. https://doi.org/ configurations. Renew Energy Aug. 2021;174:1020–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/
10.1016/J.APENERGY.2019.04.006. J.RENENE.2021.04.124.
[44] Xia C, Ye B, Jiang J, Shu Y. Prospect of near-zero-emission IGCC power plants to [70] Kaur H, Gupta S, Dhingra A. Analysis of hybrid solar biomass power plant for
decarbonize coal-fired power generation in China: implications from the generation of electric power. Mater Today Proc Sep. 2021. https://doi.org/
GreenGen project. J Clean Prod Oct. 2020;271:122615. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 10.1016/J.MATPR.2021.08.080.
J.JCLEPRO.2020.122615. [71] Sen O, Faruk Guler O, Yilmaz C, Kanoglu M. Thermodynamic modeling and
[45] Surywanshi GD, Patnaikuni VS, Vooradi R, Kakunuri M. CO2 capture and analysis of a solar and geothermal assisted multi-generation energy system.
utilization from supercritical coal direct chemical looping combustion power Energy Convers Manag Jul. 2021;239:114186. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
plant – comprehensive analysis of different case studies. Appl Energy Dec. 2021; ENCONMAN.2021.114186.
304:117915. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2021.117915. [72] Rosen MA, Bulucea CA. Using exergy to understand and improve the efficiency of
[46] Wu Y, et al. System integration for coal-fired power plant with post combustion electrical power technologies. Entropy 2009;11(4):820–35. https://doi.org/
CO2 capture: comparative study for different solid dry sorbents. Fuel Nov. 2020; 10.3390/e11040820.
280:118561. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2020.118561. [73] Zhou J, et al. Exergy analysis of a 1000 MW single reheat supercritical CO2
[47] Popov D, Borissova A. Innovative configuration of a hybrid nuclear-solar tower Brayton cycle coal-fired power plant. Energy Convers Manag 2018;173(May):
power plant. Energy Apr. 2017;125:736–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. 348–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.07.096.
ENERGY.2017.02.147. [74] Sgouridis S, Carbajales-Dale M, Csala D, Chiesa M, Bardi U. Comparative net
[48] Ho M, Obbard E, Burr PA, Yeoh G. A review on the development of nuclear power energy analysis of renewable electricity and carbon capture and storage. Nat
reactors. Energy Proc Feb. 2019;160:459–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Energy Apr. 2019;4(6):456–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0365-7.
EGYPRO.2019.02.193. [75] Cavalcanti EJC, Lima MSR, de Souza GF. Comparison of carbon capture system
[49] Al-Zareer M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Development and assessment of a novel and concentrated solar power in natural gas combined cycle: exergetic and
integrated nuclear plant for electricity and hydrogen production. Energy Convers exergoenvironmental analyses. Renew Energy Aug. 2020;156:1336–47. https://
Manag Feb. 2017;134:221–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2019.11.153.
ENCONMAN.2016.12.004. [76] Marques JGO, Costa AL, Pereira C, Fortini Â. Energy and exergy analyses of angra
[50] Temiz M, Dincer I. Design and analysis of nuclear and solar-based energy, food, 2 nuclear power plant. Brazilian J. Radiat. Sci. Jun. 2019;7(2B). https://doi.org/
fuel, and water production system for an indigenous community. J Clean Prod 10.15392/BJRS.V7I2B.647.
Sep. 2021;314:127890. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.127890. [77] Ghosh M, Sharma S, Banerjee PS. Nuclear electricity – renewability, losses and
[51] Karim R, et al. Nuclear energy development in Bangladesh: a study of recycling. Encycl. Renew. Sustain. Mater. Jan. 2020:575–85. https://doi.org/
opportunities and challenges. Energies Jun. 2018;11(7):1672. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.11234-2.
10.3390/EN11071672. 2018, Vol. 11, Page 1672. [78] Gupta A. Energy return on energy invested (EROI) and energy payback time
[52] Pioro I, Duffey RB, Kirillov PL, Pioro R, Zvorykin A, MacHrafi R. Current status (EPBT) for PVs. In: A comprehensive guide to solar energy systems. Academic
and future developments in nuclear-power industry of the world. J Nucl Eng Press; 2018. p. 407–25.
