Prospective life cycle assessment to support eco-design of solid oxide fuel cells

Figures & data

Table 1. LCA of SOFCs in the scientific literature.

Considered SOFCs	Considered scenario	SOFC implementation	SOFC coupling	Sources
Available on the market	Current scenario	In current systems	With current fuel production technologies	Di Florio et al., 2021); Ferreira et al. (2021); Perčić et al. (2022); Bicer and Khalid (2020); Kumar et al. (2022)
Available on the market	Future scenario	In current systems	With current fuel production technologies	Vargas and Seabra (2021); Heidary et al. (2023)
Available on the market	Future scenario	In future systems	With current fuel production technologies	Liao et al. (2023)
Available on the market	Future scenario	In future systems	With future fuel production technologies	Kanchiralla et al. (2022); Scolaro and Kittner (2022); Wang et al. (2015)

Figure 1. Structures of the considered SOFCs.

Table 2. Data referred to a single anode-supported SOFC.

Features	Units	Current SOFC	Future SOFCs
			Average	Standard deviation
Specific power	kW/cm^2	0.28	0.43	0.28
Surface area	mm^2	29900	4196	13167
Thickness Anode	µm	700	395.95	406.18
Thickness Electrolyte	µm	10	64.87	104.01
Thickness Cathode	µm	50	66.85	135.57

Figure 2. System boundaries.

Table 3. Inventory of the current and future SOFCs.

Flows	Units	Current SOFCs	Future SOFCs
			Average	Standard deviation
NiO	kg	0.68	0.25	0.33
YSZ	kg	0.57	0.21	0.27
Ethanol solvent	kg	0.44	0.29	0.10
Trichloroethylene	kg	0.43	0.16	0.21
Isopropanol	kg	0.28	0.10	0.14
Ethylene	kg	0.11	0.03	0.05
Polyvinyl alcohol	Kg	0.09	0.03	0.04
Methyl methacrylate	kg	0.06	0.02	0.03
Lanthanum oxide	kg	0.03	0.02	0.00
Water	kg	0.03	0.02	0.00
Strontium nitrate	kg	0.02	0.01	0.00
Zirconium dioxide	kg	0.01	0.04	0.01
Manganese oxide	kg	0.01	0.00	0.00
Polyethylene glycol plasticizer	kg	0.01	0.04	0.01
Electricity consumption	kWh	0.34	0.13	0.15

Table 4. GWP impacts [kg CO₂ eq.] of components and materials of current SOFCs and future SOFCs.

GWP impacts [kg CO2 eq.]		Current SOFCs	Future SOFCs
Component	Material		Average	Standard deviation
Anode	NiO	15.34	5.56	7.42
	YSZ	4.14	1.50	2.00
Electrolyte	YSZ	0.09	0.36	0.12
Cathode	YSZ	0.06	0.04	0.01
	LSM	3.15	2.07	0.75

Table 5. GWP impacts [kg CO₂ eq.] of material extraction and manufacturing of current SOFCs and future SOFCs.

GWP impacts [kg CO2 eq.]	Current SOFCs	Future SOFCs
		Average	Standard deviation
Material extraction	22.57	9.44	10.20
Manufacturing	0.21	0.08	0.09

Figure 3. GWP impacts comparison of components and materials of current SOFCs and future SOFCs.

Figure 4. GWP impacts comparison of components and materials of future SOFCs with planar and tubular layout (where 100% is the GWP of current SOFCs).

Figure 5. GWP impacts comparison of components and materials of tubular future SOFCs with different diameter to length ratio (where 100% is the GWP of current SOFCs).

Figure 6. GWP impacts comparison of components and materials of future SOFCs with different specific power (where 100% is the GWP of current SOFCs).

Figure 7. GWP impacts comparison of components and materials of future SOFCs with different active surface (where 100% is the GWP of current SOFCs).

Figure 8. GWP impacts comparison of components and materials of future SOFCs with different thickness of anode, electrolyte and cathode (where 100% is the GWP of current SOFCs).

Figure 9. GWP impacts comparison of components and materials of future SOFCs used for stationary and mobile and more dynamic applications (where 100% is the GWP of current SOFCs).

Table A1. Considered patents about the future SOFCs and data extracted from them (where Stat = stationary, Mob = mobile/dynamic).

