Social Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Energy Technologies
Rosana Adami Mattioda, Pâmela Teixeira Fernandes, José Luiz Casela and Osiris Canciglieri Junior, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUCPR), Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
Abstract
Climate change is being discussed in many parts of the world and has required changes in many economic sectors, particularly in the industrial sector. In this context, the integration of the product development process and sustainability has become critical since it is not possible to accept methods and the approach of developing products and services that may compromise the future of the planet. Thus, studies on energy technologies by means of hydrogen and its links to sustainability have grown significantly in recent years. However, these studies have not yet addressed the social aspects of the evaluation of the life cycle because they are in an embryonic stage. Therefore, this paper aims to present the issues arising from social life cycle assessment of energy technology derived from hydrogen. Illustrative examples of energy applications coming from hydrogen and the potential benefits of hydrogen energy for the society are presented and discussed as well.
Keywords
Social life cycle assessment; sustainability; hydrogen energy technologies; product development
1 Introduction
The fact that fossil fuels as coal and oil products are heading toward a rapid depletion is a fait accompli. The increase of their consumption to meet our current energy demands alerts to an energy crisis and has taken to the resurgence of interest in the generation of energy alternatives (Panwar et al., 2011). In almost all countries worldwide, the fossil fuels are responsible for generating energy that feeds the various sectors of industry, electric power generation and are the driving force for transport in most economies. However, the burning of these products has dumped a huge amount of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and this has imposed a quick change in the production of energy (Vezirog and Şahin, 2008).
The energy issue is among the many elements that need to integrate into the challenge of sustainability. According to Barreto et al. (2002), the concept of sustainable development has evolved into a guiding principle for a livable world in the future, wherein human needs are met while maintaining the balance with nature. Thus, for the author, leading the global energy system along a sustainable path is increasingly becoming a major concern and objective. The emergence of a sustainable global energy system, however, is a long-term gradual process that will require a profound transformation of its current structure.
Energy is the main mechanism of a country’s economic growth (Herbert et al., 2014), and it has a direct link with its social development, since energy is essential for technological development and good quality of life (Baykara, 2005). The increase of the world’s population, technological development, and rising standards of living are factors that contribute to the growth of the energy demand in the world. These factors lead to the transition, migration, hunger, environmental problems, such as pollution of water and air, deterioration of health, disease, terrorism, and concern natural resources and wars. Consequently, researches on alternative strategies for power generation and supply have become especially important for the future of global stability (Midilli and Dincer, 2007).
The need for a clean energy source and sustainable fuel alternatives has been growing mainly because of extensive consumption, scarceness of existing resources, and the concerns with dangerous emissions for human health and for the environment. Thus, it is likely that in the near future fossil fuels will not be able to meet the worldwide energy demand, fact that according to Midilli and Dincer (2007) would lead to global destabilization increasing the international tensions, environmental and ecological changes, industrial and economic crises, and decrease in standards of living.
In many countries where the power generation is based on natural resources such as fossil fuels, there is a need to implement new power engineering technologies, principally those that allow the capture of carbon dioxide (Rusin and Stolecka, 2015). Currently, many alternative ways of sustainable energy are in development, but the so-called hydrogen economy has received special attention among researchers and has shown a promising future in the search of solutions for the production of clean energy (Zhang et al., 2016). Stopping the greenhouse gas emission needs to happen soon, since its negative effect can continue for the next 30 years. During these 30 years, according to Baykara (2005), fossil resources will be depleted considerably; however, it will also enable a smooth transition to hydrogen energy system and a regime of sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development has acquired social, cultural, and global issues following the publication of the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) that transcended the traditional boundaries of the scientific field, being an omnipresent element that affects almost all major corporations and governments (Bettencourt and Kaur, 2011). The sustainability concept and sustainability assessment tools have been recently introduced to strategic decision systems for product development; they have a continuous growth potential for enhancing the sustainability of products. It is essential to undertake a sustainability assessment of the various alternatives at an early stage, and this allows the relevant decision makers/stakeholders to carry out sustainability-oriented decision-making. Thus, there is no common consensus on determining the sustainability indicators, so different decision makers/stakeholders can choose suitable indicators according to their preferences and the actual conditions. Sustainability emphasizes the simultaneous optimization of economic concerns, environmental performance, and social issues, namely the triple bottom line. Thus, the economic aspects, environment issues, and social concerns are considered the three sustainability pillars (Ren et al., 2015).