Radiat Sci Apr. 2019;5(2):24001–2. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4042194/ [79] Carvalho M, Da Silva Segundo VB, De Medeiros MG, Dos Santos NA, Junior LMC.
725884. Carbon footprint of the generation of bioelectricity from sugarcane bagasse in a
[53] IEA. Data & statistics - IEA. Data and Statistics 2020. https://www.iea.org/data sugar and ethanol industry. Int J Glob Warming 2019;17(3):235–51. https://doi.
-and-statistics/data-browser?country=WORLD&fuel=Energysupply&indicator org/10.1504/IJGW.2019.098495.
=TPESbySource. [Accessed 20 September 2021]. [80] Fajardy M, Mac Dowell N. The energy return on investment of BECCS: is BECCS a
[54] Chang J, Wang X, Li Y, Wang Y, Zhang H. Hydropower plant operation rules threat to energy security? Energy Environ Sci Jun. 2018;11(6):1581–94. https://
optimization response to climate change. Energy Oct. 2018;160:886–97. https:// doi.org/10.1039/C7EE03610H.
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.07.066. [81] Shi Y, Liu Q, Shao Y, Zhong W. Energy and exergy analysis of oxy-fuel combustion
[55] Li J, Wang Z, Wu X, Ming B, Chen L, Chen X. Evident response of future based on circulating fluidized bed power plant firing coal, lignite and biomass.
hydropower generation to climate change. J. Hydrol. Nov. 2020;590:125385. Fuel 2020;269(November 2019):117424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2020.125385. fuel.2020.117424.
[56] Carvajal PE, Li FGN, Soria R, Cronin J, Anandarajah G, Mulugetta Y. Large [82] IRENA. Innovation landscape brief: renewable power-to-hydrogen. International
hydropower, decarbonisation and climate change uncertainty: modelling power Renewable Energy; 2019.
sector pathways for Ecuador. Energy Strategy Rev Jan. 2019;23:86–99. https:// [83] Niaz S, Manzoor T, Pandith AH. Hydrogen storage: materials, methods and
doi.org/10.1016/J.ESR.2018.12.008. perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Oct. 2015;50:457–69. https://doi.org/
[57] Jovan DJ, Dolanc G, Pregelj B. Cogeneration of green hydrogen in a cascade 10.1016/J.RSER.2015.05.011.
hydropower plant. Energy Convers Manag X Jun. 2021;10:100081. https://doi. [84] Felseghi R-A, Bolboacă A, Răboaca M-S, Aşchilean I. Hybrid energy systems for
org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2021.100081. power of sustainable buildings. Case study: a renewable energy based on-site
[58] Tarroja B, Forrest K, Chiang F, AghaKouchak A, Samuelsen S. Implications of green electricity production. Ref. Modul. Earth Syst. Environ. Sci. Jan. 2021.
hydropower variability from climate change for a future, highly-renewable https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819727-1.00037-6.
electric grid in California. Appl Energy Mar. 2019;237:353–66. https://doi.org/ [85] Li Y, Chen H, Zhang X, Tan C, Ding Y. Renewable energy carriers: hydrogen or
10.1016/J.APENERGY.2018.12.079. liquid air/nitrogen? Appl Therm Eng Jul. 2010;30(14–15):1985. https://doi.org/
[59] IRENA. Wind energy. Wind 2020. . [Accessed 2 December 2021]. 10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2010.04.033.
[60] Khan J, Arsalan MH. Solar power technologies for sustainable electricity [86] Noussan M, Raimondi PP, Scita R, Hafner M. The role of green and blue hydrogen
generation – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Mar. 2016;55:414–25. https:// in the energy transition—a technological and geopolitical perspective. Sustain
doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2015.10.135. Times Dec. 2020;13(1):298. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13010298. 2021, Vol.
[61] Guo J-X, Zhu K. Operation management of hybrid biomass power plant 13, Page 298.
considering environmental constraints. Sustain Prod Consum Jan. 2022;29:1–13. [87] Moya D, Aldás C, Kaparaju P. Geothermal energy: power plant technology and
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPC.2021.09.017. direct heat applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Oct. 01, 2018;94:889–901.