Patent	Year	Layout	Application field	Diameter [mm]	Length [mm]	Surface [mm^2]	Electrolyte thickness [mm]	Anode thickness [mm]	Cathode thickness [mm]	Power[W/cm^2]
CN109638325	2018	Tubular	Stat.	10–12	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
CN109650873	2018	Planar	Stat.	13	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	1	n.a.	n.a.
US20190097243	2018	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.3–0.4
CN108417872	2018	Tubular	Stat.	0.5–1	2.26	3.55–7.100	0.15	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
CN109378488	2018	Tubular	Mob.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.001–0.05	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
WO2019/205855	2018	Tubular	Stat.	1	2	6.283	0.001–0.02	0.005–0.02	0.005–0.02	0.22
JP2018067416	2018	Tubular	Mob.	5	50	785.398	0.01	0.05–0.4	0.01	n.a.
CN108736051	2018	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	1.2	n.a.	n.a.
JP2020071987	2018	Tubular	Stat.	20	20	1256.637	0.005	0.5	0.005	0.5
CN109818021	2018	Tubular	Stat.	13	26	1061.858	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.26–0.53
KR10–2020–0026411	2018	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.05–0.15
KR10–2019–0024749	2018	Planar	Mob.	6–12	150	2827.433–5654.867	0.035–0.04	n.a.	n.a.	0.3
CN109244514	2018	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	45	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.4–0.88
CN210861803	2018	Planar	Mob.	n.a.	n.a.	225	n.a.	0.025–0.1	n.a.	0.3
KR10–2019–0092873	2018	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	2500	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
CN109888303	2019	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.01–0.03	0.01–0.03	0.433–0.79
CN110981527	2019	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.2–1.6	n.a.	n.a.
JP2019220454	2019	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.1–0.5	0.01	n.a.
WO2019/167811	2019	Tubular	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.5
WO2020/208861	2019	Planar, Tubular	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.01	n.a.	n.a.	0.075–0.5225
CN109808042	2019	Tubular	Mob.	1–13	7–10	21.991–408.407	0.200–0.300	0.307–0.500	0.200–0.300	0.319–0.762
US20190123362	2019	Tubular	Stat.	2	25	157.080	0.01–0.05	0.1–0.5	0.01–0.05	0.38
CN110534781	2019	Tubular	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	2100	0.02	0.2	0.02	0.093
WO2020/191829	2019	Tubular	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.005–0.01	0.3–0.7	0.02–0.04	0.52
JP2019212642	2019	Tubular	Stat.	11	95	3282.964	0.005–0.01	0.3	0.01	0.092
JP2019212643	2019	Tubular	Stat.	11	95	3282.964	0.005–0.01	0.3	0.01	0.092
CN110600779	2019	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.86–0.96
CN109638325	2019	Tubular	Stat.	12	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
KR10–2015123	2019	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	50	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.35–0.375
WO2021/005810	2019	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.01	n.a.	n.a.	0.075
CN109817997	2019	Tubular	Stat.	15	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.27–0.84
CN111370713	2020	Planar	Mob.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.5–0.8	0.4–0.6	n.a.
CN110890571	2020	Tubular	Mob.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.1–0.2	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
CN111029596	2020	Planar	Mob.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.02–0.2	n.a.	0.005–0.05	0.102–0.123
CN111403763	2020	Tubular	Mob.	3–12	50–500	471.239–18849.556	0.05	0.25	0.050	n.a.
CN111403764	2020	Tubular	Mob.	3–12	10	94.248–376.991	0.05	0.25	0.050	n.a.
CN112072137	2020	Planar, Tubular	Mob.	2–7	n.a.	62.832–219.911	0.05	0.4	0.05	0.371–0.528
WO2022/041466	2020	Tubular	Mob.	7	10	62.832–219.911	0.011	0.4	0.011	0.371–0.528
JP2020071987	2020	Tubular	Mob.	1	10	31.416	0.001–0.01	0.5	0.001–0.01	n.a.
WO2021/025050	2020	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.09–0.2	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
CN110828873	2020	Tubular	Stat.	12	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
KR10–2022–0035730	2020	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	2000–90000	n.a.	0.1–2	n.a.	n.a.
KR10–2021–0135154	2020	Planar, Tubular	Stat.	20.000	n.a.	225–400	0.15	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
EP3916136	2020	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.07
CN113140745	2021	Tubular	Stat.	n.a.	300–1000	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
CN113381049	2021	Tubular	Stat.	20	n.a.	13500–45000	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.12–0.4
CN113381050	2021	Tubular	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	2644.444	n.a.	0.4	n.a.	0.3
CN112909311	2021	Tubular	Stat.	9.5–10	18–21	537.212–659.734	0.01–0.09	0.9–1	0.01–0.09	0.465
IN202121045468	2021	Tubular	Mob.	20	20	1256.637	0.015–0.02	0.1–0.2	0.015–0.020	0.36–0.61
CN113285084	2021	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.01	0.35	0.04	0.43
KR10–2021–0066214	2021	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.001–0.005	0.001–0.3	0.001–0.005	n.a.
CN113800571	2021	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.01	0.4	0.01	0.338–1.079
CN114335640	2021	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	10000	0.01–0.02	0.3–1.5	0.01–0.02	0.35–0.43
CN114230330	2021	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	1.015–1.278
CN217303697	2022	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	600.000	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
TWI783307	2022	Tubular	Stat.	0.8	60	150.796	0.005–0.01	0.005–0.03	0.02–0.06	n.a.
CN115084614	2022	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	8060–7200	0.007–0.009	0.004–0.006	0.01	0.9
KR10–2022–0006372	2022	Planar	Stat.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	0.01	0.01	0.001	n.a.