It is essential to combine widely used initiatives [e.g., life cycle assessment (LCA), ecodesign, cleaner production, and corporate social responsibility] to support companies in their sustainability efforts and to emphasize the importance of effective communication. Evaluation of LCA, which was first developed and standardized in order to assess the potential environmental impacts of products and services (ISO 2006a,b), has evolved over time and became more appropriate for sustainability assessments.
The interest in studying hydrogen energy technologies and their linkages to sustainability aspects have been growing significantly in the last years; however, the numbers of studies that approach the social aspects of the LCA in this context are still limited. Therefore, this paper aims to present, through a framework, the issues from social life cycle assessment (SLCA) regarding hydrogen energy technologies. In addition, some illustrative examples of hydrogen energy applications are shown and present the potential benefits of hydrogen energy for society.
2 Social Life Cycle Assessment
According to Labuschagne and Brent (2006), the last decade of the 20th century marks significantly the steps to elaborate the social dimension of sustainable development. The inclusion of social aspects in the debate and in the sustainability practice has been marginal compared to the attention given to the two other dimensions, especially from a business perspective. However, stakeholders are forcing companies to deal with the inclusion of social sustainability, transferring the pressure of social concerns to related environmental issues. It is important to have a common vision of sustainability, coordination, and integration of tools and methods for the development of sustainable products, through initiatives widely used, as, e.g., the LCA. Historically, the LCA approach was introduced in the late 1960s, whereas the SLCA was introduced in 1993 with the initiation of the Society of Environmental Toxicology (SETAC) Workshop. Therefore, SLCA is relatively young as compared to LCA. SLCA complements both E-LCA (environmental life cycle assessment) and LCC (life cycle costing) in terms of sustainability assessment (UNEP/SETAC 2009). SLCA has similar applications to E-LCA, such as sustainability labeling, sustainability management, and assessment of technology alternatives considering social aspects.
The LCA community, based on the context of the triple bottom line, Klöepffer (2008), indicates the environmental aspects to achieve or assess sustainability and proposes the structure LCSA (life cycle sustainability assessment) comprising LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA, wherein the society depends on economy, economy depends on global ecosystem, and health represents the bottom final line. LCSA widens the scope integrating social and economic aspects with the decision-making process aiming at having more sustainable products throughout their life cycle. It is an effective tool to support the product development process considering all aspects of ecodesign, i.e., reducing the environmental, social, and economic impacts in life cycle perspective. The origins of social impacts reflect the ambit of the social impact assessment (SIA) and the SLCA. SLCA guidelines were published by Life Cycle Initiative, launched by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and SETAC (Lehmann et al., 2011). For Sonnemann et al. (2015), SLCA aims to quantify the social impacts regarding the complete product life cycle. The social impacts for SLCA are defined in the UNEP/SETAC guidelines (UNEP/SETAC 2009) as consequences of positive or negative pressures on social endpoints or as consequences of social relations, along with an activity or actions taken by stakeholders.
A social and socioeconomic life cycle assessment (SLCA) is a SIA technique (for real and potential impacts) that aims to assess the social and social economic aspects of products, and its positive and negative impacts along its life cycle, i.e., from the extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, use, reuse, maintenance, recycling, to the final disposal. The SLCA does not provide information on whether a product should be made or not, it only provides elements of thought for a decision on production (Andrews et al., 2009), supporting decision-making that improves social impacts in the life of a product. The well-being of stakeholders is the ultimate goal of SLCA, being mainly the social impacts assessed on human capital, human well-being, cultural heritage, social economy, and social behavior. SLCA can provide valuable information on social conditions of the production and consumption of products in a transparent, science-based manner, highlighting trade-offs among several alternatives.