[62] Kaur K, Singh Brar G, Scholar MT. Solar-biogas-biomass hybrid electrical power https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.047. Pergamon.
generation for a village (a case study). Int. J. Eng. Dev. Res. 2016;4(1): [88] Solaun K, Cerdá E. Climate change impacts on renewable energy generation. A
2321–9939. review of quantitative projections. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Dec. 2019;116:
[63] Khosravi A, Santasalo-Aarnio A, Syri S. Optimal technology for a hybrid biomass/ 109415. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2019.109415.
solar system for electricity generation and desalination in Brazil. Energy Nov.
2021;234:121309. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.121309.
676
[89] Oh D-H, Lee C-H, Lee J-C. Performance and cost analysis of natural gas combined [115] Fabre A. Evolution of EROIs of electricity until 2050: estimation and implications
cycle plants with chemical looping combustion. ACS Omega Aug. 2021;6(32): on prices. Ecol Econ 2019;164:106351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
21043–58. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c02695. ecolecon.2019.06.006.
[90] NREL. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar photovoltaics. National [116] de Sisternes FJ, Jenkins JD, Botterud A. The value of energy storage in
Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2012. decarbonizing the electricity sector. Appl Energy Aug. 2016;175:368–79. https://
[91] World Nuclear Association. Energy return on investment. Energy and the doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2016.05.014.
Environment; Mar. 2020. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/ener [117] Kyriakopoulos GL, Arabatzis G. Electrical energy storage systems in electricity
gy-and-the-environment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx. [Accessed 6 generation: energy policies, innovative technologies, and regulatory regimes.
December 2021]. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Apr. 2016;56:1044–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[92] Gomaa MR, Rezk H, Mustafa RJ, Al-Dhaifallah M. Evaluating the environmental RSER.2015.12.046.
impacts and energy performance of a wind farm system utilizing the life-cycle [118] Dincer I, Abu-Rayash A. Sustainability modeling. In: Energy sustainability.
assessment method: a practical case study. Energies Aug. 2019;12(17):3263. Elsevier; 2020. p. 119–64.
https://doi.org/10.3390/EN12173263. 2019, Vol. 12, Page 3263. [119] Moliner R, Lázaro MJ, Suelves I. Analysis of the strategies for bridging the gap
[93] USEPA. Renewable energy fact sheet: wind turbines,” United States environ. Prot. towards the Hydrogen Economy. Int J Hydrogen Energy Nov. 2016;41(43):
Agency; 2013. 19500–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2016.06.202.
[94] Caliskan H, Dincer I, Hepbasli A. Energy, exergy and sustainability analyses of [120] Diesendorf M, Wiedmann T. Implications of trends in energy return on energy
hybrid renewable energy based hydrogen and electricity production and storage invested (EROI) for transitioning to renewable electricity. Ecol Econ Oct. 2020;
systems: modeling and case study. Appl Therm Eng Nov. 2013;61(2):784–98. 176:106726. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2020.106726.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2012.04.026. [121] Semadeni M. Storage of energy, overview. Encycl. Energy; Jan. 2004. p. 719–38.
[95] Kazemi H, Ehyaei MA. Energy, exergy, and economic analysis of a geothermal https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-176480-X/00104-2.
power plant. Adv. Geo-Energy Res. Jun. 2018;2(2):190–209. https://doi.org/ [122] Lucio Tiago Filho G, Andrés Lozano Vela G, da Silva LJ, Tonon Bitti Perazzini M,
10.26804/AGER.2018.02.07. Fernandes dos Santos E, Fébba D. Analysis and feasibility of a compressed air
[96] Eberle A, Heath GA, Carpenter Petri AC, Nicholson SR. Systematic review of life energy storage system (CAES) enriched with ethanol. Energy Convers Manag Sep.
cycle greenhouse gas emissions from geothermal electricity. Sep. 2017. https:// 2021;243:114371. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2021.114371.
doi.org/10.2172/1398245. [123] Hunt JD, et al. Hydropower and seasonal pumped hydropower storage in the
[97] Senturk Acar M, Arslan O. Energy and exergy analysis of solar energy-integrated, Indus basin:pros and cons. J Energy Storage Sep. 2021;41:102916. https://doi.
geothermal energy-powered Organic Rankine Cycle. J Therm Anal Calorim Jul. org/10.1016/J.EST.2021.102916.
