Considering Embodied Greenhouse Emissions of Nuclear and Renewable Power Plants for Electrolytic Hydrogen and Its Use for Synthetic Ammonia, Methanol, Fischer-Tropsch Fuel Production
Open accessAbstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Recent concerns surrounding climate change and the contribution of fossil fuels to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have sparked interest and advancements in renewable energy sources including wind, solar, and hydroelectricity. These energy sources, often referred to as “clean energy”, generate no operational onsite GHG emissions. They also offer the potential for clean hydrogen production through water electrolysis, presenting a viable solution to create an environmentally friendly alternative energy carrier with the potential to decarbonize industrial processes reliant on hydrogen. To conduct a full life cycle analysis, it is crucial to account for the embodied emissions associated with renewable and nuclear power generation plants as they can significantly impact the GHG emissions linked to hydrogen production and its derived products. In this work, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the embodied emissions associated with solar photovoltaic (PV), wind, hydro, and nuclear electricity. We investigated the implications of including plant-embodied emissions in the overall emission estimates of electrolysis hydrogen production and subsequently on the production of synthetic ammonia, methanol, and Fischer–Tropsch (FT) fuels. Results show that average embodied GHG emissions of solar PV, wind, hydro, and nuclear electricity generation in the United States (U.S.) were estimated to be 37, 9.8, 7.2, and 0.3 g CO 2 e/kWh, respectively. Life cycle GHG emissions of electrolytic hydrogen produced from solar PV, wind, and hydroelectricity were estimated as 2.1, 0.6, and 0.4 kg of CO 2 e/kg of H 2, respectively, in contrast to the zero-emissions often used when the embodied emissions in their construction were excluded. Average life cycle emission estimates (CO 2 e/kg) of synthetic ammonia, methanol, and FT-fuel from solar PV electricity are increased by 5.5, 16, and 49 times, respectively, compared to the case when embodied emissions are excluded. This change also depends on the local irradiance for solar power, which can result in a further increase of GHG emissions by 35–41% in areas of low irradiance or reduce GHG emissions by 21–25% in areas with higher irradiance.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
e-Fuels are synthetic fuels synthesized using captured carbon oxides (CO2 or CO) and H2 typically generated through electrolysis powered by renewable electricity.
“Specifically, e-Fuels represent a category of synthetic fuels synthesized utilizing captured carbon oxides (CO 2 or CO) and H 2 , the latter typically generated through electrolysis powered by renewable electricity resources like solar, wind, or nuclear power [18].”
From Biofuels, E-Fuels, and Waste-Derived Fuels: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
The Methods and Data section says e-fuels are made by combining electrolytic hydrogen with CO2, and the Results and Discussion section describes e-fuel made from captured CO2 using solar, wind, and nuclear electricity pathways (page numbers unavailable). The copy does not establish CO as an alternative carbon feedstock, so it supports the claim for CO2 but not its full ‘CO2 or CO’ formulation. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe production pathway for all e-Fuels commences with the generation of hydrogen, predominantly green e-hydrogen, which is produced via water electrolysis powered exclusively by renewable electricity sources such as solar or wind energy.
“The production pathway for all e-Fuels commences with the generation of hydrogen, predominantly green e-hydrogen, which is produced via water electrolysis powered exclusively by renewable electricity sources such as solar or wind energy [18,290].”
From Biofuels, E-Fuels, and Waste-Derived Fuels: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
The Methods and Data section says electrolytic hydrogen is used to produce e-methanol and e-fuels. It also considers hydrogen produced using nuclear electricity, so the claim that this pathway is powered exclusively by renewables is not supported. The paper does not establish the broader claim about all e-fuels. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe primary e-Fuels currently under consideration, including in Europe, are e-hydrogen, e-methane, e-methanol, e-ammonia, and synthetic hydrocarbons like e-diesel and e-kerosene, which are pivotal for decarbonizing sectors where direct electrification is challenging.
“The primary e-Fuels currently under consideration, including in Europe, are ehydrogen, e-methane (the primary component of e-LNG), e-methanol, e-ammonia, and synthetic hydrocarbons like e-diesel and e-kerosene, which are pivotal for decarbonizing sectors where direct electrification is challenging [18,83,279].”
From Biofuels, E-Fuels, and Waste-Derived Fuels: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe fundamental principle governing biofuel production suitability lies in harnessing materials derived from recently living organisms or their metabolic by-products, effectively utilizing contemporary carbon fixation processes operating on much shorter timescales than geological fossil fuel formation.
“The fundamental principle governing biofuel production suitability lies in harnessing materials derived from recently living organisms or their metabolic by-products, effectively utilizing contemporary carbon fixation processes operating on much shorter timescales than geological fossil fuel formation [18,215].”