One alternative may not be simply better than one other, but SLCA will give a general view on what circumstances makes one of the alternatives adequate (Chhipi-Shrestha et al., 2014). Thus, SLCA will give a general understanding of the system, its impacts and the complexity of the product system giving an additional value to sustainability assessment by measuring its social dimension (UNEP/SETAC, 2009). The discussion about the SLCA method is an interesting perspective of future research opportunities that should focus on strengthening the information and knowledge of the application of SLCA to products (Mattioda et al., 2015).
2.1 Categories and Subcategories of Social Dimension
The social dimension is concerned with an extensive array of issues, e.g., safety, equity, diversity, governance, human health, labor rights, and justice. As such, the breadth of concepts allocated to this dimension creates a significant challenge when attempting to internalize and operationalize social sustainability. Many of these are applicable at a global or national level and therefore are useful when discussing a macro view of social impacts. Nowadays, the global population has ever higher expectations for good standard of quality of life. Being able to measure, evaluate, and improve on the social state of a variety of stakeholder groups is a missing piece in the sustainability puzzle. Currently, there are no consensus on the tools and guidelines needed to measure and evaluate social performance. To address social impacts, a set of definitions is still needed, and there is no consistent decision for measures, metrics, or indicators (Sutherland et al., 2016).
The most of important international organizations have defined specific initiatives to promote the adoption of the SLCA of the product framework. A system perspective is at center of the life cycle approach and provides valuable support to sustainability assessment. The document that describes the guidelines for the SLCA proposed by UNEP/SETAC (2009) establishes a framework for the resolution of key social aspects. It is consistent with the broader debate on global sustainable development and focuses on fundamental social elements related to the economic activity and production. The guidelines and methodological sheets propose a general approach based on a set of stakeholder groups and possible impact categories, subcategories, and indicators. Workers, local community, society, consumers, and value chain actors are considered the main actors affected by the functioning of a life cycle (UNEP-SETAC, 2009; Iofrida et al., 2016). Within each category, the subcategories seek to describe the overall meaning of indicators used, and the attributes or relevant social features for evaluation. The social and socioeconomic subcategories have been defined according to the best practices at international level: international instruments, Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives, the legal framework model, and literature evaluation of social impacts. Next, the 31 subcategories associated with 5 categories of stakeholders are described (Sutherland et al., 2016; UNEP/SETAC, 2009; Ramirez et al., 2014): workers, local community, society, consumers, and the actor value chain.
1. Workers: A worker or employee is simply an individual who provides their skills to a firm, usually in exchange for a monetary wage. More specifically, in 1993, the ILO (International Labour Organization) clarified a need for stable contracts in which employees have had a contract of employment, explicit or implicit, written or oral, with the same employer, continually. Across all sectors, employees are the foundational social element of production but are not often recognized contractually as occurs in some developing countries. Being the principal stakeholder, workers experience measurable impacts and have more clearly identifiable social impact categories and indicators than other groups. Table 7.1 describes the subcategories of stakeholder worker.
2. Local community: It is defined very differently among disciplines but the same general principle of a spatially related agglomeration of individuals utilizing a shared resource base within which a firm exists. These boundaries are extremely context specific, and just as in SLCA, boundaries must be defined to limit the scope of negative impact (or broaden the scope for positive impacts), with tools such as Geographic Information Systems, useful for integrating the spatial dimension of social data. The spatial element is not the only limitation when defining the stakeholder group local community. Understanding the needs of a local community can present a significant challenge as well. Basic needs might be as simple as taxes paid by a company or intangible resources such as access to information or community services, where affiliation needs might be the percentage of employees who come from the community itself. Furthermore, this stakeholder group is viewed as indirect, leaving impacts highly qualitative. Table 7.2 describes the subcategories of stakeholder local community.
3. Society: All other social groups outside the bounds of those already listed fall into the category of global society. State, national, and international government entities as well as many of the network interconnections also fit within this category. Table 7.3 describes the subcategories of stakeholder society.