2019;137(2):659–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10973-018-7977-1/FIGURES/9. [124] Xu B, et al. Modeling a pumped storage hydropower integrated to a hybrid power
[98] Scherer L, Pfister S. Hydropower’s biogenic carbon footprint. PLoS One 2016;11 system with solar-wind power and its stability analysis. Appl Energy Aug. 2019;
(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161947. 248:446–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2019.04.125.
[99] Jackson R, et al. Opportunities for energy efficiency improvements in the US [125] Hunt JD, et al. Existing and new arrangements of pumped-hydro storage plants.
electricity transmission and distribution system. 2015. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Sep. 2020;129:109914. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[100] Rye CD, Jackson T. A review of EROEI-dynamics energy-transition models. RSER.2020.109914.
Energy Pol Nov. 2018;122:260–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. [126] Salimi AA, Karimi A, Noorizadeh Y. Simultaneous operation of wind and pumped
ENPOL.2018.06.041. storage hydropower plants in a linearized security-constrained unit commitment
[101] Barbera E, Mio A, Massi Pavan A, Bertucco A, Fermeglia M. Fuelling power plants model for high wind energy penetration. J Energy Storage Apr. 2019;22:318–30.
by natural gas: an analysis of energy efficiency, economical aspects and https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EST.2019.02.026.
environmental footprint based on detailed process simulation of the whole carbon [127] Menéndez J, et al. Stability analysis of the underground infrastructure for pumped
capture and storage system. Energy Convers Manag Dec. 2021:115072. https:// storage hydropower plants in closed coal mines. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2021.115072. Dec. 2019;94:103117. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TUST.2019.103117.
[102] Abuelnuor AAA, Ahmed K, Saqr KM, Nogoud YAM, Babiker MEAM. Exergy [128] Zheng Y, Sahraei-Ardakani M. Leveraging existing water and wastewater
analysis of large and impounded hydropower plants: case study El Roseires Dam infrastructure to develop distributed pumped storage hydropower in California.
(280 MW). Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2020;39(3):1–11. https://doi.org/ J Energy Storage Feb. 2021;34:102204. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
10.1002/ep.13362. EST.2020.102204.
[103] Gómez-Camacho CE, Ruggeri B. Energy Sustainability Analysis (ESA) of energy- [129] Pradhan A, Marence M, Franca MJ. The adoption of seawater pump storage
producing processes: a case study on distributed H2 production. Sustain Times hydropower systems increases the share of renewable energy production in small
2019;11(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184911. island developing states. Renew Energy Nov. 2021;177:448–60. https://doi.org/
[104] Sánchez-Bastardo N, Schlögl R, Ruland H. Methane pyrolysis for zero-emission 10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.05.151.
hydrogen production: a potential bridge technology from fossil fuels to a [130] ONS. Reservatórios. http://www.ons.org.br/paginas/energia-agora/reserva
renewable and sustainable hydrogen economy. Ind Eng Chem Res Aug. 2021;60 torios. [Accessed 16 August 2022].
(32):11855–81. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.IECR.1C01679. [131] Amado NB, Pelegia EDB, Sauer IL. Capacity value from wind and solar sources in
[105] Navas-Anguita Z, García-Gusano D, Dufour J, Iribarren D. Revisiting the role of systems with variable dispatchable capacity—an application in the brazilian
steam methane reforming with CO2 capture and storage for long-term hydrogen hydrothermal system. Energies May 2021;14(11):3196. https://doi.org/10.3390/
production. Sci Total Environ Jun. 2021;771:145432. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. en14113196.
SCITOTENV.2021.145432. [132] Khan N, Dilshad S, Khalid R, Kalair AR, Abas N. Review of energy storage and
[106] Dincer I, Zamfirescu C. Sustainable hydrogen production options and the role of transportation of energy. Energy Storage Jun. 2019;1(3):e49. https://doi.org/
IAHE. Int J Hydrogen Energy Nov. 2012;37(21):16266–86. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/EST2.49.