From Biofuels, E-Fuels, and Waste-Derived Fuels: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via electrolysis – a review
Bhandari, R., Trudewind, C. A., & Zapp, P. (2013) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.048 · Cited by 924 · see citing works
Life cycle assessment of various hydrogen production methods
Çetinkaya, E., Dinçer, İ., & Naterer, G. F. (2011) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.10.064 · Cited by 587 · see citing works
Comparative life cycle assessment of various ammonia production methods
Biçer, Y., Dinçer, İ., Zamfirescu, C., Vezina, G., & Raso, F. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.023 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Comparative techno-economic and life-cycle assessment of power-to-methanol synthesis pathways
Adnan, M. A., & Kibria, M. G. (2020) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115614 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
GREET 1.5 - transportation fuel-cycle model - Vol. 1 : methodology, development, use, and results.
Wang, M. Q. (1999) · doi:10.2172/14775 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Addressing Biogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydropower in LCA
Hertwich, E. G. (2013) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es401820p · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Palmer, G., Roberts, A., Hoadley, A., Dargaville, R., & Honnery, D. (2021) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/d1ee01288f · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Liu, C. M., Sandhu, N. K., McCoy, S., & Bergerson, J. A. (2020) · Sustainable Energy & Fuels · doi:10.1039/c9se00479c · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Zang, G., Sun, P., Elgowainy, A., & Wang, M. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c08237 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Self-citationLee, K., Liu, X., Vyawahare, P., Sun, P., Elgowainy, A., & Wang, M. (2022) · Green Chemistry · doi:10.1039/d2gc00843b · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Self-citationBiçer, Y., & Dinçer, İ. (2017) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.02.002 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Bhandari, R., Kumar, B., & Mayer, F. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123385 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Hydropower's Biogenic Carbon Footprint
Scherer, L., & Pfister, S. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161947 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Zang, G., Sun, P., Elgowainy, A., Bafana, A., & Wang, M. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c05893 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Self-citationRegional water consumption for hydro and thermal electricity generation in the United States
Lee, U., Han, J., Elgowainy, A., & Wang, M. (2017) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.025 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Self-citationComprehensive life cycle assessment of large wind turbines in the US
Alsaleh, A., & Sattler, M. (2019) · Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy · doi:10.1007/s10098-019-01678-0 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of electricity generation in the province of Ontario, Canada
Mallia, E., & Lewis, G. M. (2012) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0501-0 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Frischknecht, R., USDOE, Stolz, P., et al. (2020) · doi:10.2172/2308831 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Economic and environmental competitiveness of high temperature electrolysis for hydrogen production
Motazedi, K., Salkuyeh, Y. K., Laurenzi, I. J., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.03.226 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF DAMS AND IMPOUNDMENTS IN CANADA. EXPERIENCE AND PROSPECTS
Baxter, R. M., & Glaude, P. (1980) · ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Mann, M., & Spath, P. L. (2004) · doi:10.2172/15006927 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Greenhouse gas emissions embodied in the U.S. solar photovoltaic supply chain
Gan, Y., Elgowainy, A., Lü, Z., et al. (2023) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/acf50d · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Self-citationOkeke, I. J., Sahoo, K., Kaliyan, N., & Mani, S. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119358 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Li, F., Chang, F., Lundgren, J., et al. (2023) · ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering · doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c05968 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Estimated quantities of materials contained in a 1000-MW(e) PWR power plant
Oak Ridge National Lab., T. T. U., Bryan, R., & Dudley, I. T. (1974) · doi:10.2172/4284838 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Wiser R. H.; Bolinger M.; Hoen B.; Millstein D.; Rand J.; Barbose G. L.; Darghouth N. R.; Gorman W.; Jeong S.; Mills A. D.; Paulos B. Wind Energy Technology Data Update: 2020 Edition; Berkeley Lab, 2020.
- U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Review 2021; Government Printing Office, 2022.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Biofuels, E-Fuels, and Waste-Derived Fuels: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions
Yılbaşı, Z. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17136145 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gan, Y., Ng, C., Elgowainy, A., & Marcinkoski, J.
- Affiliations
- Argonne National Laboratory (US)
- United States Department of Energy (US)
- Corresponding author
- Elgowainy, Amgad
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2024-10-07
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 42
- Pages
- 18654-18662
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- PMC
- PMC11500403
- OpenAlex
- W4403187151
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 1.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (DE-AC02-06CH11357)
- Office of Nuclear Energy
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Energy Engineering and Power Technology › Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Photovoltaic Systems and Sustainability
- Keywords
- embodied greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power plants, renewable power plants, water electrolysis, synthetic ammonia, methanol synthesis, Fischer-Tropsch fuels, photovoltaics, wind energy, hydropower, life cycle assessment, solar irradiance
- MeSH terms
- Greenhouse Gases, Methanol, Ammonia, Electrolysis, Hydrogen, Power Plants, Greenhouse Effect, Renewable Energy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
