Next Article in Journal
LCA and C-LCC Indicator as Tools for Sodium-Ion Batteries’ Eco-Design
Previous Article in Journal
Electrostatic Field for Positive Lightning Impulse Breakdown Voltage in Sphere-to-Plane Air Gaps Using Machine Learning
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Green Hydrogen: Resources Consumption, Technological Maturity, and Regulatory Framework

Research Centre on Technology, Energy and Sustainability (CITES), Campus La Rábida, University of Huelva, Avenida de las Artes, 21007 Huelva, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2023, 16(17), 6222; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176222
Submission received: 31 July 2023 / Revised: 18 August 2023 / Accepted: 22 August 2023 / Published: 27 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section A5: Hydrogen Energy)

Abstract

:
Current climate crisis makes the need for reducing carbon emissions more than evident. For this reason, renewable energy sources are expected to play a fundamental role. However, these sources are not controllable, but depend on the weather conditions. Therefore, green hydrogen (hydrogen produced from water electrolysis using renewable energies) is emerging as the key energy carrier to solve this problem. Although different properties of hydrogen have been widely studied, some key aspects such as the water and energy footprint, as well as the technological development and the regulatory framework of green hydrogen in different parts of the world have not been analysed in depth. This work performs a data-driven analysis of these three pillars: water and energy footprint, technological maturity, and regulatory framework of green hydrogen technology. Results will allow the evaluation of green hydrogen deployment, both the current situation and expectations. Regarding the water footprint, this is lower than that of other fossil fuels and competitive with other types of hydrogen, while the energy footprint is higher than that of other fuels. Additionally, results show that technological and regulatory framework for hydrogen is not fully developed and there is a great inequality in green hydrogen legislation in different regions of the world.

1. Introduction: Scientific Background and Related Works

The climate emergency highlights the need to reduce carbon emissions in accordance with the commitments of the 2015 Paris Agreement [1] and to look for an alternative to fossil fuels [2,3]. In that sense, the implementation of systems based on renewable energy sources (RES) is essential to achieve this goal. However, the energy generation from RES (such as wind or solar energy) is not constant, but rather stochastic, so energy storage systems are required when renewable production is higher than energy demand and then use this stored energy when needed [4,5]. Then, the use of green hydrogen (produced from water and renewable sources) as energy carrier makes sense [4]. Furthermore, as a result of its high potential and chemical properties, hydrogen is expected to be a leading energy carrier and is considered to be decisive in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping to avoid raising the Earth’s temperature above 1.5 °C [1,6,7].
Among the more than well-known properties that make hydrogen the most ideal candidate for decarbonising both the economy and the industry, the possibility of using hydrogen as a long-term storage option [8,9,10], thanks to its high lower heating value (LHV), which is 33.36 kWh/kg (much higher than that of the rest of fossil fuels) [8,9], can be highlighted. Hydrogen is a clean option, since it does not emit carbon dioxide during combustion. Moreover, in the case of green hydrogen, it is also sustainable, because it is obtained via renewable powered electrolysis [11,12,13,14].
The scientific literature has demonstrated that hydrogen has the chemical properties which make it the ideal candidate to be considered the fuel of the future [8,9,10] and that green hydrogen has well-known environmental benefits [11,12,13]. Now, it is time to evaluate green hydrogen from other points of view that help to understand the possibilities for large-scale deployment. Thus, resources consumption footprint, technology readiness level (TRL), and regulatory framework are three pillars that, properly analysed, will allow defining the necessary path that will lead to the correct and appropriate deployment of green hydrogen technology.
Different studies can be found in which the mentioned different aspects such as the hydrogen water footprint are considered: in [15], the water footprint of hydrogen obtained via steam methane reforming (SMR), glycerol reforming, and bioethanol reforming is presented; in [16], the water footprint of hydrogen obtained thanks to the conversion of municipal sludge into hydrogen by plasma gasification is calculated; in [17], the water footprint associated with hydrogen produced via water electrolysis with an energy input from the main grid on the one hand, from photovoltaic energy on the other hand, and finally from wind energy, is calculated for the case of Australia; while in [18], the water footprint associated with the different hydrogen production technologies, as well as the water footprint associated with different hydrogen production pathways are presented, and [19] explains that a green hydrogen economy would have lower water requirements than the current fossil fuel energy-based economy. However, in the analysed literature, no comparison of the water footprint of the different hydrogen production pathways with the water footprint associated with other energy sources, such as nuclear energy, oil, coal, etc. has been found.
On the other hand, regarding the energy footprint of hydrogen, in [18,20], the energy footprint of hydrogen production by different process (such as steam and methane reforming, water electrolysis, or biomass gasification, among others) is presented, while [21,22] present the energy footprint of different water electrolysis technologies. However, no comparison of the hydrogen energy footprint with the energy footprint of fossil fuels per unit of energy contained in the respective fuel, or what is equivalently called the inverse of the energy return on investment, EROI, for example, is found in the analysed literature.
From the point of view of the technological development of the different hydrogen technologies, various papers have made a study of the TRL of hydrogen production technologies (such as hydrogen obtained through SMR, water electrolysis, methane pyrolysis, etc.) [7,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Regarding storage and distribution, a study of the TRL of the different hydrogen storage technologies (metal hydrides storage, compressed hydrogen, liquid hydrogen, metal-organic frameworks, liquid organic hydrogen carriers, etc.) [28,29,30,31,32,33], and a study of the TRL of the hydrogen distribution process (which is carried out in the pipelines) [33], are presented. Moreover, it is possible to find studies which analyse the final uses that can be given to hydrogen (i.e., the iron and steel industry, the ammonia or methanol production, the use of hydrogen in refineries, in polymer exchange membrane fuel cells (PEM-FC), in solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC), etc.) from a TRL point of view [34,35,36]. However, none of the references consulted makes a study on the TRL including all the hydrogen technologies at each and every stage of the hydrogen supply chain, i.e., production, storage, distribution, and end use of hydrogen; moreover, in this last stage, almost no study explicitly analyses the TRL [37].
The last pillar to analyse is the regulatory framework from the point of view of guarantees of origin (GO). Papers [38,39] study the formal definitions of green hydrogen that can be found in the literature as well as the GOs that are being developed around the world based on the formal definitions under development, while [40] proposes a model to determine the so-called Hydrogen Cleanness Index (HCI), which can be considered for GO schemes. Furthermore, regarding GO certifications, there are already projects such as the Certifhy project, which has already proposed a European-wide GO to distinguish between low-carbon and renewable hydrogen [38,41]. However, among the references consulted, only [38] studies the state of the art of GO certifications around the world; nevertheless, this reference does not consider the current legal status of green hydrogen in different parts of the world, which is essential to later establish the GO certifications; in addition, only [39] partially studies green hydrogen regulation in the different National Hydrogen Strategies, giving green hydrogen definitions in the respective legislation when possible.
In summary, the authors’ proposal presents a detailed analysis of the three key pillars upon which hydrogen technology is supported: resources consumption, technological development, and regulatory framework. For this purpose, Section 2 analyses the water footprint of green hydrogen, giving a practical example based on a real microgrid located at the “La Rábida Campus”, University of Huelva (UHU), Spain, and comparing it with the water footprint of other types of hydrogen (i.e., hydrogen obtained by different chemical processes and/or with an energy input that comes from other energy sources).
Next, a study of the energy footprint of green hydrogen is conducted in Section 3, comparing it with that of other types of hydrogen and other fossil fuels (comparing the energy required to obtain that fuel per unit of energy contained in the respective fuel). Afterwards, a study of the TRLs of hydrogen technologies covering the entire hydrogen supply chain (i.e., production, storage, distribution, and final application) is made in Section 4. The legal status of green hydrogen in different parts of the world and, when applicable, the requirements needed to obtain a GO for green hydrogen are discussed in Section 5. The paper ends with the Discussions and Conclusions in Section 6 and Section 7, respectively.
Table 1 emphasises the main novelties of this paper, compared to the analysed scientific literature.