10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2012.02.133. [133] Mousavi SB, Ahmadi P, Pourahmadiyan A, Hanafizadeh P. A comprehensive
[107] Álvarez-Ramos C, Diez-Suárez A-M, de Simón-Martín M, González-Martínez A, techno-economic assessment of a novel compressed air energy storage (CAES)
Rosales-Asensio E. A brief systematic review of the literature on the economic, integrated with geothermal and solar energy. Sustain Energy Technol
social and environmental impacts of shale gas exploitation in the United Assessments Oct. 2021;47:101418. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Kingdom. Energy Rep 2020;6:11–7. SETA.2021.101418.
[108] Martínez-Rodríguez A, Abánades A. Comparative analysis of energy and exergy [134] Argyrou MC, Christodoulides P, Kalogirou SA. Energy storage for electricity
performance of hydrogen production methods. Entropy Nov. 2020;22(11):1286. generation and related processes: technologies appraisal and grid scale
https://doi.org/10.3390/E22111286. 2020, Vol. 22, Page 1286. applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Oct. 2018;94:804–21. https://doi.org/
[109] Ayodele FO, Mohammad N, Mustapa SI, Ayodele BV. An overview of economic 10.1016/J.RSER.2018.06.044.
analysis and environmental impacts of natural gas conversion technologies. [135] Llamas B, Ortega MF, Barthelemy G, de Godos I, Acién FG. Development of an
Sustain Times 2020;12(23):1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310148. efficient and sustainable energy storage system by hybridization of compressed
[110] Kursun B, Ramkumar S, Bakshi BR, Fan LS. Life cycle comparison of coal air and biogas technologies (BIO-CAES). Energy Convers Manag Apr. 2020;210:
gasification by conventional versus calcium looping processes. Ind Eng Chem Res 112695. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2020.112695.
Dec. 2014;53(49):18910–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/IE404436A/SUPPL_FILE/ [136] Zhao P, Wang P, Xu W, Zhang S, Wang J, Dai Y. The survey of the combined heat
IE404436A_SI_001.PDF. and compressed air energy storage (CH-CAES) system with dual power levels
[111] Liu H, Liu S. Exergy analysis in the assessment of hydrogen production from UCG. turbomachinery configuration for wind power peak shaving based spectral
Int J Hydrogen Energy Oct. 2020;45(51):26890–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. analysis. Energy Jan. 2021;215:119167. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2020.07.112. ENERGY.2020.119167.
[112] Martínez-Rodríguez A, Abánades A. Comparative analysis of energy and exergy [137] D’Aquino CA, Santos SC, Sauer IL. Biogas as an alternative source of decentralized
performance of hydrogen production methods. Entropy 2020;22(11):1–17. bioelectricity for large waste producers: an assessment framework at the
https://doi.org/10.3390/e22111286. University of São Paulo. Energy Jan. 2022;239:122326. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[113] Hacatoglu K, Rosen MA, Dincer I. Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen j.energy.2021.122326.
and other selected fuels. Int J Hydrogen Energy Jul. 2012;37(13):9933–40. [138] Aneke M, Wang M. Energy storage technologies and real life applications – a state
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2012.04.020. of the art review. Appl Energy Oct. 2016;179:350–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[114] Tenhumberg N, Büker K. Ecological and economic evaluation of hydrogen APENERGY.2016.06.097.
production by different water electrolysis technologies. Chem-Ing-Tech Oct. [139] Kebede AA, Kalogiannis T, Van Mierlo J, Berecibar M. A comprehensive review of
2020;92(10):1586–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.202000090. stationary energy storage devices for large scale renewable energy sources grid
integration. Renew Sustain Energy Rev May 2022;159:112213. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RSER.2022.112213.
677
[140] Astolfi M, Rizzi D, Macchi E, Spadacini C. A novel energy storage system based on [166] Liou HM. The development of electricity grid, smart grid and renewable energy in
carbon dioxide unique thermodynamic properties. J Eng Gas Turbines Power Aug. taiwan. Smart Grid Renew Energy 2017;8(6):163–77. https://doi.org/10.4236/
2022;144(8). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4054750. SGRE.2017.86011.