4. Consumer: Consumer is who uses the goods and services purchased by them or provided by others. The assumption is that the consumer or customer is the top priority for an enterprise. Note that this stakeholder is considered part only on issues related to the purchase and not during the actual use of the product. This stakeholder group is viewed as any end user of a product, service, or process. This is not limited to individuals however, with a life cycle view, would include the next downstream link in the supply chain. Table 7.4 describes the subcategories of stakeholder consumer.
5. Actors of value chain: This group captures the potential social impacts of the relationship between producers (buyers) and suppliers (sellers). Suppliers or value chain actors are stakeholders who provide goods or services for use by a firm. An individual firm has the potential to have many suppliers at a given time, across multiple product lines. When taking a life cycle view, suppliers can be considered the next upstream link in the supply chain. Beyond the immediate first-tier relationship, manufacturers must also consider the entire supply chain, adding significant complexity to a life cycle sustainability analysis. This analysis must also now include the social impacts of every supply chain partner. Table 7.5 describes the subcategories of stakeholder actors of value chain.
Table 7.1
Subcategories of Stakeholder Worker
| Subcategories | Basic Requirement |
| Freedom of association and collective negotiation | Evidence that workers of the organization are members of a union (at least one), based on the ILO Convention No. 87 |
| Child labor | Presence of a policy related to child labor or lack of evidence of children working. Child labor is defined by the ILO Convention No. 138 as the recruitment of workers under the age of compulsory schooling or not less than 15 years old in developed countries and not less than 14 years old in developing countries |
| Fair wage | The lowest salary is equal to or higher than the minimum wage in the sector/country where the organization is located |
| Work hours | The average number of hours worked per week by employees, which should not exceed 8 in the day and 48 in the week in compliance with ILO Convention No. 1 and No. 30 |
| Forced labor | Presence of a policy against forced labor, in compliance with ILO Convention Nos. 29 and 105 concerning the abolition of forced labor or the lack of evidence of forced labor |
| Equal opportunities/discrimination | Presence of a management system, policy or actions that prevent discrimination and promote equal opportunities for workers, according to the ILO Convention Nos. 100, 111, and 169. For this subcategory, only gender inequality was taken into account |
| Health and safety | Presence of a policy/guidelines or programme related to health and safety, in compliance with ILO Convention Nos. 115 and 161 |
| Social benefits/Social security | When the organization provides more than two social benefits suggested by the ILO Conventions Nos. 130, 134, 128, 121, 168, 118, 157, and 183 |
Table 7.2
Subcategories of Stakeholder Local Community
| Subcategories | Basic Requirement |
| Access to material resources | Presence of an internal management system that is concerned with the sustainable use of natural resources, the prevention of pollution, and the recycling of wastes, such as the IFC Performance Standards on Social & Environmental Sustainability, the ISO 14000, and the ISO 26000 |
| Access to immaterial resources | Presence of an internal management system that promotes: community services, such as health care, education, and lending programs; and/or sharing information and knowledge and transferring technology and skills to the community |
| Delocalization and migration | Presence of an internal management system which prevents involuntary resettlement, wherein there is involuntary resettlement; or there is no evidence of involuntary resettlement caused by the organization |
| Cultural heritage | Evidence that the organization contributes to the preservation of cultural heritage through contributions to cultural and artistic organizations, networks, or internal programs |
| Safe and healthy living conditions | Evidence that the organization contributes to the local community through environmental risk management systems or through participation with local organizations in communicating the potential health and safety impacts of their operations on surrounding communities |
| Enforcement of indigenous rights | Evidence that the organization has an indigenous rights policy or a commitment to adopt free prior informed consultation when its operations involve indigenous lands, or wherein there is no evidence of disputes over indigenous land between the local community and the organization |
| Community participation | Evidence that the environment, health, or welfare of a community is considered important by the organization, e.g., an environmental management system, risk analysis, or local public action (Agenda 21) |