2. Green Hydrogen Water Footprint

Atomic hydrogen, which is the most abundant element in the universe [42,43], cannot be found as a pure element on Earth. However, it can be found combined with other elements [44] (for example, oxygen, forming water, nitrogen, forming ammonia, or carbon, forming methane or other hydrocarbons). Depending on the chemical process carried out to extract the hydrogen and the type of energy used in the process, the hydrogen molecule can be classified into different categories labelled with different colours. These colours indicate, from green to black, the highest to lowest degree of renewability, respectively, of the process [45,46,47], Table 2.
Among the different types of hydrogen that have been previously seen, green hydrogen (the only one that is obtained via renewable powered electrolysis), is produced from water. In this process, water molecule is separated into hydrogen and oxygen, Equation (1) [17,47]:
H 2 O H 2 + 1 2 O 2
From a simple operation, and taking into account the molar ratio to obtain hydrogen and oxygen from water, the molar mass of each molecule, and the volumetric density of water, the amount of water needed to produce 1 kg of hydrogen can be obtained from Equation (2).
1   k g   H 2 · 1   m o l   H 2 0.002   k g   H 2 · 1   m o l   H 2 O 1   m o l   H 2 · 0.018   k g   H 2 O 1   m o l   H 2 O · 1   L   H 2 O 1   k g   H 2 O = 9   L   H 2 O
Although theoretically only 9 litres of water are needed to obtain 1 kg of hydrogen, in practice, this rate is higher for the different water electrolysis technologies. This is due [48] to the need of a cooling load in the electrolysers (which may require up to 30–40 L of additional water per kg of hydrogen), as well as the associated water treatments, which imply a higher water usage. On the other hand, the water consumption to produce 1 kg of hydrogen is very different between the analysed studies and the commercially available electrolysers that provide water consumption data. For example, [18] estimates the water consumption at 18 L of water per kg of hydrogen produced for polymer exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysers and 9.1 L of water per kg of hydrogen produced for solid oxide electrolysers, while Siemens-Energy [49] claims that their PEM electrolyser (Silyzer 300) has a consumption of 10 L of water per kg of hydrogen produced and SinoHy Energy [50] claims that their alkaline electrolyser has a consumption of 10.1 L of water per kg of hydrogen produced (however, all of these rates are far below the study in [48], which puts the amount of water consumed in an electrolyser at 60–95 L of water per kg of hydrogen produced). Regarding the green hydrogen generation water footprint (i.e., considering the whole process of using renewable energy to produce hydrogen), [51] estimates the green hydrogen water footprint at 13.4 L of water per kg of green hydrogen produced via wind-powered electrolysis at a central electrolysis plant located in the US, while the study carried out in [17] estimates, in the case of Australia, a water footprint of 43 L of water per kg of green hydrogen produced via solar-powered electrolysis and a water footprint of 17 L of water per kg of green hydrogen produced via wind-powered electrolysis (this rate is considerably lower than the water footprint of hydrogen produced via grid-mix powered electrolysis, which is estimated to be 129 L of water per kg of hydrogen produced).
Due to this disparity of data and criteria, the authors present a real practical case to study the water footprint of green hydrogen produced in a microgrid. The microgrid is located at the “La Rábida Campus”, University of Huelva, Spain. Based on [52], it is known that the global average water footprint of PV energy is 0–0.11 L of water per kWh (during the operational stage); however, this rate is subjected to wide variations depending on the location. To know the water footprint of PV energy in the region under consideration, firstly, the total amount of water needed in the world (so that PV plants can operate) can be estimated. For that purpose, the total amount of energy produced worldwide by PV energy is needed to be known before that of the total PV power installed worldwide. As the IRENA data show [53], this date is known to be 830,741 GWh for the year 2020, while the total PV power installed by the end of 2020 reached 710 GW globally. Assuming a lifetime of the photovoltaic panels of 25 to 30 years [54,55], the water footprint of PV power (during the whole lifetime of the panel) can be estimated, see Equation (3):
W F P V L   H 2 O k W = W F P V   w o r l d L   H 2 O k W h · E a . P V   w o r l d · T P V   p a n e l P P V   w o r l d W F P V L   H 2 O k W = 0 0.11 L   H 2 O k W h · 830741 G W h y e a r · 10 6 k W h 1 G W h · 25 30   y e a r s p a n e l 710   G W · 10 6 k W 1   G W W F P V L   H 2 O k W 0 3861 L   H 2 O k W
where
W F P V L   H 2 O k W : water footprint of PV power.
W F P V   w o r l d L   H 2 O k W h : water footprint of PV energy worldwide (0–0.11 L H2O/kWh).
E a .   P V   w o r l d : PV energy generated annually worldwide (830741·106 kWh/year).
T P V   p a n e l : average lifetime of a PV panel (25–30 years/panel).
P P V   w o r l d : total PV power installed worldwide (710·106 kW).
Taking this into account, now the water footprint of PV energy per kWh (during the whole lifetime of a PV panel) will be studied for the case of PV panels located at the renewable-based microgrid at the “La Rábida Campus” of the University of Huelva. For this purpose, the water footprint of PV power will be considered equal regardless of geographical location, but not the water footprint of PV energy, which will depend on the amount of energy produced by a panel of a given power, i.e., the water footprint of PV energy will be implicitly determined by the geographical location). From previous works [9], for the renewable-based microgrid located at Huelva, containing 15 kW of PV power (5 kW of mono-Si, 5 kW of poly-Si, and 5 kW of thin film technology), the energy generated during a whole year will be 22,590 kWh, see Figure 1.
With all this information, the water footprint of PV energy (L H2O/kWh) for the studied case can be calculated, see Equation (4):
W F P V H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W h = P P V · W F P V L   H 2 O k W E a .   P V   m i c r o g r i d · T P V   p a n e l W F P V H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W = 15   k W · 0 3861 L   H 2 O k W · 1   y e a r 22590   k W h · 1   p a n e l 25 30   y e a r s W F P V H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W 0 0.1 L   H 2 O k W h
where
W F P V H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W h : water footprint of PV energy in the “La Rábida Campus” (Huelva).
P P V : PV power installed in the considered location (15 kW).
E a .   P V   m i c r o g r i d : PV energy generated annually in the studied microgrid (22590 kWh).
That is, the water footprint of PV energy in Huelva is slightly lower than the global average water footprint for PV energy [52].
In case the renewable resource for producing hydrogen from electrolysis is wind energy, during the operational stage, its water footprint [52] is estimated to be 0 L/kWh for the case of the European Union; however, this rate rises to 0.64 L/kWh [52] over the life cycle of wind energy in the case of China. This takes into account that, according to Reuters [56], the wind power generation in China for the year 2022 was about 800 TWh, while the total installed wind power capacity was 278.353 GW as of January 2023. As the lifetime of a wind turbine is estimated to be around 20 years [57,58], then the water footprint of wind power (during the whole lifetime of a wind turbine, considering that the water footprint of wind power is, regardless of its location, similar to the water footprint of PV power) can be obtained, see Equation (5):
W F w i n d L   H 2 O k W = W F w i n d   C h i n a L   H 2 O k W h · E a .   w i n d   C h i n a · T W T P w i n d   C h i n a W F w i n d L   H 2 O k W = 0 0.64   L   H 2 O k W h · 800 T W h y e a r · 10 9 k W h 1   T W h · 20   y e a r s w i n d   t u r b i n e 278.353   G W · 10 6 k W 1   G W W F w i n d L   H 2 O k W 0 36788 L   H 2 O k W
where
W F w i n d L   H 2 O k W : water footprint of wind power.
W F w i n d C h i n a L   H 2 O k W h : water footprint of wind energy in China (0–0.64 L H2O/kWh).
E a . w i n d C h i n a : wind energy generated annually in China (800·109 kWh/year).
T W T : average lifetime of a wind turbine (20 years/wind turbine).
P w i n d C h i n a : total wind power installed in China (278.353·106 kW).
With this information, the water footprint of wind energy for the case of a wind turbine located at the “La Rábida Campus” of the University of Huelva can now be calculated. For this purpose, the annual wind energy generation needs to be known. From previous works [9], for a 3.4 kW wind turbine located at the aforementioned place, the annual energy generation result is 1087 kWh, see Figure 2.
Then, the water footprint (L H2O/kWh) of wind energy for the studied case can be calculated thanks to Equation (6):
W F w i n d H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W h = P w i n d · W F w i n d L   H 2 O k W E a .   w i n d   m i c r o g r i d · T W T W F w i n d H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W h = 3.4   k W · 0 36788 L   H 2 O k W · 1   y e a r 1087   k W h · 1   t u r b i n e 20   y e a r s W F w i n d H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W h 0 5.75 L   H 2 O k W h
where
W F w i n d H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W h : water footprint of wind energy in “La Rábida Campus” (Huelva).
P w i n d : wind power in the considered location (3.4 kW).
E a .   w i n d   m i c r o g r i d : wind energy generated annually in the studied microgrid (1087 kWh).
As result of the low wind energy production at the “La Rábida Campus”, the water footprint of wind energy in this location is much higher than that of China. On the other hand, since the energy footprint of hydrogen obtained via water electrolysis (this will be further studied in the next section) is 36.14–54.6 kWh/kg [18], the water footprint of green hydrogen for the case studied will now be calculated for three cases: green hydrogen produced via solar-powered electrolysis, green hydrogen produced via wind-powered electrolysis, and green hydrogen produced via wind- and solar-powered electrolysis. For the first case, the water footprint will be shown in Equation (7):
W F H u e l v a   H 2   s o l a r = W F e l e c t r o l y s e r + E e l e c t r o l y s i s · W F P V   H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W h W F H u e l v a   H 2   s o l a r = 9.1 18 L   H 2 O k g H 2 + 0 0.10 L   H 2 O k W h · 36.14 54.6 k W h k g H 2 W F H u e l v a   H 2   s o l a r = 9.1 23.46 L   H 2 O k g H 2
where
W F H u e l v a   H 2 s o l a r : water footprint of green hydrogen produced via solar energy in Huelva (L H2O/kg H2).
E e l e c t r o l y s i s : energy required in the electrolyser so that the electrolysis takes place (36.14–54.6 kWh/kg H2).
W F e l e c t r o l y s e r : water footprint of an electrolyser (9.1–18 L H2O/kg H2).
On the other hand, for the case of hydrogen obtained via wind-powered electrolysis at the “La Rábida Campus”, the water footprint will be shown in Equation (8):
W F H u e l v a   H 2   w i n d = W F e l e c t r o l y s e r + E e l e c t r o l y s i s · W F w i n d   H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W h W F H u e l v a   H 2 w i n d = 9.1 18 L   H 2 O k g H 2 + 0 5.75 L   H 2 O k W h · 36.14 54.6 k W h k g H 2 W F H u e l v a   H 2 w i n d = 9.1 331.95 L   H 2 O k g H 2
where
W F H u e l v a   H 2   w i n d : water footprint of green hydrogen produced via wind energy in Huelva (L H2O/kg H2).
Finally, for the case of green hydrogen obtained via solar- and wind-powered electrolysis at the aforementioned place, taking into account that the renewable-based microgrid placed there produces 22,590 kWh and 1087 kWh of solar and wind energy, respectively, the water footprint will be shown in Equation (9):
W F H u e l v a   g r .   H 2 = W F H u e l v a   H 2   s o l a r · E a . P V   m i c r o g r i d E a .   P V   m i c r o g r i d + E a . w i n d   m i c r o g r i d + W F H u e l v a   H 2   w i n d · E a . w i n d   m i c r o g r i d E a . P V   m i c r o g r i d + E a . w i n d   m i c r o g r i d W F H u e l v a   g r .   H 2 = 9.1 37.6 L   H 2 O k g H 2
where
W F H u e l v a   g r .   H 2 : water footprint of green hydrogen produced in Huelva (L H2O/kg H2).
To put into context the water footprint of green hydrogen, Table 3 shows a comparison of the water footprint (WF) of different types of hydrogen.
Finally, if the LHV of hydrogen (33.36 kWh/kg) is taken into account [8,9], the water footprint of hydrogen per energy unit can be estimated, so that it can be compared with that of other fossil fuels and that of nuclear energy thanks to the data found in the analysed literature [59], see Table 4.

3. Green Hydrogen Energy Footprint

To obtain hydrogen from the raw materials, an energy input is necessary. In the case of green hydrogen, the energy footprint will be determined by the energy consumption that will take place in the water electrolysis process. To separate hydrogen from oxygen in the water molecule, it is necessary [47,61,62,63] to supply an energy equal to the enthalpy of formation of water (which is 284–286 kJ/mol [62], 285.84 kJ/mol [61]). However, it is not necessary to supply that amount of energy in the form of electricity; in fact, the minimum amount of energy of the enthalpy of formation of water that has to be applied as electrical energy is the free energy of reaction (Gibbs free energy) [63], which is related to the enthalpy of formation through Equation (10) [62,63]:
Δ G = Δ H T Δ S
where
Δ G : Gibbs free energy (kJ/mol).
Δ H : enthalpy of formation (kJ/mol).
T : temperature (K).
Δ S : entropy (kJ/(mol·K)).
On the other hand, Δ G can be obtained thanks to Equation (11) [61,62,64]:
Δ G = z F U 0
where
z : number of electrons converted per H2 molecule (z = 2).
F : Faraday constant (96485 C/mol).
U 0 : standard equilibrium voltage of the water electrolysis cell ( U 0 = 1.229   V ) .
Gibbs free energy for the splitting of water into oxygen and hydrogen is Δ G = 237.2   k J / m o l [47,61]. The rest of the energy needed for (1) to take place is taken from the environment in the form of heat (i.e., the term T Δ S , which is 48.6 kJ/mol [47]). In summary, for water electrolysis, at least 237.2 kJ/mol of electrical energy or, equivalently, 2.94 kWh/Nm3 H2 are required [63,64]. For this reason, although different references [21,65,66] claim that the energy consumption of the solid oxide electrolyser (which is a promising electrolysis technology) is 2.5–3.5 kWh/Nm3 H2, the minimum value within this range that will be considered valid in this paper is 2.94 kWh/Nm3 H2. Taking this into account, Table 5 shows the information corresponding to the energy consumption to produce 1 Nm3 of hydrogen according to the electrolysis technology used: i.e., alkaline water electrolysis (AWE), polymer exchange membrane water electrolysis (PEM-WE), solid oxide water electrolysis (SO-WE), or anion exchange membrane water electrolysis (AEM-WE).
On the other hand, the energy footprint of water electrolysis technologies can be compared to the energy footprint of other hydrogen production routes, as shown in Table 6.
However, these data need to be put in context with the energy footprint associated with other energy compounds, such as that of some fossil fuels. Thus, Table 7 shows a comparison of the energy footprint of different fuels in terms of energy required to obtain 1 kg of fuel (in kWh) per energy contained in 1 kg of the corresponding fuel (also expressed in kWh).
Finally, Figure 3 provides a comparative chart of water and energy footprint of green hydrogen, with other types of hydrogen (i.e., that produced via different hydrogen production pathways) and other fuels.