[141] Parra D, Valverde L, Pino FJ, Patel MK. A review on the role, cost and value of [167] van Leeuwen RP, de Wit JB, Smit GJM. Review of urban energy transition in The
hydrogen energy systems for deep decarbonisation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Netherlands and the role of smart energy management. Energy Convers Manag
Mar. 2019;101:279–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2018.11.010. Oct. 2017;150:941–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2017.05.081.
[142] Niermann M, Timmerberg S, Drünert S, Kaltschmitt M. Liquid Organic Hydrogen [168] Kapustin NO, Grushevenko DA. Long-term electric vehicles outlook and their
Carriers and alternatives for international transport of renewable hydrogen. potential impact on electric grid. Energy Pol Feb. 2020;137:111103. https://doi.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev Jan. 2021;135:110171. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2019.111103.
RSER.2020.110171. [169] IEA. Smart grids – analysis - IEA paris. 2022. https://www.iea.org/reports/sm
[143] Raab M, Maier S, Dietrich RU. Comparative techno-economic assessment of a art-grids. [Accessed 17 January 2023].
large-scale hydrogen transport via liquid transport media. Int J Hydrogen Energy [170] Rödl A, Wulf C, Kaltschmitt M. Assessment of selected hydrogen supply
Mar. 2021;46(21):11956–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. chains—factors determining the overall GHG emissions. Hydrog. Supply Chain
IJHYDENE.2020.12.213. Des. Deploy. Oper. Jan. 2018:81–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
[144] Ratnakar RR, et al. Hydrogen supply chain and challenges in large-scale LH2 811197-0.00003-8.
storage and transportation. Int J Hydrogen Energy Jul. 2021;46(47):24149–68. [171] Philibert C. Direct and indirect electrification of industry and beyond. Oxf Rev
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2021.05.025. Econ Pol Apr. 2019;35(2):197–217. https://doi.org/10.1093/OXREP/GRZ006.
[145] Singh AK, Singh S, Kumar A. Hydrogen energy future with formic acid: a [172] Griffiths S, Sovacool BK, Kim J, Bazilian M, Uratani JM. Industrial
renewable chemical hydrogen storage system. Catal Sci Technol Dec. 2015;6(1): decarbonization via hydrogen: a critical and systematic review of developments,
12–40. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5CY01276G. socio-technical systems and policy options. Energy Res Social Sci Oct. 2021;80:
[146] Runge P, Sölch C, Albert J, Wasserscheid P, Zöttl G, Grimm V. Economic 102208. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2021.102208.
comparison of different electric fuels for energy scenarios in 2035. Appl Energy [173] IEA ETSAP. Electricity transmission and distribution. 2014.
Jan. 2019;233–234:1078–93. [174] Tashie-Lewis BC, Nnabuife SG. Hydrogen production, distribution, storage and
[147] Kim J-E, Zhang Y-HP. Use of carbohydrates for hydrogen storage. Compend. power conversion in a hydrogen economy - a technology review. Chem. Eng. J.
Hydrog. Energy Jan. 2016:219–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-362- Adv. Nov. 2021;8:100172. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJA.2021.100172.
1.00009-2. [175] Ajanovic A, Haas R. Prospects and impediments for hydrogen and fuel cell
[148] Nagpal M, Kakkar R. An evolving energy solution: intermediate hydrogen storage. vehicles in the transport sector. Int J Hydrogen Energy Mar. 2021;46(16):
Int J Hydrogen Energy Jul. 2018;43(27):12168–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. 10049–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2020.03.122.
IJHYDENE.2018.04.103. [176] Wilberforce T, et al. Developments of electric cars and fuel cell hydrogen electric
[149] Blanco H, Faaij A. A review at the role of storage in energy systems with a focus cars. Int J Hydrogen Energy Oct. 2017;42(40):25695–734. https://doi.org/
on Power to Gas and long-term storage. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Jan. 2018;81: 10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2017.07.054.