| Local employment | Evidence that the organization has local hiring preferences. In this method, evidence of local hiring preferences means that at least 50% of the total employees of the organization were hired locally |
| Secure living conditions | Lack of evidence of conflicts with the local community or organization actions that may put their secure living conditions at risk |
Table 7.3
Subcategories of Stakeholder Society
| Subcategories | Basic Requirement |
| Public commitments to sustainability issues | Evidence of any promise or agreement related to sustainability which may be disseminated through the organization’s website, promotional materials, or other means |
| Contribution to economic development | Evidence that the organization contributes to the economy which is demonstrated by the organization’s website, promotional materials, or other means |
| Prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts | Evidence of any promise or agreement relating to this aspect which is demonstrated by the organization’s website, promotional materials, or other means |
| Development of technology | Evidence that the organization participates in joint research and development for efficient and environmentally sound technologies |
| Corruption | Evidence that the organization has implemented measures to prevent corruption |
Table 7.4
Subcategories of Stakeholder Consumer
| Subcategories | Basic Requirement |
| Health and safety | Presence of a procedure to ensure health and safety standards to the consumer |
| Feedback mechanism | Presence of a customer’s feedback mechanism and practices related to customer satisfaction. It has all the following practices: suggestion box on the help desk, conducting customer satisfaction surveys, providing a complaint service, or a section on the website |
| Consumer privacy | Presence of a policy that protects consumers’ right to privacy. The consumer’s right to privacy is defined in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Consumer Protection Act |
| Transparency | Presence of social responsibility reports, such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Social Balance Report, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Accountability 1000, Social Accountability 8000, ISO 26000, or any other internationally recognized documentation |
| End-of-life responsibility | Presence within the organization, of management systems which provide clear information on end-of-life options for consumers, such as Product Responsibility Performance Indicators, PR4 (GRI 2006), or a recall policy for its product at its end-of-life phase (e.g., battery cases, glass bottles) |
Table 7.5
Subcategories of Stakeholder Actors of Value Chain
| Subcategories | Basic Requirement |
| Fair competition | Evidence that the organization competes fairly and in compliance with antitrust legislation or monopoly practices |
| Relationship with suppliers | Evidence that the organization has a code of conduct with defined standards of ethical behavior expected from its suppliers and which is made known to them |
| Enforcement of intellectual property rights | Evidence that the organization respects the intellectual property system |
3 Hydrogen Energy Technologies and Social Aspects
Hydrogen is relevant to all of the energy sectors and can be used as a fuel for a wide variety of important applications such as to drive the industry, transportation, buildings, etc. (Elam et al., 2003; Sherif et al., 2005). Hydrogen energy systems have potential to provide a new sustainable energy system, since its production can occur from renewable and sustainable energy sources and its utilization generate little or no emissions (Midilli et al., 2005). The production of hydrogen through of sustainable energy sources (e.g., solar, hydropower, wind, nuclear, etc.) is considered to be a prime fuel in meeting energy supply and security, environmental and social improvement, and the most essential means in a country for increasing the sustainable technological development and industrial productivity (Midilli and Dincer, 2007). The development of this system can be especially valued for locations where the infrastructure to supply energy does not exist (Elam et al., 2003), changing the existing power infrastructure as well as the people’s standard of living in the society (Zhang et al., 2016). Hydrogen energy technologies can also contribute to the development of countries through no dependency on fossil fuels, once hydrogen is available in many ways in the world. According to Midilli et al. (2005), sustainable energy sources that are abundantly available can reduce conflicts among countries regarding energy reserves, facilitate the development of new technologies, reduce pollution and the loss of forests, and the energy-related illnesses and deaths. In long term, the extensive use of hydrogen might also contribute to the reduction of environmental impacts regarding energy, including global warming due to carbon emissions, emissions as CO, NOx, SOx, nonmethane hydrocarbons, and particulates (Elam et al., 2003).