4. TRL of Hydrogen Technologies

In the hydrogen supply chain, the next steps after production are storage, transport and distribution, to drive hydrogen to its final use [80,81]. However, different hydrogen supply chains including different hydrogen technologies can be found [82,83]. On the other hand, not all hydrogen technologies used in the hydrogen supply chain have the same level of maturity. Thus, the technology readiness level (TRL) measures the degree of maturity of a technology [84]. Although the original definition of TRL [84] involved seven stages of development, the current one (which has been adopted by NASA and the European Union) has nine levels, which are explained in more detail in Table 8.
As previously said, not all hydrogen technologies have the same level of maturity, i.e., they will not have the same TRL. Furthermore, at each of the different stages of the hydrogen supply chain, different technologies (with different TRLs) can be found. For example, for the hydrogen production process, several techniques (with different levels of maturity) [85,86] can be found: from fossil fuels (which can be coupled with a carbon capture process), for example, from coal gasification, steam and natural gas reforming, light oil conversion to hydrogen, heavy oil oxidation to hydrogen, etc.; from water electrolysis, in which the alkaline electrolysis and the PEM electrolysis technologies can be highlighted; or from biomass, which allows hydrogen to be obtained from biological methods (water photolysis, photo-fermentation or dark-fermentation, among others) or from chemical methods (biomass gasification, pyrolysis reforming, among others). Among the different hydrogen production technologies available, water electrolysis technologies are those used for the production of green hydrogen (which is discussed in depth throughout this manuscript). However, these technologies present risks that need to be taken into account, such as gas cross-permeation effects. These effects are so important that they may create an explosive atmosphere. In addition to the above, the corrosive environment created in the electrolyte, which can be acidic or basic depending on the electrolysis technology, must also be taken into account [87]. Table 9 provides the TRLs of different hydrogen production technologies.
Regarding hydrogen storage technology, due to the low volumetric density and energy density of hydrogen at normal conditions of pressure and temperature, 0.0899 g/L [102,103] and 0.003 kWh/L [103], respectively, the hydrogen storage techniques focus on increasing these two aspects. Among these techniques, compressed hydrogen storage, liquid hydrogen storage, metal hydrides storage, physisorption, complex hydrides, cryocompressed hydrogen storage, or liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC) technologies can be highlighted [102,103]. As each of these techniques have different levels of maturity (i.e., they will present different TRLs), Table 10 presents the TRLs of different hydrogen storage technologies (although TRLs higher than 9 have been found in some references [99,104], these TRLs have been considered to be 9 in this paper).
Following with the hydrogen supply chain, except in the case of hydrogen-based renewable microgrids, where the point of hydrogen production and consumption is at the same location [9,107], these two points are generally located at different sites. For this reason, hydrogen (once stored) needs to be transported and distributed. Thus, hydrogen distribution technologies (HDT) can be found to have a TRL of 9 [33], 4–9 [88]. Once hydrogen has been distributed (if necessary), it is time to put it to a final use, which can be achieved by converting the chemical energy of hydrogen into electrical energy via fuel cell or into mechanical energy via internal combustion engine [108], for example. As the different technologies that are used in the final step of the hydrogen supply chain (i.e., hydrogen final use) have a different level of maturity, Table 11 presents an estimation of the TRLs (based on the information provided by the analysed literature for the respective technologies, because few studies analyse explicitly the TRLs of hydrogen final use technologies [37]).
Finally, Figure 4 illustrates a graphic comparison of the TRLs of the different stages of the hydrogen supply chain.

5. Green Hydrogen Regulatory Framework: Global Legislation and Guarantees of Origin (GO)

Until now, only technical and technological aspects regarding green hydrogen have been seen. However, how can it be assured that the hydrogen that will be sold in the future is green hydrogen or grey hydrogen “coated in green”? For this purpose, it is necessary to develop a legal framework which involves green hydrogen, so that certifications that guarantee that the sold hydrogen is green hydrogen can be issued. For this reason, although the energy industry is developing standards so that guarantees of origin (GO) certificates can be created, in order to ensure the consumers that the hydrogen they are buying is low-carbon hydrogen or it is obtained thanks to renewable energies [38], it is necessary to implement a sound legislation that defines what is green/clean hydrogen (so GOs certifications can be issued on this basis). Thus, different countries around the world, some of which will be studied next, are developing initiatives to characterise green hydrogen [38,39].
(1)
Spain
Regarding the case of Spain, according to article 2.22 of Royal Decree 376/2022, of 17 May 2022, green hydrogen is the one that comes from renewable energies [128]; for the hydrogen to be considered as green hydrogen, its producer needs to be registered in the registry of facilities for the production of gas from renewable energy sources (according to article 19.1 of Royal Decree, RD, 376/2022 [128,129]). This registry will be included in the system of guarantees of origin (GOs) which, in turn, will ensure that the gas is produced from RES [129]. Furthermore, to issue the GOs, according to Order TED/1026/2022, of 28 October 2022 [128,130], the production of renewable gases must derive from a direct production of these gases (i.e., they must come from any source of renewable energy produced on site and not from the consumption of another form of energy, except for auxiliary consumption) or from the conversion of these gases, which is what will take place when they come from any other form of renewable energy (without considering auxiliary consumption) whose renewable character will be accredited by GOs. In the Spanish legislation, RES include [128,131] wind, solar, aerothermal, geothermal, hydrothermal, wave, tidal, hot and dry rock, ocean thermal, ocean current energy, hydroelectric, biomass, biofuel, bioliquid, and biogas in accordance with Section Two b. of Circular 1/2018, of 18 April 2018, of the National Commission of Markets and Competition (CNMV).
(2)
European Union (EU)
Regarding the legislation of green hydrogen in the European Union (EU), which prevails over that of each country [132], it establishes in its RE Directive II that electricity used to produce green hydrogen can only be considered renewable if the energy used for the electrolysis process to take place is produced on site, or if the manufacturer can provide enough evidence to demonstrate that the hydrogen has been produced with RES [133], i.e., it establishes standards for certifications of guarantees of origin of hydrogen [134]. This directive is part of the so-called European Green Deal [135,136], presented by the European Commission in December 2019, a European growth strategy that foresees the study, development, and implementation of associated low-carbon technologies. It also envisages the creation of so-called green jobs, as well as achieving climate neutrality by 2050, eliminating pollution and achieving a just and inclusive transition for all citizens. The European Green Deal makes hydrogen one of the main pillars of the economy of the future and key to decarbonisation of industry.
Once the legal framework of green hydrogen has been established, it is possible to issue GOs certifications. Thus, different initiatives aim to create certificates of hydrogen guarantees of origin in different parts of the world; among them, the Certifhy project “Designing the 1st EU-wide Guarantee of Origin (GO) scheme for Green Hydrogen” [137] has issued more than 75,000 green hydrogen and low-carbon hydrogen certificates across the EU. Although Certifhy does not define the standards of green hydrogen and, in fact, it also certifies blue hydrogen [138], its objective is to issue certificates for hydrogen beyond Europe in the future [139].
(3)
United States (US)
Outside the European Union, states like California (in the US) have a certification, Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which is included in the California Code of Regulation, Title 17 [140], in which green hydrogen can be included [38,141] (furthermore, the states of Oregon and Washington have recently established the LCFS certification, and the states of Colorado, New York, New Mexico, and Minnesota are considering implementing this certification [142]). In addition, the US has already developed a legal framework for clean hydrogen, in its Public Law 117-58-Nov.15, 2021 [143], in which clean hydrogen is defined as hydrogen produced with a carbon intensity equal to or less than 2 kg of carbon dioxide per kilogram of hydrogen produced.
(4)
Australia
In other countries outside the European Union, like Australia, the Australian Energy Council (AEC) is recommending the implementation of a formal GO scheme in the mentioned country (which should focus only on the emissions created in the production of hydrogen) and supports the appointment of the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) as responsible for administering and overseeing the GO scheme [144].
(5)
United Kingdom (UK)
In the UK, the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy [145] has committed (by December 2022) to setting up a hydrogen certification scheme by 2025 to guarantee the quality and origin of British hydrogen and to guarantee that imported hydrogen meets the British high quality standards.
(6)
Japan
In Japan, despite being considered one of the countries with the most ambitious hydrogen strategies, a modernised regulation in relation to hydrogen has not been developed yet [146,147]. However, the Japanese government is aware of the importance of a new regulation concerning hydrogen, in which different aspects such as technical standards or guarantees of origin could be taken into account [146]. In fact, they plan to establish new legislation, in which the exclusion of businesses that handle hydrogen produced through non-environmentally friendly methods will be included [148,149].
(7)
Canada
Similarly to Japan, Canada’s Ministry of Natural Resources [150] is aware of the need for a regulatory framework including hydrogen and plans to implement consistent policies across the different regions of the country. Currently, the only regulations in which hydrogen could be included are low-carbon fuel regulations, including renewable gas mandates in natural gas networks and carbon pollution pricing.
(8)
China
Regarding the case of China, in its Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China and the Long-Range Goals for 2035 [151], hydrogen is recognised as a future industry; while in its 14th Five-Year Plan of Modern Energy System [152], the innovation of hydrogen technologies (mentioning hydrogen can be used as a way to store renewable energy) is encouraged. On the other hand, in its 14th Five-Year Plan of Renewable Energy Development [153], it is mentioned that where the cost of renewable electricity is low, renewable hydrogen production is planned (so it could replace the fossil fuel industry). However, the Chinese government has not implemented a legislation on green hydrogen yet.
(9)
Brazil
An other relevant case which can be mentioned is Brazil [154], which has created the Brazilian National Hydrogen Program-PNH2 to encourage the development of the local hydrogen industry and has developed two Bills of Law, which are currently in process, to regulate hydrogen in Brazil: Bill of Law 725/2022, which establishes mechanisms to insert hydrogen into the national energy sector, defines sustainable hydrogen as the one produced from solar, wind, biomass, biogas, or hydraulic resources. It allows the National Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) to regulate the activities in the hydrogen chain and sets a mandatory blending of hydrogen in natural gas transportation pipelines of 5% by 2032 (which, in turn, would contain at least 60% of sustainable hydrogen) and 10% by 2050 (at least 80% of which would be composed of sustainable hydrogen). Additionally, Bill of Law No 1878/2022 establishes that the ANP would be responsible for regulating the activity of green hydrogen chain and for issuing the licenses for green hydrogen production (i.e., called differently, GOs certifications).
(10)
India
The government of India is making serious efforts to integrate green hydrogen and to establish a regulatory framework that complies with international standards. Thus, for 2022–2023, [155], regulation and standards will begin to be established in order to let this sector grow (and to allow pilot projects to be approved) and for 2023–2024, relevant international standards (the global green hydrogen standards can be seen in more detail in [156]) will be adopted in order to certify that green hydrogen has been produced through RES.
(11)
South Africa
South Africa [157] desires to be a major producer and exporter of green hydrogen, expecting to capture 4% of global market share by 2050. The South African government is collaborating with the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) to promote green hydrogen production in South Africa with the purpose of establishing a regulatory framework.
Once the legislation concerning clean/green hydrogen in the different countries has been studied, in order to synthesise the regulations of the different parts of the world, Table 12 summarises this information and Figure 5 presents, in a world map, the current legal status of hydrogen in the different parts of the world previously analysed.