1049–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2017.07.062. [177] Çabukoglu E, Georges G, Küng L, Pareschi G, Boulouchos K. Fuel cell electric
[150] Rönsch S, et al. Review on methanation – from fundamentals to current projects. vehicles: an option to decarbonize heavy-duty transport? Results from a Swiss
Fuel Feb. 2016;166:276–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2015.10.111. case-study. Transport Res Transport Environ May 2019;70:35–48. https://doi.
[151] Schaaf T, Grünig J, Schuster MR, Rothenfluh T, Orth A. Methanation of CO2 - org/10.1016/J.TRD.2019.03.004.
storage of renewable energy in a gas distribution system. Energy, Sustain. Soc. [178] IEA. Global EV outlook 2020 – analysis - IEA. 2020. https://www.iea.org/report
Dec. 2014;4(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13705-014-0029-1. 2014 41. s/global-ev-outlook-2020. [Accessed 16 October 2021].
[152] Thema M, et al. Biological CO2-methanation: an approach to standardization. [179] Hou F, et al. Comprehensive analysis method of determining global long-term
Energies 2019;12:1670. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN12091670. vol. 12, no. 9, p. GHG mitigation potential of passenger battery electric vehicles. J Clean Prod Mar.
1670, May 2019. 2021;289:125137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125137.
[153] Calbry-Muzyka AS, Schildhauer TJ. Direct methanation of biogas—technical [180] Nadolny A, Cheng C, Lu B, Blakers A, Stocks M. Fully electrified land transport in
challenges and recent progress. Front Energy Res Dec. 2020;8:356. https://doi. 100% renewable electricity networks dominated by variable generation. Renew
org/10.3389/FENRG.2020.570887/BIBTEX. Energy Jan. 2022;182:562–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.10.039.
[154] Ye RP, et al. Enhanced stability of Ni/SiO2 catalyst for CO2 methanation: derived [181] Robinius M, et al. Comparative analysis of infrastructures: hydrogen fueling and
from nickel phyllosilicate with strong metal-support interactions. Energy Dec. electric charging of vehicles. 2018.
2019;188:116059. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2019.116059. [182] Apostolou D, Xydis G. A literature review on hydrogen refuelling stations and
[155] Vrijburg WL, et al. Efficient base-metal NiMn/TiO2 catalyst for CO2 methanation. infrastructure. Current status and future prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
ACS Catal Sep. 2019;9(9):7823–39. https://doi.org/10.1021/ Oct. 2019;113:109292. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2019.109292.
ACSCATAL.9B01968/SUPPL_FILE/CS9B01968_SI_001.PDF. [183] Wei M, McMillan CA, de la Rue du S. Can, “electrification of industry: potential,
[156] Frontera P, Macario A, Ferraro M, Antonucci P. Supported catalysts for CO2 challenges and outlook,”. Curr. Sustain. Energy Reports Dec. 2019;6(4):140–8.
methanation: a review. Catalysts 2017;7(2):59. https://doi.org/10.3390/ https://doi.org/10.1007/S40518-019-00136-1/TABLES/1.
catal7020059. [184] Juan Correa Laguna, Jan Duerinck, LastName FM-H, Valee Joris. Carbon-free
[157] Szuhaj M, et al. Conversion of H2 and CO2 to CH4 and acetate in fed-batch biogas steel production: cost reduction options and usage of existing gas infrastructure.
reactors by mixed biogas community: a novel route for the power-to-gas concept. Apr. 2021. https://doi.org/10.2861/01969.
Biotechnol Biofuels 2016;9(1):102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0515-0. [185] Nowakowski T, Giese A, Görner K. Power-to-gas and hydrogen admixture into the
[158] Robles JO, Almaraz SDL, Azzaro-Pantel C. Hydrogen as a pillar of the energy natural gas grids:impact on industrial firing systems. Ind. Combust. - J. Int. Flame
transition. Hydrog. Supply Chain Des. Deploy. Oper. Jan. 2018:3–35. https://doi. Res. Found. 2019:201616 [Online]. Available: www.ifrf.net.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811197-0.00001-4. [186] Ajanovic A, Haas R. Economic and environmental prospects for battery electric-
[159] Italiano C, Llorca J, Pino L, Ferraro M, Antonucci V, Vita A. CO and CO2 and fuel cell vehicles: a review. Fuel Cell Oct. 2019;19(5):515–29. https://doi.
methanation over Ni catalysts supported on CeO2, Al2O3 and Y2O3 oxides. Appl org/10.1002/FUCE.201800171.