Although there is an evident urgency in adopting more sustainable energy systems, which is reinforced by pressure for utilization due to environmental regulations like the Kyoto Protocol, the most significant critical issues pertaining to utilization of hydrogen energy technologies are still the cost, the slowness of market diffusion, and the low level of public awareness and acceptance (Baykara, 2005). According to Barbir (2009), the transition from the current energy system based on fossil fuels to a sustainable energy system as hydrogen energy must be thoughtfully planned, since it can cause severe impacts on global economy. The author argues that the renewable sources in general have less energy than the fossil fuel and consequently would not support the continuous economic growth resulting in a steady-state economy. For him, the ideal scenery for a successful transition requires immediate and quantitatively significant adoption of the use of renewable energy sources once these have proven to be beneficial in the long term. Thus, the current economy would be able to adopt the transition to a more expensive energy system, balancing investment in new energy system with the savings of financial resources that would be necessary to deal with the problems caused by global warming and its consequences in the near future.
Hydrogen energy technologies can be applied to almost every sector of society, which transfers to the government the important role of encouraging the intersector discussion in the industry, business sectors, universities, and population. This discussion initially drafted on sustainable development should analyze issues related to the country and/or location, considering both economic aspects, undeniably important for an industry, and equally important issues such as job creation, development of know-how, decentralization, quality of life, saving depleted resources, more freedom in foreign policy, utilization of new resources, and several others (Baykara, 2005).
According to Manzardo et al. (2012), the different technologies for hydrogen production will lead into different costs, different environmental loads, and different social–political impacts. Thus, the transition into a new energy system will require shifts in our mind, culture, and policies in a global scale, such as (Barbir, 2009; Odum and Odum, 2001):
• Equity: There is a huge gap in economic well-being between developed and undeveloped countries, and rich and poor people that should be replaced by ethics of maximizing the empowerment.
• Environment cost: Countries exporting products with high environmental services content should receive fair value for their products and/or exploited resources, e.g., international trade based on energy.
• Education: The people should be knowledgeable about issues of energy, environment, and their values, interactions, and potential consequences so that they can make appropriate and timely decisions.
• Social issues: The economy development should take place without physical growth (including population), aiming at a sustainable development to society, technology, knowledge, culture, health care, etc., in which the key aspects should be “less,” “more efficient,” and “cooperation.”
3.1 Social Impacts on Applications of Hydrogen Energy Technologies
In the last decade, the number of hydrogen-related products in exhibitions has grown significantly, mainly in futuristic small high-tech firms, venture capitalism of large companies, and pilot projects supported by some governments and international organizations (Baykara, 2005).
The use of hydrogen as fuel for transports has presented positive results in different areas and can be a promising alternative for development of vehicles in the future. In the aviation, Pereira et al. (2014) significant results in the comparison to hydrogen and other fossil fuel have been achieved. Even when the hydrogen is derived from fossil energy sources, the application to aircrafts has 8% lower energy consumption than the same aircrafts with jet fuel A. In the case of hydrogen produced from renewable energy sources the reductions can achieve between 51% and 60% in environmental costs (depending on the type of aircraft and flight), and 19% energy consumption in relation to the same aircraft with jet fuel A. In land transports, the use of fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) powered by hydrogen is taking place in various cities around the world; however, the feasibility or not of H2 FCVs is conditioned to the capability to meet the different requirements of consumers. In Italy, Milan and Turin were the first to deploy these vehicles, in part to meet the growing aspirations of users. There is a global demand of consumers in order to improve environmental quality, from noise pollution to air pollution with greenhouse gases that provoke the greenhouse gas effect. This demand can promote the introduction of an automotive system where the matrix energy is hydrogen fuel cell. In addition to this context, the demand for better environmental quality is likely to increase in road transport, which is also under pressure to be more efficient and comfortable. The use of H2 FCVs can substantially reduce emissions of regulated pollutants and greenhouse gases. By using the externality costs for regulated pollutants, the estimate is that the use of hydrogen-powered fuel cells in 5% of diesel buses in Milan could avoid the $2 million a year in health costs. A gradual projection for a 2030 scenario estimates that 65% of the automotive park would use H2 FCVs as fuel in Italy, representing a consumption of 1.4 million tons year of H2 (Mercuri et al., 2002). Some evaluate the implementation of this hydrogen cell technology in a competitive scale by importance to implement a longer climate policy. However, there are a number of challenges to overcome to the successful implementation of hydrogen technology in transportation and stationary power (Roche et al., 2010).