6. Discussion

As a result of the structure of this paper, this section will be divided into the different topics which have been previously analysed through this paper.
(a)
Green hydrogen water footprint
Based on the analysed literature, the water footprint of green hydrogen is similar to other types of hydrogen like hydrogen obtained from SMR (the most common method for hydrogen production [158]), and much lower than that of other types of hydrogen (like the hydrogen obtained via BG), but higher than other methods of obtaining hydrogen less sustainable like CG. However, a comparison of the water footprint of green hydrogen and other fuels (both fossil fuels and nuclear energy) shows that green hydrogen, on average, has a significantly lower water footprint than other fuels (both fossil fuels and nuclear energy).
(b)
Green hydrogen energy footprint
It can be observed that the energy footprint of green hydrogen is much higher than that of other types of hydrogen (in terms of energy needed to obtain a kilogram of hydrogen) and even much higher than the energy footprint of fossil fuels such as coal or oil (in terms of the energy required to extract a certain amount of energy contained within the respective fuel). However, it must be noticed that hydrogen is an energy vector, i.e., a device which stores energy to be transported and used at a later stage [159]. For this reason, it is more accurate to compare green hydrogen with other energy storage systems. However, for this purpose, it is necessary to consider not only the energy needed to produce green hydrogen per unit of energy contained in the hydrogen fuel produced (1.2–2.5 kWhprod./kg H2), but also the efficiency of the hydrogen final use technology. Thus, considering a PEM fuel cell with an efficiency of 55% [160] (and disregarding losses associated with hydrogen storage and distribution), the energy consumption per unit of final useful energy (i.e., the ratio of the energy entering the ESS to the energy leaving the ESS) of different energy storage systems (ESS) is computed in Table 13.
(c)
TRL of hydrogen technologies
According to the hydrogen supply chain analysed, it can be observed that the main difference in the TRLs is not between the different stages of the hydrogen supply chain, but within the steps themselves. Very different TRLs are observed, due to the difference in the maturity of the technology. For example, the alkaline electrolysis technology has a TRL much higher than the TRL of an AEM electrolyser. The same goes for storage and distribution options and for final use technologies.
(d)
Green hydrogen current global legislation and GOs certificates
Based on the current legislation of green hydrogen that has been studied, as well as the certification of GOs, a huge legal inequality in different countries or regions can be found. Thus, in the case of Europe, there is a robust and well-defined legislation and a legal framework on which to establish requirements for issuing GOs. On the other hand, although other countries such as the US have legislation for clean hydrogen and a standard for low-carbon fuels in some of their states, the degree of development and implementation is lower than in Europe. In fact, the carbon footprint per unit of energy (taking into account the LHV of hydrogen) up to which hydrogen can be considered clean in the US is 0.06 kg CO2/kWh. This figure is lower than the carbon footprint of coal (0.31–0.35 kg CO2/kWh [163]), carbon footprint of natural gas (0.18 kg CO2/kWh [163]), carbon footprint of petroleum (0.21–0.27 kg CO2/kWh [163]), or hydrogen obtained via steam and methane reforming and via coal gasification, which are 0.27 and 0.6 kg CO2/kWh [164], respectively. But it is higher than the carbon footprint of nuclear energy (on average, 0.012 kg CO2/kWh [164]) and that expected for electricity production in 2050 (0.01–0.02 kg CO2/kWh [164]). Other countries such as Brazil and India, although they do not have legislation in place, are in the process of implementing it. Finally, the rest of the countries analysed are either planning to implement a regulation allowing them to establish certificates of origin for green hydrogen or, in the case of China, no action in this sense is even contemplated. This difference in regulations concerning green hydrogen in different countries has prompted attempts to establish international standards, such as CEN-CENELEC (a set of hydrogen standards that facilitate the issuance of GO certificates) and ISO-IEC (a set of international standards on hydrogen standardisation) [165].

7. Conclusions

This paper has presented a detailed study of the three key pillars underpinning green hydrogen: resource consumption (i.e., water and energy footprint), technology development, and regulatory framework.
The study of the water and energy footprint is essential to perform an analysis of the viability and sustainability of green hydrogen (which is not limited to a simple carbon footprint analysis). The water footprint analysis shows that green hydrogen is more sustainable than nuclear power or fossil fuels and is also competitive with the most common method of hydrogen production (SMR). But from the point of view of energy consumption, the energy footprint analysis shows that green hydrogen consumes a higher amount of energy to be obtained (per unit of energy contained in the fuel) than other fossil fuels or other types of hydrogen, as well as requiring more energy to obtain the same amount of useful energy than other ESSs.
On the other hand, regarding the analysis of the TRLs of the different technologies that can be found in the hydrogen supply chain, these show a great disparity, with, for example, very different TRLs for electrolysis technologies.
Regarding the regulatory framework for green hydrogen, the main challenge is to standardise the definition of green hydrogen at the international level, so that GO certifications can be common (or at least accepted) among different countries. In this respect, the European Union is far ahead of its main competitor, the United States, whose definition of clean hydrogen has a higher maximum carbon footprint than that of nuclear energy, and even that expected for electricity production in 2050, but lower than that of other types of hydrogen, such as that obtained from SMRs or GC.
The research conducted in this paper reinforces the thesis that green hydrogen technologies have not yet reached their full potential in terms of water and energy footprint, technology development, and regulatory framework. Based on this, the authors strongly recommend that the governments of the different countries invest heavily in research and development as a way to achieve the reduction in the water and energy footprint and, on the other hand, to favour the implementation of hydrogen technologies that for the moment are far from being commercialised, although they have a promising potential (such as AEM electrolysers, for example). In addition, within the legislative and standardisation framework, it is essential to reach international agreements that allow the production, export/import, and uses of green hydrogen through clear and fair rules, thus favouring the generation of a true global hydrogen economy. If this is carried out, green hydrogen can contribute to a more sustainable and also a more egalitarian world, as it can be produced almost anywhere in the world.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, J.R. and F.S.; methodology, J.R. and F.S.; software, J.R.; validation, J.R.; formal analysis, J.R. and F.S.; investigation, J.R.; resources, J.M.A.; data curation, J.R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.R. and F.S.; writing—review and editing, J.R., F.S. and J.M.A.; visualisation, J.R.; supervision, F.S. and J.M.A.; project administration, J.M.A.; funding acquisition, J.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Spanish Government, grant (1) Ref: PID2020-116616RB-C31, and grant (2) Ref: RED2022-134588-T REDGENERA.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

AAEMAcid-Assisted Extraction Method.
ACActivated Carbon.
AECAustralian Energy Council.
AEGAerogel.
AEMAnion Exchange Membrane.
AEM-FCAnion Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell.
AEM-WEAnion Exchange Membrane Water Electrolysis.
AFCAlkaline Fuel Cell.
ANPNational Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels.
ATRAutothermal Reforming.
AWEAlkaline Water Electrolysis.
BGBiogas Gasification.
BMZMinistry of Economic Cooperation and Development.
BPGBiowaste Pyrogasification.
BRBiogas Reforming.
CcH2Cryocompressed Hydrogen.
CERClean Energy Regulator.
CFCarbon Fibres.
CGCoal Gasification.
CHComplex Hydrides.
CH2Compressed Hydrogen.
CNCarbon Nanotubes.
CNMVNational Commission of Markets and Competition.
CORCrude Oil Refining.
DEMDry Extraction Method.
DFDark-Fermentation.
DMFCDirect Methanol Fuel Cell.
EROIEnergy Return On Investment.
ESSEnergy Storage Systems.
EUEuropean Union.
GHGreen Hydrogen.
GOGuarantee of Origin.
H2ICEHydrogen Internal Combustion Engine.
H2DRIHydrogen Direct Reduced Ironmaking.
HCIHydrogen Cleanness Index.
HDTHydrogen Distribution Technologies.
HTHydrotreating.
LCFSLow Carbon Fuel Standard.
LHVLower Heating Value.
LOHCLiquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier.
MCFCMolten Carbonate Fuel Cell.
MHMetal Hydrides.
MOFMetal Organic Framework.
MPMethane Pyrolisis.
PAFCPhosphoric Acid Fuel Cell.
PCPhotocatalysis.
PEMPolymer Exchange Membrane.
PEM-FCPolymer Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell.
PEM-WEPolymer Exchange Membrane Water Electrolysis.
PFPhoto-Fermentation.
PGPlasma Gasification.
PHPhysisorption.
PVPhotoVoltaic.
RDRoyal Decree.
RESRenewable Energy Sources.
SMRSteam and Methane Reforming.
SOFCSolid Oxide Fuel Cell.
SO-WESolid Oxide Water Electrolysis.
TCTemplated Carbon.
TRLTechnology Readiness Level.
UHUUniversity of Huelva.
UKUnited Kingdom.
USUnited States.
Notation and Symbols
Δ G Gibbs free energy (kJ/mol).
Δ H enthalpy of formation (kJ/mol).
Δ S entropy (kJ/(mol·K)).
E a .   P V   m i c r o g r i d PV energy generated annually in the studied microgrid (22,590 kWh).
E a .   P V   w o r l d PV energy generated annually worldwide (830,741·106 kWh/year).
E a .   w i n d   C h i n a wind energy generated annually in China (800·109 kWh/year).
E a .   w i n d   m i c r o g r i d wind energy generated annually in the studied microgrid (1087 kWh).
E e l e c t r o l y s i s energy required in the electrolyser so that the electrolysis takes place (36.14–54.6 kWh/kg H2).
F Faraday constant (96,485 C/mol).
P P V PV power installed in the considered location (15 kW).
P P V   w o r l d total PV power installed worldwide (710·106 kW).
P w i n d wind power in the considered location (3.4 kW).
P w i n d   C h i n a total wind power installed in China (278.353·106 kW).
T temperature (K).
T P V   p a n e l average lifetime of a PV panel (25–30 years/panel).
T W T average lifetime of a wind turbine (20 years/wind turbine).
U 0 standard equilibrium voltage of the water electrolysis cell ( U 0 = 1.229 V ) .
W F e l e c t r o l y s e r electrolyser water footprint (9.1–18 L H2O/kg H2).
W F H u e l v a   g r .   H 2 water footprint of green hydrogen produced in Huelva (L H2O/kg H2).
W F H u e l v a   H 2 s o l a r water footprint of green hydrogen produced via solar energy in Huelva (L H2O/kg H2).
W F H u e l v a   H 2   w i n d water footprint of green hydrogen produced via wind energy in Huelva (L H2O/kg H2).
W F P V L   H 2 O k W water footprint of PV power.
W F P V H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W h water footprint of PV energy at “La Rábida Campus” (University of Huelva).
W F P V   w o r l d L   H 2 O k W h water footprint of PV energy worldwide (0–0.11 L H2O/kWh ) .
W F w i n d L   H 2 O k W water footprint of wind power.
W F w i n d   C h i n a L   H 2 O k W h water footprint of wind energy in China (0–0.64 L H2O/kWh ) .
W F w i n d H u e l v a L   H 2 O k W h water footprint of wind energy at “La Rábida Campus” (University of Huelva).
z number of electrons converted per H2 molecule (z = 2).