Di Florio, G., E. G. Macchi, L. Mongibello, M. C. Baratto, R. Basosi, E. Busi, and M. Trini. 2021. “Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Two Different SOFC-Based Cogeneration Systems with Thermal Energy Storage Integrated into a Single-Family House Nanogrid.” Applied Energy 285:116378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116378.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ferreira, V. J., D. Wolff, A. Hornés, A. Morata, M. Torrell, A. Tarancón, and C. Corchero. 2021. “5 kW SOFC Stack via 3D Printing Manufacturing: An Evaluation of Potential Environmental Benefits.” Applied Energy 291:116803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116803.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Perčić, M., N. Vladimir, I. Jovanović, and M. Koričan. 2022. “Application of Fuel Cells with Zero-Carbon Fuels in Short-Sea Shipping.” Applied Energy 309:118463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118463.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bicer, Y., and F. Khalid. 2020. “Life Cycle Environmental Impact Comparison of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Fueled by Natural Gas, Hydrogen, Ammonia and Methanol for Combined Heat and Power Generation.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 45 (5): 3670–3685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.11.122.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kumar, R., H. Sharma, C. Saran, T. S. Tripathy, K. S. Sangwan, and C. Herrmann. 2022. “A Comparative Study on the Life Cycle Assessment of a 3D Printed Product with PLA, ABS & PETG Materials.” Procedia CIRP 107:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.04.003.

 Google Scholar

Vargas, J. E. V., and J. E. A. Seabra. 2021. “Fuel-Cell Technologies for Private Vehicles in Brazil: Environmental Mirage or Prospective Romance? A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of PEMFC and SOFC Light-Duty Vehicles.” Science of the Total Environment 798:149265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149265.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Heidary, H., A. El-Kharouf, R. Steinberger-Wilckens, S. Bozorgmehri, M. Salimi, and M. Golmohammad. 2023. “Life Cycle Assessment of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Vehicles in a Natural Gas Producing Country; Comparison with Proton Electrolyte Fuel Cell, Battery and Gasoline Vehicles.” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 59:103396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103396.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liao, C., Y. Tang, Y. Liu, Z. Sun, W. Li, and X. Ma. 2023. “Life Cycle Assessment of the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Vehicles Using Ammonia Fuel.” Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (5): 110872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.110872.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kanchiralla, F. M., S. Brynolf, E. Malmgren, J. Hansson, and M. Grahn. 2022. “Life-Cycle Assessment and Costing of Fuels and Propulsion Systems in Future Fossil-Free Shipping.” Environmental Science & Technology 56 (17): 12517–12531. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c03016.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scolaro, M., and N. Kittner. 2022. “Optimizing Hybrid Offshore Wind Farms for Cost-Competitive Hydrogen Production in Germany.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 47 (10): 6478–6493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.12.062.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, Q., B. Spasova, V. Hessel, and G. Kolb. 2015. “Methane Reforming in a Small-Scaled Plasma Reactor–Industrial Application of a Plasma Process from the Viewpoint of the Environmental Profile.” Chemistry Engineering Journal 262:766–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.09.091.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data derived from public domain resources.