Parissis et al. (2011) show another promising example of utilization of hydrogen energy. The study developed on the Corvo Island, Azores, includes the introduction of hydrogen as a storage means and wind energy as an additional electricity production source. The island has a heavy dependency on imported fuel and is situated at long distance from larger islands and Continental Portugal. The study developed proposed the introduction of a system that covered 80% of the electricity island needs using a free feedstock for the production of energy, decreasing the production of harmful emissions and enhancing the security of supply, which is an important issue taking into account this place. The results of the proposed system with penetration of wind energy into the power system of Corvo Island coupled with the introduction of hydrogen energy storage are profitable both from the perspective of the investor and the society, enabling a remarkable reduction of 43% in the power generation cost.
Similar researches have been made in Iceland. Since the country declared in 1999 a national goal to convert its economy to hydrogen energy until 2030, many studies started to be developed (Park, 2011; Shafiei et al., 2014; Solomon and Banerjee, 2006). Iceland has a small population and offers ideal conditions and environment for an experiment on the transition to hydrogen economy. Despite the country having a high level of foreign dependence (e.g., technology, funding, products, and others facilities) which will influence the development of hydrogen economy, the energy-related issues have priority in Iceland, since it can gain the symbolic advantage of becoming the first carbon-free nation in the world (Park, 2011). According to Baykara (2005), the lack of demand is still the main cause for high cost, slow market diffusion, and low mass production of hydrogen fuel. However, the public acceptance that involves risk perception and customer satisfaction is influenced by values, wants, and perception. These are also affected by social background and experience and can demand marketing methods, educational projects, and product exposure for the successful acceptance of hydrogen fuel. The author argues that it is necessary for governments and institutions to assess the critical hydrogen technologies in order to identify the measures to facilitate the transition to the new energy system in the most beneficial way. The recommendations included the implementation of legislative and financial measures that introduced the “real economics,” considering past, present, and future environmental damage, depletion of environmental resources, costs for keeping energy sources accessible until the gradual elimination of subsidies for the existing energy system (Veziroglu and Barbir, 1998).
4 SLCA Stakeholders and Hydrogen Energy Technologies
According to Fukurozaki (2011), an energy system in the society is projected to attend its demands through services, such as lighting, air conditioning, refrigeration, transportation, information, production of goods and services, that is, all the benefits that energy can provide. In general, the productive chain of the energy that provides these services begins with the extraction or collection of a primary energy that throughout a sequence of stages is converted into energy carriers. These, in turn, are consumed by end-use equipment (e.g., lamps, motors, machines) that convert the carries into useful energy.
According to Manzardo et al. (2012), the LCA, LCC, and SLCA included in LCSA have been used to collect the data for criteria for sustainability assessments of the hydrogen production technologies. Figure 7.1 shows the relations between the SLCA stakeholders and the life cycle of hydrogen energy system and describes the potential benefits that can be achieved with the adoption of this energy system.
As shown in Fig. 7.1, the hydrogen energy system starts with the extraction and treatment of the raw material, it goes through the production stage, and it ends at the consumption stage. When we apply the SLCA concepts to this life cycle, it is possible to identify the relation between the stages of hydrogen life cycle and the technologies of the stakeholders.
The first stage of the hydrogen life cycle – extraction and treatment – has a direct link with the local community, which also includes the workers and actors of the value chain. As the resources to obtain hydrogen can change according to the local where it will be produced, the extraction process of raw material for its production is not unchangeable. Manzardo et al. (2012) argue that the methodologies to assess the best way to produce hydrogen energy should help the decision makers according to conditions offered by the environment and their preference and willingness. Thus, the application of SLCA in the issues regarding local community can require different approaches in different contexts, i.e., the enforcement of indigenous rights can be less relevant if the local where the extraction of resources will occur does not include indigenous land.
At the time the raw material starts to be processed, the strongest relationship of hydrogen life cycle is with the workers, actors of value chain, and stakeholders. Thus, the application of SLCA in the production stage needs to be specially directed to workers and suppliers. In this stage, like any other company, all the subcategories of stakeholders need to be attended, since all of them have the same importance and do not depend on any environmental condition.
When the hydrogen energy achieves the final consumption, then the stakeholder consumer must be assessed.
Assurance of health and safety and consumer privacy are rights that any consumer hopes to receive from companies. However, the feedback mechanism, transparency, and end-of-life responsibility are issues that, besides attending the need to inform the consumers, help the companies to highlight the benefits of hydrogen energy. Thereby, generating reports helps society to understand the benefits that could be achieved from the use of hydrogen energy.
For the society, the potential benefits that can be generated through hydrogen energy are extensive (Fig. 7.1). The green energy based on hydrogen energy system can create many additional industrial working fields and consequently ensure economic and social sustainability since it can be utilized in any part of the economy and in people’s lives. According to Midilli and Dincer (2007), the active driving forces considered for hydrogen energy based on sustainability are education, media, society, private sector, government, and research and development centers in a country, respectively, and should include the social, environmental, energy, economic, industrial, and political aspects.
5 Conclusion
The production of energy from hydrogen seems to be one of the most promising forms of sustainable energy generation with real global implementation capacity and should become the main goal of political decisions in the future. Its benefits include all perspectives of sustainability – economic, environmental, and social – and enable changes in society that can reach a large number of people in different global contexts, e.g., it can benefit regions with high levels of atmosphere pollution, reduce countries’ external dependence on fossil fuels, as well as bring technological benefits of energy use to remote and undeveloped regions.
The development of green energy based on hydrogen energy system presents considerable differences from the fossil fuel energy technologies, mainly regarding to investment cost and long implementation lead times, besides being less susceptible to the finiteness of natural resources available. Nevertheless, for Midilli and Dincer (2007), the use of hydrogen energy based on sustainable development still is affected by criteria, such as the public awareness of the benefits of sustainability investments, environmental education and training, appropriate hydrogen energy strategies, availability of hydrogen energy sources and technologies, reasonable supplies of financing for sustainability measures, and monitoring and evaluation tools for hydrogen energy based sustainability.
Considering hydrogen energy possibilities presented here and summarizing the most important procedure is to direct the strategies and programs for hydrogen energy to ensure both sustainability and global stability. Adopting SLCA tool as guidelines for the hydrogen technology projects can help the organizations and managers to achieve these goals. SLCA is able to support the decision-making through supplying elements for a decision on whole life cycle, especially considering the social impacts assessed on human capital, human well-being, cultural heritage, socioeconomy, and social behavior. However, it is important to consider, as in any other project, that the use of the SLCA tool be applied according to the specific characteristics and necessities of the project, taking into account its environmental, physical, social, and economic limitations. Thus, the categories and indicators adopted may not present the same importance or relevance for all the hydrogen technology projects.
Despite the great efforts needed to change the current energy matrix, it is necessary to think not only about the impacts on the economic and industrial sectors, which sustain much of the good and service production, but in the consequences of maintaining the current model and the perennial of the planet. The climatic and environmental variables are being decisive for the world to adopt renewable energies. The future will depend on the diversification of these sources, and the study of hydrogen-based energy technologies may be the transition to an era of a more sustainable world. Therefore, it is necessary to imagine scenarios and make further questions about the usability of the SLCA tool to deepen its study and applicability in the discussion about the strategic planning of a new energetic matrix based on hydrogen technologies. This requires time, resources, political decision-making, and a lot of applied science. The world will continue using fossil fuel for a long time, even heading to a complex horizon with many issues to be resolved. The solution for this scenario will require politicians, scientists, and consumers to respond innovatively. With the future knocking at our door, the earlier we anticipate our decisions in a sustainable way, the greater our chances to reach a peaceful agreement with nature.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the financial and technical support provided by CAPES, Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Process 19224-12-5), the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUCPR) in Brazil, and the Centro Studi Qualità Ambiente (CESQA) Department of Industrial Engineering at the University of Padova in Italy.