References

  1. Beasy, K.; Emery, S.; Pryor, K.; Vo, T.A. Skilling the green hydrogen economy: A case study from Australia. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 19811–19820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Liu, Z.; Wang, B.; Cazorla, C. Strain Engineering of Two-Dimensional Piezophotocatalytic Materials for Improved Hydrogen Evolution Reaction. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 16924–16934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Han, H.; Qiu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Bi, T.; Yang, Q.; Liu, M.; Zhou, J.; Ji, X. Lattice-disorder layer generation from liquid processing at room temperature with boosted nanointerface exposure toward water splitting. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2022, 6, 3008–3013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Vivas, F.J.; De las Heras, A.; Segura, F.; Andújar, J.M. A review of energy management strategies for renewable hybrid energy systems with hydrogen backup. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 126–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Van, L.P.; Chi, K.D.; Duc, T.N. Review of hydrogen technologies based microgrid: Energy management systems, challenges and future recommendations. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 14127–14148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Genovese, M.; Cigolotti, V.; Jannelli, E.; Fragiacomo, P. Current standards and configurations for the permitting and operation of hydrogen refueling stations. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 19357–19371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rasul, M.G.; Hazrat, M.A.; Sattar, M.A.; Jahirul, M.I.; Shearer, M.J. The future of hydrogen: Challenges on production, storage and applications. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 272, 116326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bollmann, J.; Schmidt, N.; Beck, D.; Preuster, P.; Zigan, L.; Wasserscheid, P.; Will, S. A path to a dynamic hydrogen storage system using a liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC): Burner-based direct heating of the dehydrogenation unit. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 1011–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ferrario, A.M.; Vivas, F.J.; Manzano, F.S.; Andújar, J.M.; Bocci, E.; Martirano, L. Hydrogen vs. Battery in the long-term operation. A comparative between energy management strategies for hybrid renewable microgrids. Electronics 2020, 9, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lubello, P.; Pasqui, M.; Mati, A.; Carcasci, C. Assessment of hydrogen-based long term electrical energy storage in residential energy systems. Smart Energy 2022, 8, 100088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Viteri, J.P.; Viteri, S.; Alvarez-Vasco, C.; Henao, F. A systematic review on green hydrogen for off-grid communities –technologies, advantages, and limitations. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 19751–19771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Meda, U.S.; Rajyaguru, Y.V.; Pandey, A. Generation of green hydrogen using self-sustained regenerative fuel cells: Opportunities and challenges. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 28289–28314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Patnaik, D.; Pattanaik, A.K.; Bagal, D.K.; Rath, A. Reducing CO2 emissions in the iron industry with green hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 23449–23458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Qiu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Yang, Q.; Zhang, X.; Liu, J.; Liu, M.; Bi, T.; Ji, X. Atmospheric-Temperature Chain Reaction towards Ultrathin Non-Crystal-Phase Construction for Highly Efficient Water Splitting. Chem.-A Eur. J. 2022, 28, e202200683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. de Souza, T.A.Z.; Rocha, D.H.D.; Julio, A.A.V.; Coronado, C.J.R.; Silveira, J.L.; Silva, R.J.; Palacio, J.C.E. Exergoenvironmental assessment of hydrogen water footprint via steam reforming in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 311, 127577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cui, P.; Xu, Z.; Yao, D.; Qi, H.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Liu, Z.; Yang, S. Life cycle water footprint and carbon footprint analysis of municipal sludge plasma gasification process. Energy 2022, 261, 125280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shi, X.; Liao, X.; Li, Y. Quantification of fresh water consumption and scarcity footprints of hydrogen from water electrolysis: A methodology framework. Renew. Energy 2020, 154, 786–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mehmeti, A.; Angelis-Dimakis, A.; Arampatzis, G.; McPhail, S.J.; Ulgiati, S. Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies. Environments 2018, 5, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Beswick, R.R.; Oliveira, A.M.; Yan, Y. Does the Green Hydrogen Economy Have a Water Problem? ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 3167–3169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hren, R.; Vujanović, A.; Van Fan, Y.; Klemeš, J.J.; Krajnc, D.; Čuček, L. Hydrogen production, storage and transport for renewable energy and chemicals: An environmental footprint assessment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 173, 113113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Arsad, A.Z.; Hannan, M.A.; Al-Shetwi, A.Q.; Begum, R.A.; Hossain, M.J.; Ker, P.J.; Mahlia, T.I. Hydrogen electrolyser technologies and their modelling for sustainable energy production: A comprehensive review and suggestions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 27841–27871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pawłowski, A.; Zelazna, A.; Zak, J. Is the Polish Solar-to-Hydrogen Pathway Green? A Carbon Footprint of AEM Electrolysis Hydrogen Based on an LCA. Energies 2023, 16, 3702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dermühl, S.; Riedel, U. A comparison of the most promising low-carbon hydrogen production technologies. Fuel 2023, 340, 127478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pinsky, R.; Sabharwall, P.; Hartvigsen, J.; O’Brien, J. Comparative review of hydrogen production technologies for nuclear hybrid energy systems. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2020, 123, 103317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Solis, M.; Silveira, S. Technologies for chemical recycling of household plastics—A technical review and TRL assessment. Waste Manag. 2020, 105, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Al Ghafri, S.Z.; Revell, C.; Di Lorenzo, M.; Xiao, G.; Buckley, C.E.; May, E.F.; Johns, M. Techno-economic and environmental assessment of LNG export for hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 8343–8369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bollmann, J.; Pitchaimuthu, S.; Kühnel, M.F. Challenges of Industrial-Scale Testing Infrastructure for Green Hydrogen Technologies. Energies 2023, 16, 3604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Incer-Valverde, J.; Mörsdorf, J.; Morosuk, T.; Tsatsaronis, G. Power-to-liquid hydrogen: Exergy-based evaluation of a large-scale system. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 48, 11612–11627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Simanullang, M.; Prost, L. Nanomaterials for on-board solid-state hydrogen storage applications. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 29808–29846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Massaro, M.C.; Biga, R.; Kolisnichenko, A.; Marocco, P.; Monteverde, A.H.A.; Santarelli, M. Potential and technical challenges of on-board hydrogen storage technologies coupled with fuel cell systems for aircraft electrification. J. Power Sources 2023, 555, 232397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Niermann, M.; Beckendorff, A.; Kaltschmitt, M.; Bonhoff, K. Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC)—Assessment based on chemical and economic properties. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 6631–6654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Böhm, M.; Fernández Del Rey, A.; Pagenkopf, J.; Varela, M.; Herwartz-Polster, S.; Nieto Calderón, B. Review and comparison of worldwide hydrogen activities in the rail sector with special focus on on-board storage and refueling technologies. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 38003–38017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Okonkwo, E.C.; Al-Breiki, M.; Bicer, Y.; Al-Ansari, T. Sustainable hydrogen roadmap: A holistic review and decision-making methodology for production, utilisation and exportation using Qatar as a case study. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 35525–35549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Neuwirth, M.; Fleiter, T.; Manz, P.; Hofmann, R. The future potential hydrogen demand in energy-intensive industries—A site-specific approach applied to Germany. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 252, 115052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kampker, A.; Ayvaz, P.; Schön, C.; Karstedt, J.; Förstmann, R.; Welker, F. Challenges towards large-scale fuel cell production: Results of an expert assessment study. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 29288–29296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Singh, S.P.; Ohara, B.; Ku, A.Y. Prospects for cost-competitive integrated gasification fuel cell systems. Appl. Energy 2021, 290, 116753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Olabi, A.G.; Wilberforce, T.; Abdelkareem, M.A. Fuel cell application in the automotive industry and future perspective. Energy 2021, 214, 118955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Velazquez Abad, A.; Dodds, P.E. Green hydrogen characterisation initiatives: Definitions, standards, guarantees of origin, and challenges. Energy Policy 2020, 138, 111300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cheng, W.; Lee, S. How Green Are the National Hydrogen Strategies? Sustainability 2022, 14, 1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dawood, F.; Anda, M.; Shafiullah, G.M. Hydrogen production for energy: An overview. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 3847–3869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mould, K.; Silva, F.; Knott, S.F.; O’Regan, B. A comparative analysis of biogas and hydrogen, and the impact of the certificates and blockchain new paradigms. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 39303–39318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yuan, L.; Steinle-Neumann, G. Hydrogen distribution between the Earth’s inner and outer core. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2023, 609, 118084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hassan, Q.; Sameen, A.Z.; Olapade, O.; Alghoul, M.; Salman, H.M.; Jaszczur, M. Hydrogen fuel as an important element of the energy storage needs for future smart cities. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hwang, J.; Maharjan, K.; Cho, H.J. A review of hydrogen utilization in power generation and transportation sectors: Achievements and future challenges. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 28629–28648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Huang, J.; Balcombe, P.; Feng, Z. Technical and economic analysis of different colours of producing hydrogen in China. Fuel 2023, 337, 127227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Purayil, S.T.P.; Hamdan, M.O.; Al-Omari, S.A.B.; Selim, M.Y.E.; Elnajjar, E. Review of hydrogen–gasoline SI dual fuel engines: Engine performance and emission. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 4547–4573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Shiva Kumar, S.; Lim, H. An overview of water electrolysis technologies for green hydrogen production. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 13793–13813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Coertzen, R.; Potts, K.; Brannock, M.; Dagg, B. Water for Hydrogen—GHD. Available online: https://www.ghd.com/en/perspectives/water-for-hydrogen.aspx (accessed on 10 May 2023).
  49. Siemens-Energy. Silyzer 300: The Next Paradigm of PEM Electrolysis. Silyzer 300-PEM Module Array. Available online: https://assets.siemens-energy.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:a193b68f-7ab4-4536-abe2-c23e01d0b526/datasheet-silyzer300.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2023).
  50. SinoHy Energy. 5MW/10MW Alkaline Water Electrolysis. Available online: https://www.sinohyenergy.com/5mw-10mw-alkaline-water-electrolysis/ (accessed on 10 May 2023).
  51. Lampert, D.J.; Cai, H.; Elgowainy, A. Wells to wheels: Water consumption for transportation fuels in the United States. Energy Environ. Sci 2016, 9, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jia, X.; Klemeš, J.J.; Tan, R.R. Overview of Water Use in Renewable Electricity Generation. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2021, 89, 403–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. IRENA. Solar Energy. Available online: https://www.irena.org/Energy-Transition/Technology/Solar-energy (accessed on 11 May 2023).
  54. Sodhi, M.; Banaszek, L.; Magee, C.; Rivero-Hudec, M. Economic Lifetimes of Solar Panels. Procedia CIRP 2022, 105, 782–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Artaş, S.B.; Kocaman, E.; Bilgiç, H.H.; Tutumlu, H.; Yağlı, H.; Yumrutaş, R. Why PV panels must be recycled at the end of their economic life span? A case study on recycling together with the global situation. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2023, 174, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Reuters. Column: China Widens Renewable Energy Supply Lead with Wind Power Push. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-widens-renewable-energy-supply-lead-with-wind-power-push-2023-03-01/ (accessed on 16 May 2023).