Catal B Environ May 2020;264:118494. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. [187] Dincer I, Acar C. Innovation in hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy Jun.
APCATB.2019.118494. 2017;42(22):14843–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2017.04.107.
[160] Kalt G, Thunshirn P, Haberl H. A global inventory of electricity infrastructures [188] Zier M, Stenzel P, Kotzur L, Stolten D. A review of decarbonization options for the
from 1980 to 2017: country-level data on power plants, grids and transformers. glass industry. Energy Convers Manag X Jun. 2021;10:100083. https://doi.org/
Data Brief Oct. 2021;38:107351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.107351. 10.1016/J.ECMX.2021.100083.
[161] EIA. “Delivery to consumers - U.S. Energy information administration (EIA),” nov. [189] Berstad D, Gardarsdottir S, Roussanaly S, Voldsund M, Ishimoto Y, Nekså P.
03. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/delivery-to-consumers.php Liquid hydrogen as prospective energy carrier: a brief review and discussion of
. [Accessed 24 November 2021]. underlying assumptions applied in value chain analysis. Renew Sustain Energy
[162] Akinte OO, Aina TS, Akinte OO. “HVAC VS HVDC power system: contemporary Rev Feb. 2022;154:111772. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2021.111772.
development in HVAC and HVDC power transmission system digital signal [190] Ren J, Gao S, Tan S, Dong L. Hydrogen economy in China:
processing view project electrical engineering view project HVAC VS HVDC strengths–weaknesses–opportunities–threats analysis and strategies
power system: contemporary development in HVAC and HVDC power prioritization. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Jan. 2015;41:1230–43. https://doi.org/
transmissi,”. June, 2021 [Online]. Available: www.ijstr.org. 10.1016/J.RSER.2014.09.014.
[163] Kalair A, Abas N, Khan N. Comparative study of HVAC and HVDC transmission [191] Ren J, Gao S, Liang H, Tan S, Dong L. The role of hydrogen energy: strengths,
systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Jun. 2016;59:1653–75. https://doi.org/ weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Hydrog. Econ. Process. Supply Chain. Life
10.1016/J.RSER.2015.12.288. Cycle Anal. Energy Transit. Sustain. Jan. 2023:3–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[164] Semeraro MA. Renewable energy transport via hydrogen pipelines and HVDC B978-0-323-99514-6.00014-5.
transmission lines. Energy Strategy Rev May 2021;35:100658. https://doi.org/ [192] Zare K, Mehri-Tekmeh J, Karimi S. A SWOT framework for analyzing the
10.1016/J.ESR.2021.100658. electricity supply chain using an integrated AHP methodology combined with
[165] Moneta D. Smart grids: enabler for the energy transition. EPJ Web Conf Oct. fuzzy-TOPSIS. Int. Strateg. Manag. Rev. 2015;3(1–2):66–80. https://doi.org/
2018;189. https://doi.org/10.1051/EPJCONF/201818900012. 10.1016/j.ism.2015.07.001.
678

Comparative Review of Hydrogen and Electricity As Energy Carriers For The Energy Transition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative Review of Hydrogen and Electricity As Energy Carriers For The Energy Transition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative Review of Hydrogen and Electricity As Energy Carriers For The Energy Transition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 57 (2024) 660–678

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

Comparative review of hydrogen and electricity as energy carriers for the

integration and bottlenecks across each carrier’s production chain.

Fig. 3. Hydrogen versus electricity production chain.

3.1. Carrier production CO + H2 O → CO2 + H2 Eq. 2

PSH 169,557 65–85 0.1–5000 1000+ 0.5–1.5 0.01

Data source [82,132,134,138].

Fig. 7. Developmental stages of energy storage technologies.

Fig. 8. Power to gas process chains and their efficiencies.

You might also like