% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Wulf:850627,
      author       = {Wulf, Christina and Reuß, Markus and Grube, Thomas and
                      Zapp, Petra and Robinius, Martin and Stolten, Detlef and
                      Hake, Jürgen-Fr.},
      title        = {{L}ife {C}ycle {A}ssessment of hydrogen transport and
                      distribution options},
      journal      = {Journal of cleaner production},
      volume       = {199},
      issn         = {0959-6526},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2018-04435},
      pages        = {431-443},
      year         = {2018},
      abstract     = {Renewably produced hydrogen offers a solution for mobility
                      via fuel cell electric vehicles without emissions during
                      driving. However, the hydrogen supply chain, from hydrogen
                      production to the fueling station – incorporating seasonal
                      storage and transport – varies in economic and
                      environmental aspects depending on the technology used, as
                      well as individual conditions, such as the distance between
                      production and demand. Previous studies have focused on the
                      economic aspects of varying technologies and elaborated
                      application areas of each technology, while environmental
                      issues were not specifically considered. To address this
                      shortcoming, this paper presents a life cycle assessment of
                      three supply chain architectures: (a) liquid organic
                      hydrogen carriers (LOHCs hereinafter) for transport and
                      storage; as well as (b) compressed hydrogen storage in salt
                      caverns, together with pipelines; and (c) pressurized gas
                      truck transport. The results of this study show that the
                      pipeline solution has the least environmental impact with
                      respect to most of the impact categories for all analyzed
                      cases. Only for short distances, i.e., 100 km, is truck
                      transport better in a few impact categories. When
                      considering truck transport scenarios, LOHCs have higher
                      environmental impacts than pressurized gas in seven out of
                      14 impact categories. Nevertheless, for longer distances,
                      the difference is decreasing. The seasonal storage of
                      hydrogen has almost no environmental influence, independent
                      of the impact category, transport distance or hydrogen
                      demand. In particular, strong scaling effects underlie the
                      good performance of pipeline networks.},
      cin          = {IEK-STE / IEK-3},
      ddc          = {690},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013 / I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-3-20101013},
      pnm          = {153 - Assessment of Energy Systems – Addressing Issues of
                      Energy Efficiency and Energy Security (POF3-153) / ES2050 -
                      Energie Sytem 2050 (ES2050) / 134 - Electrolysis and
                      Hydrogen (POF3-134)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-153 / G:(DE-HGF)ES2050 / G:(DE-HGF)POF3-134},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000444358400041},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.180},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/850627},
}