  57. Voigt, C.C.; Kaiser, K.; Look, S.; Scharnweber, K.; Scholz, C. Wind turbines without curtailment produce large numbers of bat fatalities throughout their lifetime: A call against ignorance and neglect. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2022, 37, e02149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ziegler, L.; Gonzalez, E.; Rubert, T.; Smolka, U.; Melero, J.J. Lifetime extension of onshore wind turbines: A review covering Germany, Spain, Denmark, and the UK. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 1261–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mekonnen, M.M.; Gerbens-Leenes, P.W.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The consumptive water footprint of electricity and heat: A global assessment. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2015, 1, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Parliament of Australia—Department of Parliamentary Services. Water Requirements of Nuclear Power Stations. Parliamentary Library 2006; p. 1. Available online: https://apo.org.au/node/1519 (accessed on 17 May 2023).
  61. Shiva Kumar, S.; Himabindu, V. Hydrogen production by PEM water electrolysis—A review. Mater. Sci. Energy Technol. 2019, 2, 442–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Buttler, A.; Spliethoff, H. Current status of water electrolysis for energy storage, grid balancing and sector coupling via power-to-gas and power-to-liquids: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 2440–2454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rashid, M.M.; Al Mesfer, M.K.; Naseem, H.; Danish, M. Hydrogen Production by Water Electrolysis: A Review of Alkaline Water Electrolysis, PEM Water Electrolysis and High Temperature Water Electrolysis. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 2015, 4, 80–93. [Google Scholar]
  64. Chatenet, M.; Pollet, B.G.; Dekel, D.R.; Dionigi, F.; Deseure, J.; Millet, P.; Braatz, R.D.; Bazant, M.Z.; Eikerling, M.; Staffell, I.; et al. Water electrolysis: From textbook knowledge to the latest scientific strategies and industrial developments. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2022, 51, 4583–4762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Nasser, M.; Megahed, T.F.; Ookawara, S.; Hassan, H. A review of water electrolysis–based systems for hydrogen production using hybrid/solar/wind energy systems. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 86994–87018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lamagna, M.; Groppi, D.; Nastasi, B. Reversible solid oxide cells applications to the building sector. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 27033–27058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Min, G.; Choi, S.; Hong, J. A review of solid oxide steam-electrolysis cell systems: Thermodynamics and thermal integration. Appl. Energy 2022, 328, 120145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Palmas, S.; Rodriguez, J.; Mais, L.; Mascia, M.; Herrando, M.C.; Vacca, A. Anion exchange membrane: A valuable perspective in emerging technologies of low temperature water electrolysis. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2023, 37, 101178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chi, J.; Yu, H. Water electrolysis based on renewable energy for hydrogen production. Chin. J. Catal. 2018, 39, 390–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lange, H.; Klose, A.; Lippmann, W.; Urbas, L. Technical evaluation of the flexibility of water electrolysis systems to increase energy flexibility: A review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 15771–15783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. International Renewable Energy Agency. Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction Scaling Up Electrolysers To Meet The 1.5 °C Climate Goal H2O2. 2020. Available online: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Dec/IRENA_Green_hydrogen_cost_2020.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2023).
  72. Song, H.; Liu, Y.; Bian, H.; Shen, M.; Lin, X. Energy, environment, and economic analyses on a novel hydrogen production method by electrified steam methane reforming with renewable energy accommodation. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 258, 115513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wu, Z.; Guo, Z.; Yang, J.; Wang, Q. Numerical investigation of hydrogen production via methane steam reforming in a novel packed bed reactor integrated with diverging tube. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 289, 117185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, J.; Cheng, W. Comparative life cycle energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic costs of hydrogen production from coke oven gas and coal gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 27979–27993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Roy, P.; Hossain, M.N.; Uddin, S.M.M.; Hossain, M.M. Unraveling the sustainability aspects of coal extraction and use in Bangladesh using material flow analysis and life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 387, 135895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Xie, M.; Wei, X.; Chen, C.; Sun, C. China’s natural gas production peak and energy return on investment (EROI): From the perspective of energy security. Energy Policy 2022, 164, 112913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hall, C.A.S.; Lambert, J.G.; Balogh, S.B. EROI of different fuels and the implications for society. Energy Policy 2014, 64, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Manikrao Ingle, U.; Pawar, P.R.; Prakash, G. Acid-assisted oil extraction directly from thraustochytrids fermentation broth and its energy assessment for docosahexaenoic acid-enriched oil production. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 367, 128272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dincer, I.; Rosen, M.A.; Khalid, F. 3.16 Thermal Energy Production. In Comprehensive Energy Systems; Dincer, I., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 673–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Raeesi, R.; Searle, C.; Balta-Ozkan, N.; Marsiliani, L.; Tian, M.; Greening, P. Hydrogen supply chain and refuelling network design: Assessment of alternative scenarios for the long-haul road freight in the UK. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dong, W.; Shao, C.; Li, X.; Zhu, D.; Zhou, Q.; Wang, X. Integrated planning method of green hydrogen supply chain for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 18385–18397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Seo, Y.; Park, H.; Lee, S.; Kim, J.; Han, S. Design concepts of hydrogen supply chain to bring consumers offshore green hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 15126–15142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Riera, J.A.; Lima, R.M.; Knio, O.M. A review of hydrogen production and supply chain modeling and optimization. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 13731–13755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Banke, J.; Technology Readiness Levels Demystified. NASA. Available online: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/trl_demystified.html (accessed on 21 August 2023).
  85. Dincer, I. Green methods for hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2012, 37, 1954–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Xu, X.; Zhou, Q.; Yu, D. The future of hydrogen energy: Bio-hydrogen production technology. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 33677–33698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Salehmin, M.N.I.; Husaini, T.; Goh, J.; Sulong, A.B. High-pressure PEM water electrolyser: A review on challenges and mitigation strategies towards green and low-cost hydrogen production. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 268, 115985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sandberg, E.; Krook-Riekkola, A. The impact of technology availability on the transition to net-zero industry in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Khan, S.N.; Yang, Z.; Dong, W.; Zhao, M. Cost and technology readiness level assessment of emerging technologies, new perspectives, and future research directions in H2 production. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2022, 6, 4357–4374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gordon, J.A.; Balta-Ozkan, N.; Nabavi, S.A. Socio-technical barriers to domestic hydrogen futures: Repurposing pipelines, policies, and public perceptions. Appl. Energy 2023, 336, 120850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Riemer, M.; Duval-Dachary, S.; Bachmann, T.M. Environmental implications of reducing the platinum group metal loading in fuel cells and electrolysers: Anion exchange membrane versus proton exchange membrane cells. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 56, 103086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Posdziech, O.; Schwarze, K.; Brabandt, J. Efficient hydrogen production for industry and electricity storage via high-temperature electrolysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 19089–19101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Nnabuife, S.G.; Oko, E.; Kuang, B.; Bello, A.; Onwualu, A.P.; Oyagha, S.; Whidborne, J. The prospects of hydrogen in achieving net zero emissions by 2050: A critical review. Sustain. Chem. Clim. Action 2023, 2, 100024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Shirvanian, P.; Loh, A.; Sluijter, S.; Li, X. Novel components in anion exchange membrane water electrolyzers (AEMWE’s): Status, challenges and future needs. A mini review. Electrochem. Commun. 2021, 132, 107140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Miller, H.A.; Bouzek, K.; Hnat, J.; Loos, S.; Bernäcker, C.I.; Weißgärber, T.; Röntzsch, L.; Meier-Haack, J. Green hydrogen from anion exchange membrane water electrolysis: A review of recent developments in critical materials and operating conditions. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2020, 4, 2114–2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Hosseinzadeh, A.; Zhou, J.L.; Li, X.; Afsari, M.; Altaee, A. Techno-economic and environmental impact assessment of hydrogen production processes using bio-waste as renewable energy resource. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 156, 111991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Acar, C.; Dincer, I. Selection criteria and ranking for sustainable hydrogen production options. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 40118–40137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hazrat, M.A.; Rasul, M.G.; Jahirul, M.I.; Chowdhury, A.A.; Hassan, N.M.S. Techno-economic analysis of recently improved hydrogen production pathway and infrastructure. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 836–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Rahim Malik, F.; Yuan, H.-B.; Moran, J.C.; Tippayawong, N. Overview of hydrogen production technologies for fuel cell utilization. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2023, 43, 101452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. González Martínez, M.; Elsaddik, M.; Nzihou, A. Monitoring, analysis, and quantification of hydrogen from biomass and biowaste: A review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 22113–22131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Oh, V.B.-Y.; Ng, S.-F.; Ong, W.-J. Is photocatalytic hydrogen production sustainable?—Assessing the potential environmental enhancement of photocatalytic technology against steam methane reforming and electrocatalysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Andújar, J.M.; Segura, F.; Rey, J.; Vivas, F.J. Batteries and Hydrogen Storage: Technical Analysis and Commercial Revision to Select the Best Option. Energies 2022, 15, 6196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Chu, C.; Wu, K.; Luo, B.; Cao, Q.; Zhang, H. Hydrogen storage by liquid organic hydrogen carriers: Catalyst, renewable carrier, and technology—A review. Carbon Resour. Convers. 2023, 6, 334–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Yang, M.; Hunger, R.; Berrettoni, S.; Sprecher, B.; Wang, B. A review of hydrogen storage and transport technologies. Clean Energy 2023, 7, 190–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Xu, Z.; Zhao, N.; Hillmansen, S.; Roberts, C.; Yan, Y. Techno-Economic Analysis of Hydrogen Storage Technologies for Railway Engineering: A Review. Energies 2022, 15, 6467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Patonia, A.; Poudineh, R. Hydrogen Storage for a Net-Zero Carbon Future; The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies: Oxford, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  107. Monforti Ferrario, A.; Bartolini, A.; Segura Manzano, F.; Vivas, F.J.; Comodi, G.; McPhail, S.J.; Andujar, J.M. A model-based parametric and optimal sizing of a battery/hydrogen storage of a real hybrid microgrid supplying a residential load: Towards island operation. Adv. Appl. Energy 2021, 3, 100048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Verhelst, S. Recent progress in the use of hydrogen as a fuel for internal combustion engines. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2014, 39, 1071–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Wei, R.; Chang, H.; Huang, S.; Huang, L. A bibliometric analysis on safety of fuel cells: Research trends and perspectives. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 12861–12876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Luo, Y.; Wu, Y.; Li, B.; Mo, T.; Li, Y.; Feng, S.-P.; Qu, J.; Chu, P.K. Development and application of fuel cells in the automobile industry. J. Energy Storage 2021, 42, 103124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wang, Y.; Ruiz Diaz, D.F.; Chen, K.S.; Wang, Z.; Adroher, X.C. Materials, technological status, and fundamentals of PEM fuel cells—A review. Mater. Today 2020, 32, 178–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Aminudin, M.A.; Kamarudin, S.K.; Lim, B.H.; Majilan, E.H.; Masdar, M.S.; Shaari, N. An overview: Current progress on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 4371–4388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Pollet, B.G.; Kocha, S.S.; Staffell, I. Current status of automotive fuel cells for sustainable transport. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2019, 16, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Peng, S. Current Status and Future Prospects of Fuel Cells in China. Engineering 2023, 21, 20–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ishimoto, Y.; Wulf, C.; Schonhoff, A.; Kuckshinrichs, W. Life cycle costing approaches of fuel cell and hydrogen systems: A literature review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Wang, J.; Wang, H.; Fan, Y. Techno-Economic Challenges of Fuel Cell Commercialization. Engineering 2018, 4, 352–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Dekel, D.R. Review of cell performance in anion exchange membrane fuel cells. J. Power Sources 2018, 375, 158–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gottesfeld, S.; Dekel, D.R.; Page, M.; Bae, C.; Yan, Y.; Zelenay, P.; Kim, Y.S. Anion exchange membrane fuel cells: Current status and remaining challenges. J. Power Sources 2018, 375, 170–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Ferriday, T.B.; Middleton, P.H. Alkaline fuel cell technology—A review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 18489–18510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Sazali, N.; Wan Salleh, W.N.; Jamaludin, A.S.; Mhd Razali, M.N. New Perspectives on Fuel Cell Technology: A Brief Review. Membranes 2020, 10, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Abderezzak, B. 1—Introduction to Hydrogen Technology. In Introduction to Transfer Phenomena in PEM Fuel Cell; Abderezzak, B., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 1–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Mendonça, C.; Ferreira, A.; Santos, D.M.F. Towards the Commercialization of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells: Recent Advances in Materials and Integration Strategies. Fuels 2021, 2, 393–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Dincer, I.; Rosen, M.A. Chapter 18—Exergy analyses of fuel cell systems. In Exergy, 3rd ed.; Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 479–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. ETN Global. Hydrogen Gas Turbines: The Path Towards a Zero-Carbon Gas Turbine. p. 28. 2020. Available online: https://etn.global/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ETN-Hydrogen-Gas-Turbines-report.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2023).
  125. Sørensen, B.; Spazzafumo, G. 2—Hydrogen. In Hydrogen and Fuel Cells, 3rd ed.; Sørensen, B., Spazzafumo, G., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 5–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Saint-Just, J.; Etemad, S. 10—Catalytic combustion of hydrogen for heat production. In Compendium of Hydrogen Energy; Barbir, F., Basile, A., Veziroğlu, T.N., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; Woodhead Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2016; pp. 263–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Garg, N.; Sarkar, A.; Sundararaju, B. Recent developments on methanol as liquid organic hydrogen carrier in transfer hydrogenation reactions. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2021, 433, 213728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Clifford Chance. Marco Regulatorio Actual Del Hidrógeno Verde. pp. 1–8. 2023. Available online: https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2023/02/Marco-regulatorio-actual-hidrogeno-verde.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2023).
  129. Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico. Real Decreto 376/2022, de 17 de Mayo, por el que se Regulan los Criterios de Sostenibilidad y de Reducción de las Emisiones de gases de Efecto Invernadero de los Biocarburantes, Biolíquidos y Combustibles de Biomasa, así como el Sistema. p. 108. 2022. Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/2022/05/17/376 (accessed on 24 May 2023).
  130. Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico. Orden TED/1026/2022, de 28 de Octubre, por la que se Aprueba el Procedimiento de Gestión del Sistema de Garantías de Origen del Gas Procedente de Fuentes Renovables. Boletín Oficial del Estado 2022; pp. 148170–148212. Available online: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2022/10/31/pdfs/BOE-A-2022-17721.pdf (accessed on 26 May 2023).
  131. Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia. Circular 1/2018, de 18 de abril, de la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, por la que se regula la gestión del sistema de garantía de origen de la electricidad procedente de fuentes de energía renovables y de cogeneración de alta eficiencia. Boletín Oficial del Estado 2018; pp. 46103–46114. Available online: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2018/04/27/pdfs/BOE-A-2018-5717.pdf (accessed on 26 May 2023).
  132. Rosas, A. European Union Law and National Law: A Common Legal System. In International Actors and the Formation of Laws; Karjalainen, K., Tornberg, I., Pursiainen, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 11–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Azadnia, A.H.; McDaid, C.; Andwari, A.M.; Hosseini, S.E. Green hydrogen supply chain risk analysis: A european hard-to-abate sectors perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 182, 113371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. European Parliament. Renewable Energy Directive: Revision of Directive (EU) 2018/2001. 2021. Available online: https://euagenda.eu/upload/publications/eprs-bri2021662619-en.pdf (accessed on 26 May 2023).
  135. European Commission. Fit for 55: Delivering the EU’s 2030 Climate Target on the Way to Climate Neutrality. COM(2021) 550 Final. p. 15. 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0550 (accessed on 26 May 2023).
  136. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. The European Green Deal: Europe’s New Growth Strategy: A Climate-Neutral EU by 2050; UNIDO: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  137. Towards a New Hydrogen market—CertifHy Green Hydrogen Guarantees of Origin are launched—CERTIFHY. Available online: https://www.certifhy.eu/sin-categoria/towards-a-new-hydrogen-market-certifhy-green-hydrogen-guarantees-of-origin-are-launched/ (accessed on 12 April 2023).
  138. Lagioia, G.; Spinelli, M.P.; Amicarelli, V. Blue and green hydrogen energy to meet European Union decarbonisation objectives. An overview of perspectives and the current state of affairs. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 1304–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. CertifHy. Certification Process-Steps of Certification. Available online: https://www.certifhy.eu/steps-of-certification/ (accessed on 13 June 2023).
  140. Thomson Reuters Westlaw. Barclays Official California Code of Regulations. Available online: https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I09D690805A2111EC8227000D3A7C4BC3 (accessed on 27 May 2023).
  141. California Air Resources Board. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/low-carbon-fuel-standard/about (accessed on 14 June 2023).
  142. Bracmort, K. A Low Carbon Fuel Standard: In Brief; Summary; Congressional Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  143. Authenticated, U.S.; Government Information. Public Law 117-58-Nov.15. 2021. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/IIJA-%20Pub%20Law%20117-58%20Nov%2015%202021.pdf (accessed on 27 May 2023).
  144. Australian Energy Council. Hydrogen Guarantee of Origin-Discussion Paper. 2021. Available online: https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/hydrogen-guarantee-of-origin-scheme (accessed on 1 June 2023).
  145. Hydrogen Strategy Update to the Market: December 2022. 2022. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1175495/hydrogen-strategy-update-to-the-market-december-2022.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2023).
  146. Clifford Chance. Focus on Hydrogen: Japan’s Energy Strategy for Hydrogen and Ammonia. pp. 1–10. 2022. Available online: https://www.cliffordchance.com/briefings/2022/08/focus-on-hydrogen-japans-energy-strategy-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia.html (accessed on 1 June 2023).
  147. Niunoya, M.; Shima, M.; Masaki, K. Hydrogen Law, Regulations & Strategy in Japan. CMS. 2021. Available online: https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/cms-expert-guide-to-hydrogen/japan (accessed on 14 June 2023).
  148. Akimoto, D.; Japan Looks to Promote a Hydrogen Society. Diplomat. 2023. Available online: https://thediplomat.com/2023/01/japan-looks-to-promote-a-hydrogen-society/ (accessed on 14 June 2023).
  149. FuelCellsWorks. Japan’s Govt Eyes New Legislation To Promote Wider Use of Hydrogen, Ammonia Fuels. 2022. Available online: https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/japans-govt-eyes-new-legislation-to-promote-wider-use-of-hydrogen-ammonia-fuels/ (accessed on 14 June 2023).
  150. Canada’s Ministry of Natural Resources. Hydrogen Strategy for Canada: Seizing the Opportunities for Hydrogen. 2020. Available online: https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/environment/hydrogen/NRCan_Hydrogen-Strategy-Canada-na-en-v3.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2023).
  151. Chinese Government. Outline of the Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China and the Long-Range Goals for 2035. 2021. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-03/13/content_5592681.htm (accessed on 15 June 2023).
  152. Chinese Parliament—National People’s Congress. Modern Energy System Plan for the 14th Five-Year Plan. 2022. Available online: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/ghwb/202203/P020220322582066837126.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2023).
  153. Chinese Parliament—National People’s Congress. Renewable Energy Development Plan for the 14th Five-Year Plan. 2022. Available online: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/ghwb/202206/P020220602315308557623.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2023).
  154. Yanasse, D.; Rage, P.; Souza, C. Green Hydrogen. Brazil Energy J. 2023, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  155. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy—Government of India. National Green Hydrogen Mission. 2023. Available online: https://mnre.gov.in/img/documents/uploads/file_f-1673581748609.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2023).
  156. Green Hydrogen Organisation. Green Hydrogen Standard: The Global Standard for Green Hydrogen and Green Hydrogen Derivatives Including Green Ammonia. 2023. Available online: https://gh2.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/GH2_Standard_A5_JAN%202023_1.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2023).
  157. Salma, T.; Tsafos, N.; South Africa’s Hydrogen Strategy. CSIS. 2022. Available online: https://www.csis.org/analysis/south-africas-hydrogen-strategy (accessed on 16 June 2023).
  158. Tang, D.; Tan, G.-L.; Li, G.-W.; Liang, J.-G.; Ahmad, S.M.; Bahadur, A.; Humayun, M.; Ullah, H.; Khan, A.; Bououdina, M. State-of-the-art hydrogen generation techniques and storage methods: A critical review. J. Energy Storage 2023, 64, 107196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Abdin, Z.; Zafaranloo, A.; Rafiee, A.; Mérida, W.; Lipiński, W.; Khalilpour, K.R. Hydrogen as an energy vector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 120, 109620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Bartolucci, L.; Cennamo, E.; Cordiner, S.; Mulone, V.; Pasqualini, F.; Boot, M.A. Digital twin of a hydrogen Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicle: Effect of the control strategy on energy efficiency. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 20971–20985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Sabihuddin, S.; Kiprakis, A.E.; Mueller, M. A Numerical and Graphical Review of Energy Storage Technologies. Energies 2015, 8, 172–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Mitali, J.; Dhinakaran, S.; Mohamad, A.A. Energy storage systems: A review. Energy Storage Sav. 2022, 1, 166–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  164. International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear Energy for a Net Zero World. 2021. Available online: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/21/10/nuclear-energy-for-a-net-zero-world.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2023).
  165. European Clean Hydrogen Alliance. Roadmap on Hydrogen Standardisation. pp. 1–121. 2023. Available online: https://www.cencenelec.eu/media/CEN-CENELEC/News/Press%20Releases/2023/20230301_ech2a_roadmaphydrogenstandardisation.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2023).
Figure 1. Energy generated by a 15 kW-PV array during a year at La Rábida campus.
Figure 1. Energy generated by a 15 kW-PV array during a year at La Rábida campus.
Energies 16 06222 g001
Figure 2. Energy generated by a 3.4 kW-rated power wind turbine during a full year at La Rábida Campus.
Figure 2. Energy generated by a 3.4 kW-rated power wind turbine during a full year at La Rábida Campus.
Energies 16 06222 g002
Figure 3. Water and energy footprint of different fuels.
Figure 3. Water and energy footprint of different fuels.
Energies 16 06222 g003
Figure 4. Summary of the different TRLs of the main hydrogen technologies used along the HSC.
Figure 4. Summary of the different TRLs of the main hydrogen technologies used along the HSC.
Energies 16 06222 g004
Figure 5. World map with degrees of regulatory framework by countries.
Figure 5. World map with degrees of regulatory framework by countries.
Energies 16 06222 g005
Table 1. Main contributions of authors’ proposal with respect to analysed scientific literature.
Table 1. Main contributions of authors’ proposal with respect to analysed scientific literature.
[17][18][20][21,22][7,23,24,25,26,27][28][29,30,31,32][33][34,35,36][38][39][40]Authors’ Proposal
Water footprintGreen hydrogen·· ·
Other types · ·
Energy footprintGreen hydrogen (1)···· ·
Other types··· ·
Comparison with fossil fuels ·
TRL
Hydrogen supply chain
Production ·· · ·
Storage ··· ·
Distribution · ·
Final use · ·
Regulatory frameworkGO ··· (2)·
Normative · ·
(1) Water electrolysis technologies energy footprints are studied. (2) Ref. [40] proposes a model to determine the HCI.
Table 2. Coloured labels used to classify the hydrogen molecule according to the production process and type of energy used in it.
Table 2. Coloured labels used to classify the hydrogen molecule according to the production process and type of energy used in it.
Coloured Label for H2Chemical Process + Energy InputHighlights
Energies 16 06222 i001GreenRenewable powered water electrolysisSustainable (no carbon emissions associated)
Energies 16 06222 i002PinkNuclear powered water electrolysisVery low carbon emissions associated
Energies 16 06222 i003TurquoiseMethane pyrolysisGenerates solid carbon residues (neutral in carbon dioxide emissions)
Energies 16 06222 i004GreySteam and methane/gas natural reformingGenerates greenhouse gases emissions
Energies 16 06222 i005BlueHydrogen obtained from fossil fuels with carbon captureCarbon dioxide emissions are significantly reduced
Energies 16 06222 i006Black/brownHydrogen obtained from gasification of coalLarge carbon emissions associated
Table 3. Comparison of the water footprint of different hydrogen production processes.
Table 3. Comparison of the water footprint of different hydrogen production processes.
Steam Methane Reforming (SMR)Coal Gasification (CG)Biomass Gasification (BG)Biomass Reformation (BR)Plasma Gasification (PG)Green Hydrogen (GH)
Water footprint
(L H2O)/kg H2
21.87 [18]2.91 [18]305.5 [18]30.96 [18]11.56 [16]13.4 (wind) [51]
43 (solar) [17]
17 (wind) [17]
129 (grid mix, no GH) [17]
UHU La Rábida Campus9.1–23.46 (solar)
9.1–331.95 (wind)
9.1–37.6 (solar + wind)
Table 4. Comparison of water footprint of hydrogen and other energy sources.
Table 4. Comparison of water footprint of hydrogen and other energy sources.
HydrogenCoalConventional OilNatural GasNuclear Energy
Water footprint (L H2O/kWh)0.656 (SMR)
0.087 (CG)
9.158 (BG)
0.928 (BR)
0.347 (PG)
0.272–1.289 (GH) (1)
0.284–7.56 [59]0.77–4.284 [59]0.274–4.464 [59]0.065–4.464 [59]
1.514–2.725 [60]
(1) The WF of hydrogen obtained via grid mix powered electrolysis has not been considered in this case (it is not GH) and the WF of GH obtained via wind-powered electrolysis at the “La Rábida Campus” has not been considered (because wind energy production is very low in the mentioned place).
Table 5. Electric energy consumption of different electrolysis technologies.
Table 5. Electric energy consumption of different electrolysis technologies.
Electrolysis TechnologyEnergy Consumptions (kWh/Nm3 H2)
AWEStack energy consumption:
4.3–4.8 [23]
3.8–4.4 [47] (Nel A3880)
5.0–5.4 [47] (Cummins HySTAT®-100-10)
4.0–4.3 [47] (John Cockerill DQ-500)
4.5 [47] (McPhy MeLyzer 800-30)
4.7 [47] (Sunfire HyLink Alkaline)
4.6 [47] (Nuberg PERIC ZDQ-600)
4.4 [47] (TIANJIN Mainland FDQ800)
4.3 [47] (Green Hydrogen Systems HyProvide A-90)
4.2–5.9 [67]
4.46 [68] (Current state of the art)
4.29 [68] (Estimation for 2030)
<3.75 [68] (Estimation for 2050)
4.5–5.5 [69]
4.2–4.8 [70]
4.2–5.89 (IRENA, 2020) [71]
<3.75 (IRENA, 2050 target) [71]
System energy consumption:
4.5–7.0 [21,70]
4.46–6.96 (IRENA, 2020) [71]
4.02 (IRENA, 2050 target) [71]
PEM-WEStack energy consumption:
4.6–5.3 [23]
4.5 [47] (Nel M5000)
4.3 [47] (HyLyzer®-4000-30)
5.2 [47] (Plug Power GenFuel 5 MW)
4.9 [47] (Elogen ELYTE 260)
4.2–5.5 [67]
4.91 [68] (Current state of the art)
4.29 [68] (Estimation for 2030)
<3.75 [68] (Estimation for 2050)
3.84 (2020 US DOE target) [69]
4.4–5.0 [70]
4.2–5.89 (IRENA, 2020) [71]
<3.75 (IRENA, 2050 target) [71]
4.88 [18]
System energy consumption:
3.93 (2020 US DOE target) [69]
4.5–7.5 [65,70]
4.5–7.0 [21]
4.46–7.41 (IRENA, 2020) [71]
4.02 (IRENA, 2050 target) [71]
SO-WEStack energy consumption:
3.23 [18]
3.6 [47] (SunFire HyLink SOEC)
3.0–3.3 [67]
2.94–3.5 * [21,65,66]
3.13–4.46 (IRENA, 2020) [71]
<3.13 (IRENA, 2050 target) [71]
System energy consumption:
3.57–4.46 (IRENA, 2020) [71]
<3.57 (IRENA, 2050 target) [71]
AEM-WEStack energy consumption:
4.8 [47] (Enapter AEM Multicore)
4.91 [68] (Current state of the art)
4.29 [68] (Estimation for 2030)
<3.75 [68] (Estimation for 2050)
4.8 [65]
4.8–6.9 [70]
4.6–5.89 (IRENA, 2020) [71]
<3.75 (IRENA, 2050 target) [71]
System energy consumption:
5.09–6.16 (IRENA, 2020) [71]
<4.02 (IRENA, 2050 target) [71]
*: Energy consumptions below 2.94 kWh/Nm3 have not been considered because it is impossible to produce that quantity of hydrogen with that amount of energy.
Table 6. Energy consumption of different hydrogen production technologies.
Table 6. Energy consumption of different hydrogen production technologies.
AWEPEM-WESO-WEAEM-WESMRCG
Energy consumption (kWh/Nm3 H2)3.8–5.4 (stack)
4.46–7.0 (system)
3.84–5.89 (stack)
3.93–7.5 (system)
2.94–4.46 (stack)
3.57–4.46 (system)
4.6–5.89 (stack)
5.09–6.16 (system)
0.10 [18] (electricity)
2.04 [72,73] *
0.15 [18] (electricity)
0.55 [74] *
*: It refers to the amount of energy that is consumed in the hydrogen production process. In the case of water electrolysis technologies, the amount of energy that is consumed is considered to be electrical energy.
Table 7. Energy consumption of different fuels per energy contained in the corresponding fuel.
Table 7. Energy consumption of different fuels per energy contained in the corresponding fuel.
HydrogenCoalOil
Energy consumption (1) (kWhprod./kWhfuel)1–2 (electrolysis, stack)
1.2–2.5 (electrolysis, system)
0.7 (SMR)
0.18 (CG)
0.0047 [75]
0.017 (China, 2018) [76]
0.013 (US, 2000) [77]
0.017 (US, 2007) [77]
19.83 (DEM) (2) [78]
4.96 (AAEM) (3) [78]
0.025–0.048 (Norway, 2008) [77]
0.022 (Mexico, 2009) [77]
0.1 (China, 2010) [77]
0.067 (China, 2018) (4) [76]
(1) To obtain the energy consumption (in terms of kWhproduction/kWhfuel), the lower heating values have been extracted from [79]. (2) DEM: Dry Extraction Method. (3) AAEM: Acid-assisted Extraction Method. (4) The huge differences between the energy consumption in [78] and the rest of the analysed literature are due to the derisory amount of oil extracted in [78], which causes the energy consumed per unit of energy to be extracted to skyrocket.
Table 8. Levels of TRL [84].
Table 8. Levels of TRL [84].
LevelDegree of Maturity
TRL 1Basic principles observed and reported
TRL 2Technology concept or application formulated
TRL 3Concept or application proven through analysis and experimentation
TRL 4Basic prototype validated in laboratory environment
TRL 5Basic prototype validated in relevant environment
TRL 6System or subsystem model or prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment
TRL 7System prototype demonstrated in an operational environment
TRL 8Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration
TRL 9Actual system proven through successful operation
Table 9. TRLs of different hydrogen production technologies.
Table 9. TRLs of different hydrogen production technologies.
Source of Hydrogen ProductionTechnologyTRL
Water electrolysisAWE8–9 [23,27,88]
9 [7,24,28,89,90]
PEM-WE7–8 [7,23]
6–8 [24,89]
8–9 [27,90,91]
6–9 [28]
6–7 [88]
SO-WE3–5 [7]
5 [24,89]
7 [27]
5–6 [90]
4–5 [92]
6–7 [93]
2–5 [88]
AEM-WE3 [91]
2–3 [94,95]
Fossil fuelsSteam and methane reforming (SMR)9 [24,88,89,96,97,98]
7–8 (with carbon capture and storage, CCS) [98]
5 (with CCS) [99]
9 (with CCS) [88]
Coal gasification (CG)9 [96,97,98]
8–9 [88]
6–7 (with CCS) [98]
8–9 (with CCS) [88]
Autothermal reforming (ATR)9 [26]
5 (with CCS) [99]
Methane pyrolysis (MP)3–6 [93]
3–5 [98]
Bio-hydrogen (biological and chemical methods to obtain hydrogen from biomass)Dark-fermentation (DF)5 [96]
2–4 [100]
Photo-fermentation (PF)4 [96]
2–4 [100]
Biogas reforming (BR)6–7 [100]
Biowaste pyrogasification (BPG)8–9 [100]
Photocatalysis (PC)<4 [101]
Table 10. TRLs of hydrogen storage technologies.
Table 10. TRLs of hydrogen storage technologies.
TechnologyTRL
Physical storage methodsCompressed hydrogen (CH2)9 [29,30,104]
7–9 [32]
8–9 [105,106]
Liquid hydrogen (LH2)7 [32]
4–6 [104]
6–7 [105]
6–9 [106]
Cryocompressed hydrogen (CcH2)7 [32]
4–6 [104]
4–5 [105]
Material-based (chemical) storage methodsMetal hydrides (MH)4–6 [104]
4–5 [105]
7–9 [106]
Complex hydrides (CH)4–6 [106]
Physisorption (PH)Carbon fibres (CF) and nanotubes (CN), and activated carbon (AC)7–8 [106]
Graphene5–6 [106]
Aerogel (AEG) and templated carbon (TC)2–4 [106]
Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs)2–4 [106]
LOHC4–6 [104]
6–7 [105]
4–7 [106]
Table 11. TRLs of different hydrogen final use technologies.
Table 11. TRLs of different hydrogen final use technologies.
TechnologyTRL
Fuel cells (FC)Polymer Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEM-FC)8 [35,109,110]
8–9 [111,112,113,114,115]
9 [116]
Anion Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (AEM-FC)4 [109,117,118,119]
Alkaline Fuel Cell (AFC)8–9 [109,115,119]
Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC *)5–6 [109,120]
Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC)8–9 [109,121]
Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC)8–9 [109,114,122]
Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC)4–7 [109,123]
Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines (H2ICE)≤7 [124,125]
≤8 [126]
RefineriesHydrotreating (HT)7–9 [34]
Crude oil refining (COR)9 [34]
Iron and steelHydrogen direct reduced ironmaking (H2DRI)8 [34]
*: Although DMFC uses methanol as fuel instead of hydrogen, this FC has been included because methanol can be used, in turn, as a method to store hydrogen in the form of an LOHC [127].
Table 12. Green hydrogen regulatory framework in the world.
Table 12. Green hydrogen regulatory framework in the world.
CountryLegislation
SpainGreen hydrogen: The one that comes from renewable energies. Its producer needs to be registered in the registry of facilities for the production of gas from renewable energy sources (article 19.1, RD, 376/2022). To issue the GOs of green hydrogen, it must derive from a direct production from renewable energies produced on site or from the conversion with any other renewable energy (Order TED/1026/1022).
EUGreen hydrogen: Can only be considered renewable if the energy which is used so that the electrolysis process can take place is produced on site or if the manufacturer can provide enough evidence to demonstrate that the hydrogen fuel has been produced with RES (EU RE-Directive II), i.e., it establishes rules for hydrogen GOs certificates.
USClean hydrogen: Hydrogen produced with a carbon intensity equal to or less than 2 kg of carbon dioxide per kilogram of hydrogen produced (Public Law 117-58-Nov.15, 2021).
AustraliaThe AEC is recommending implementing a formal GO scheme (which should focus only on the emissions created in the production of hydrogen) and supports the appointment of CER as responsible for administering and overseeing the GO scheme.
UKDepartment for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy has committed to setting up a hydrogen certification scheme by 2025.
JapanThe Japanese government is aware of the importance of implementing a new regulation concerning hydrogen to exclude businesses which handle non-environmentally friendly hydrogen.
CanadaCanada’s Ministry of Natural Resources is aware of the importance of a regulatory framework including hydrogen consistent with the different regions across the country (currently, there are only low-carbon fuel regulations).
ChinaNo regulation of green hydrogen has been implemented yet (only it is encouraged in its 5-year plans to implement renewable hydrogen production and to use hydrogen as a way to store renewable energy) and no claim of regulating it has been found.
BrazilBill of Law 725/2022: Sustainable hydrogen is produced from solar, wind, biomass, biogas, or hydraulic resources; allows the ANP to regulate the activities in the hydrogen chain and sets a hydrogen blending of 5% in natural gas pipelines by 2032 (at least 60% of which is sustainable hydrogen) and of 10% by 2050 (80% of which is sustainable hydrogen).
Bill of Law No 1,878/2022: ANP is responsible for regulating green hydrogen chain activity and issuing the licenses for green hydrogen production.
India2022–2023: Regulation and standards so that pilot projects can be approved.
2023–2024: Relevant international standards adopted for certification of green hydrogen production.
South AfricaCollaboration with BMZ with the purpose of establishing a regulatory framework to promote green hydrogen production in South Africa.
Table 13. Energy consumption, per final useful energy of different ESS compared to hydrogen systems.
Table 13. Energy consumption, per final useful energy of different ESS compared to hydrogen systems.
ESSPumped HydroCompressed AirLi-ion BatteryGreen Hydrogen Systems
Energy consumption (kWhproduction/kWhuseful)1.15–1.54 [161]1.12–2.5 [161,162]1.03–1.18 [102]2.18–4.55
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rey, J.; Segura, F.; Andújar, J.M. Green Hydrogen: Resources Consumption, Technological Maturity, and Regulatory Framework. Energies 2023, 16, 6222. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176222

AMA Style

Rey J, Segura F, Andújar JM. Green Hydrogen: Resources Consumption, Technological Maturity, and Regulatory Framework. Energies. 2023; 16(17):6222. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176222

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rey, Jesús, Francisca Segura, and José Manuel Andújar. 2023. "Green Hydrogen: Resources Consumption, Technological Maturity, and Regulatory Framework" Energies 16, no. 17: 6222. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176222

APA Style

Rey, J., Segura, F., & Andújar, J. M. (2023). Green Hydrogen: Resources Consumption, Technological Maturity, and Regulatory Framework. Energies, 16(17), 6222. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176222

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop