Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Environmental aspects of fuel cells: A review

Mohammad Ali Abdelkareem a,b,c, Khaled Elsaid d,⁎, Tabbi Wilberforce e, Mohammed Kamil f,
Enas Taha Sayed b,c, A. Olabi a,b,⁎⁎
a
Department of Sustainable and Renewable Energy Engineering, University of Sharjah, 27272 Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
b
Center for Advanced Materials Research, University of Sharjah, 27272 Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
c
Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Minia University, Egypt
d
Chemical Engineering Program, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-3122, USA
e
Mechanical Engineering and Design, Aston University, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
f
Department of Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering Department, University of Sharjah, 27272 Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Environmental impacts of conventional

energy conversion devices were
discussed.
• Common fuel cells were summarized
and compared to each other.
• Environmental aspects of different
types of FCs were summarized.
• Fuel source has a substantial effect on
the environmental impacts of FCs.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fossil fuels represent the primary energy supply utilized worldwide. Despite this, fossil fuels are both limited re-
Received 16 May 2020 sources and have severe environmental impacts that result in climate change and several health issues. Fuel cells
Received in revised form 16 August 2020 (FCs) are efficient energy conversion devices, which can be used for energy conversion and storage. Although dif-
Accepted 17 August 2020
ferent types of FCs exhibit promising features for future usage, they also have some environmental aspects that
Available online 20 August 2020
ought to be addressed. This review summarizes the different types of FCs, including the advantages and disadvan-
Editor: Hussam Jouhara tages of each. The different environmental aspects of the common types of FCs are then comprehensively
discussed. This review also compares FCs to conventional power generation systems to illustrate their relative en-
Keywords: vironmental benefits.
Fuel cells Although FCs are considered more environmental-friendly compared to conventional energy conversion sys-
Fuel conversion devices tems, there are still evident operational and environmental setbacks among different FC types. These setbacks,
Environmental impacts of energy conversion however, must be compared in context of the intended application, fuel type, and all other involved factors in
devices order to have a clear and fair comparison. FCs are considered environmentally friendly and more efficient. How-
Environmental aspects of FCs
ever, this is usually only when considering the operational phase or the operational perspective. The main chal-
lenge facing FCs still remains fuel sourcing, like, for example, in the case of obtaining hydrogen for hydrogen FCs,
where hydrogen production causes environmental impacts. The same applies for electrode materials, where, in

⁎ Corresponding author.
⁎⁎ Correspondence to: A.G. Olabi, Department of Sustainable and Renewable Energy Engineering, University of Sharjah, 27272 Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
E-mail addresses: khaled.elsaid@qatar.tamu.edu (K. Elsaid), aolabi@sharjah.ac.ae (A. Olabi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141803
0048-9697/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803

many cases, either a noble metal such as platinum, or other precious metals, or costly material. With this consid-
eration, a life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful tool that considers all of the manufacturing, fuel sourcing, and
operational phases. Although using FCs shows evident environmental improvements compared to conventional
energy sources, the LCA of FCs compared to that of conventional power sources shows a similar performance. This
is mainly due to the EIs associated with fuel sourcing and material acquisition, either for precious metals used for
low-temperature FCs, or thermally and chemically stable materials used for medium- and high-temperature FCs.
Both of these also contribute largely to the cost of FCs. Developments in both areas will undoubtedly help to make
FCs both more environmental-friendly and cost-efficient.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This review summarizes the different environmental aspects of FCs.

The review starts with an explanation for conventional power generation
Rapid population growth and advancements in civilization have re- and its environmental impacts. This explanation also serves as an aid in
sulted in a rapidly growing demand for energy sources that are mainly the comparison of the performance of FCs compared to conventional
dependent on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels pose many disadvantages. Not power systems. The review then provides some background information
only are their prices unstable and erratically fluctuating, but they are on the different types of FCs, and their operational aspects. This necessary
also a limited resource with severe environmental impacts (EIs), introduction helps better understand the environmental aspects
which result in global warming and other more severe health issues discussed in detail afterward. The review then thoroughly discusses and
(Asongu et al., 2020; Ike et al., 2020). Renewable energy sources, such analyzes the environmental impacts of different FC types, followed by
as: solar energy (Wilberforce et al., 2019a), wind energy (Nazir et al., an inter-comparison among these FCs, to show the relative impacts of
2019), geothermal energy (Wilberforce et al., 2019a), tidal and wave each FC type in comparison to both the other FC types and conventional
energy (Soudan, 2019) and biomass energy (Inayat et al., 2019; Nassef systems. The discussion adopts the life cycle assessment (LCA) as much
et al., 2019b) are considered the best potential candidates to replace fos- as possible, as it is an effective tool in assessing both operational and
sil fuels for energy supply in the near future. manufacturing phases. The review also discusses environmental aspects,
Conventional energy conversion devices, such as internal combus- which include both environmental benefits and negative impacts.
tion engines and thermodynamic cycles, are commonly used for the ex- Benefits include lower GHG emissions and fuel consumption due to
traction and conversion of chemical energy contained in different fuels higher efficiency, with other advantages mentioned when compared to
(Ge et al., 2016). During this process, huge amounts of greenhouse conventional systems. Negative impacts, such as higher GHG emissions,
gases (GHGs) are produced, resulting in a detrimental effect on the en- more utilized resources, and other significant impacts, are discussed and
vironment (Elsaid et al., 2020a; Turconi et al., 2013). To limit the detri- compared when discussing different FC types.
mental effects of these fossil fuel-based devices, renewable energy-
based fuels, such as biodiesel and bioethanol, have been proposed to de- 2. Environmental impacts of conventional power generation
crease these major EIs (Mofijur et al., 2016). Though the potential of systems
these strategies minimizing EIs is undeniable, there is still a consider-
able amount of GHGs produced. Full reliance on renewable energy A wide variety of energy resources are readily available on the planet
sources requires the development of efficient energy conversion and and can be classified broadly into energy stored in fuels and energy
storage devices, to further reduce or eliminate EIs. associated with renewable actions. The chemical energy stored in fuel
Fuel cells (FCs) are energy conversion devices that convert the has been the primary source of energy since the early era of the in-
chemical energy of different fuels (including those from various renew- dustrial revolution. Fig. 1 below shows the primary energy supply
able energy sources) directly into electrical energy at a much higher ef- by the energy source in million-ton oil equivalent (Mtoe) over the
ficiency, both theoretically and practically, as compared to conventional last three decades. The figure shows that the energy supply is
power generation sources (Sayed et al., 2019). These FCs are not only ef- currently dominated by conventional energy sources, with fossil
ficient devices, but are also: small in size, silent, and have much lower fuel accounting for about 81% (IEA International Energy Agency,
EIs compared to other conventional devices or technologies specifically 2020). The current power generation of about 25 PWh is sourced
during the operational phase (Abdelkareem et al., 2019a). For example, from different fuels; these include: 37.7% for coal, 22.5% for natural
a proton exchange membrane FC (PEMFC) fueled by hydrogen produces gas (NG), 16.1% for hydropower, 10.1% for nuclear power, 8.5% for
water as a byproduct, with a small release of waste heat. This is very renewables, 3.2% for oil, and 1.8% for biofuels (IEA International
promising compared to the huge gaseous emissions, waste heat, and Energy Agency, 2020). Hydrogen fuel is a prime candidate to replace
cooling demand in conventional power generation systems (Sayed fossil fuels because of the many inherent advantages, such as zero
et al., 2020). FCs have several other advantages. For example, they carbon footprints. It can be obtained from a variety of renewable en-
cover a wide range of applications ranging from a few watts to several ergy resources and waste materials (Ellabban et al., 2014). Biofuel is
gigawatts (Wang et al., 2011). Microbial fuel cells are another class of another leading alternative, which is a carbon-neutral fuel that is
FC that utilize microbes, hence, more environmental-friendly and eco- derived from biomass (Kamil et al., 2020). The relatively high energy
sound with a wide range of applications, ranging from power genera- content of biomass can be converted into other forms by a wide
tion to desalination. (Olabi et al., 2020; Sayed et al., 2020; Sayed and range of processes, such as: thermal, chemical, electrochemical,
Abdelkareem, 2013). photochemical, and biochemical (Kamil et al., 2019).
Several reviews have been carried out to evaluate the performance The chemical energy stored in fuels can be released as thermal en-
of different types of FCs, the catalysts used, and the operational condi- ergy by an exothermic combustion reaction, and ultimately, altered
tions (Tiwari et al., 2013). However, to the best of the authors' knowl- into useful work by a heat engine (HE) or thermodynamic cycle
edge, no previous reports have summarized or compiled the (Sheykhi et al., 2019). At the onset, it is inevitable that any fuel conver-
environmental impacts of the different types of FCs in one report. Al- sion system has adverse side effects, particularly on the environment
though some works have partially addressed some of the operational (Oetari et al., 2019). Internal combustion engines, which are the driver
and environmental aspects of specific FCs, they did not address the col- of the transportation means, are the most significant contributors,
lective aspects of FCs, or compared them to conventional systems. followed by industry and power plants (Lion et al., 2020). However, it
 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803 3

Fig. 1. Global primary energy supply by energy source [Source: International Energy Agency IEA, 2020] (IEA International Energy Agency, 2020).

has also been established that the benefits of these pivotal systems out- 2.1. Environmental impacts of conventional power generation
weigh their adverse impacts (Sun and Cui, 2018). Therefore, conserva-
tion has been identified as the sole commendable way of addressing Power generation plants can cause a variety of detrimental impacts on
the adverse environmental effects of fuel conversion systems by the environment. These include greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, such
means of more efficient utilization of energy resources (fuels) and as carbon dioxide CO2, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur oxides
using high-performance fuel conversion systems (Li and Xu, 2020). SOx, nitrogen oxides NOx, and carbon monoxide CO. In addition, they

Fig. 2. Global CO2 emissions per sector (top), and per fuel for electricity generation (bottom) [Source: International Energy Agency IEA, 2020](IEA International Energy Agency, 2020).
4 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803

Table 1 or chemical additions. The chemicals added are usually biocides and
Approximate greenhouse gases GHGs emissions for power generation according to fuel antiscalants to control biofouling and scaling on heat transfer surfaces,
type.
as well as corrosion inhibitors. The EIs of such treatment processes can
Fuel CO2-eq, kg/MWh NOx, kg/MWh SOx, kg/MWh be summarized as follows (Elsaid et al., 2020c; Peer and Sanders, 2018;
Coal 660–1050 0.3–3.9 0.03–6.7 Rahmani, 2017; Tidwell et al., 2014):
Oil 530–900 0.5–1.5 0.85–8
Natural Gas 380–1000 0.2–3.8 0.01–0.32 ➢ Chemical impacts
o Formation of disinfection byproducts (DBPs), which are toxic to the
aquatic environment.
o Introduces foreign materials to the marine environment.
can expel particulate matters (PM) and other aerosols, thus can cause o Discoloration of water due to the use of iron salts, which reduce
ecosystem degradation due to the contamination of air and water light penetration depth.
(Elsaid et al., 2020a, 2020c; Oetari et al., 2019). The power plant utilizes o Increased concentration of heavy metals, which can be toxic to
a huge amount of water for cooling purposes, treated specifically for aquatic life.
this purpose by the addition of a wide range of chemicals. These chemicals
can be toxic to both aquatic life and water bodies (Pan et al., 2018). ➢ Physical impacts: Increased water turbidity due to discharge of
suspended solids and metal oxides, which reduce light penetration
2.1.1. Gaseous emissions depth.
The gaseous emissions ejected by power plants can be classified into ➢ Biological impacts: Mortality and changes in the metabolic and
two groups: GHGs and aerosols. GHGs are compounds generated in the growth rates of marine organisms.
mundane atmosphere by natural and anthropogenic activities, which
cause the greenhouse effect (Dones and Heck, 2004). On the other 3. Fuel cells
hand, aerosols (such as VOC, PM, soot) are accumulated in the upper
layers of the atmosphere, reflecting a portion from the incident solar ra- A fuel cell (FC) is simply a device that transforms fuels' chemical en-
diation into space. This causes a decrease in the Earth's surface temper- ergy into power directly, without any intermediate energy forms, via a
ature, which is called the “Albedo effect” (Zhou et al., 2020). The reaction between fuel and oxygen O2 (Abdelkareem et al., 2020b). In
equilibrium between the greenhouse and albedo effects plays an essen- FCs, the fuel and oxygen react via an electrochemical reaction, produc-
tial role in the Earth's climatic conditions. ing electrical energy, CO2, H2O, and some waste heat, which is much
Fig. 2 shows global GHGs emissions, which are of a very similar less than that in conventional combustion (Schäfer et al., 2006). An FC
trends to those shown in Fig. 1 for primary energy supply, showing is made up of two electrodes, anode and cathode. A fuel passes through
their interdependence (International Energy Agency, 2020). The figure the anode bipolar plates into the FC while oxygen flows at the cathode
shows that most of the global CO2 emissions are due to: heat and (Abdelkareem et al., 2020c; Barakat et al., 2013). Fig. 3 shows a typical
power 41.6%, transportation 24.6%, and industry 19.2%. The figure also illustration of an FC.
shows that 72.5% of the global CO2 emissions for heat and power are
due to coal, despite it is only accounting for 31.8% of the global power 3.1. Main features of fuel cells
supply. Sulfur oxides (SOx) are another primary pollutant, with coal
being responsible for about 70% of total SO2 emissions, which cause re- FCs are differentiated according to the electrolyte used, the operat-
spiratory difficulties and harm to the environment, by the occurrence of ing conditions, the required load, the available fuel, the starting time,
acidic rains (Wang et al., 2018). Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are other hazard- and the application it used for. There are many types of FC electrolytes,
ous pollutants, which cause respiratory problems and also lead to acidic in both solid or liquid states. These electrolytes function at either high or
rains (Shcheklein and Dubinin, 2020). The more significant detrimental low temperatures. FCs that operate at low temperature conditions re-
damage to the environment from SOx and NOx emissions is the acidifi- quire a catalyst to speed up the chemical reaction (Abdelkareem et al.,
cation effect, which leads to an acid rain effect. The harmful effects of 2019a). The ideally used catalyst for low-temperature FCs is platinum
the acidic rain can be 1) deterioration in agronomic crops and forests, Pt, which contributes significantly to the cost. High-temperature FCs do
2) corrosion to the exposed structures, 3) damage to the aquatic life not require Pt to speed up the reaction. A wide range of fuels can be
and marine creatures, and 4) elevated acidity in rivers, lakes, and used for FCs, including gases such as hydrogen, and liquids such as meth-
groundwater (US-EPA, 2020). anol and ethanol (Abdelkareem et al., 2020b; Ghouri et al., 2020). The
Table 1 below shows approximate values for gaseous emissions for electrochemical reactivity of hydrogen is always higher compared to
different fuels (Turconi et al., 2013). The table shows a range for each that of other fuels (Wilberforce et al., 2019b).
fuel, as the emissions depend on the combustion technology used and The fuel flows to the anode, while O2 flows to the cathode. Electrons
their fuel efficiency, as well as the specific chemical composition of the flow only when the anode, membrane, and cathode are connected. The
fuel. It is clear that NG has the lowest emissions. Thus, its use for movement of electrons via the electrodes lead to only heat energy being
power generation has recently expanded from a share of about 14% in produced (Alami et al., 2020). This movement of electrons can only
1990 to 22.5% in 2017,- increasing from 1.75 PWh to 5.9 PWh, respec- occur when the external circuit is connected, i.e., closed-circuit. The
tively (IEA International Energy Agency, 2020). movement of ions via a membrane allows for the flow of charge, and
has a different relationship to the conductivity of the membrane
2.1.2. Cooling water (Mohamed et al., 2017). The electrolyte is designed to allow only the
Water is an essential component to almost all industrial processes, in- flow of ions but not electrons, and is designed to serve as a barrier to
cluding power generation. Process water is a necessary requirement for prevent the reactant from mixing up while also mechanically
fuel extraction, i.e., coal, oil, and gas, as well as processing and purification supporting the electrodes (Tsujiguchi et al., 2010).
(Elsaid et al., 2020b). Furthermore, a considerable amount is required as a The membrane of an FC determines the operational characteristics of
heat transfer fluid for thermoelectric power generation. It has been esti- the cell, primarily temperature. FCs, whose operating temperature
mated that almost 40% of the total water withdrawal in the US was for range exceeds 600 °C are considered as high-temperature FCs, which
power generation, amounting to 200 billion cubic meters (BCM) (Kenny allow light hydrocarbon fuels to undergo reforming (Abdelkareem
et al., 2009). The use of water for cooling purposes requires different treat- et al., 2019b). The rate of reaction in high-temperature FCs is readily
ments to make it suitable for the purpose it is needed for, such as filtration high; meaning there is less need for a catalyst. Solid oxide fuel cells
 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803 5

Fig. 3. Exploded view of proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC).

(SOFC) and molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) are common types of stack (Ijaodola et al., 2018). Eqs. (1)–(3) summarize the electrochemical
high-temperature FCs. FCs operating at temperatures below 250 °C are reactions in the hydrogen FC as a typical PEMFC.
classed as low-temperature FCs (Baroutaji et al., 2019). These FCs can-
not undergo fuel reforming, meaning the fuel has to be obtained exter- Anode : H2ðgÞ →2H þ þ 2e− ð1Þ
nally. The different benefits associated with the use of FCs for power
generation can be summarized as follows (Stambouli, 2011): 1
Cathode : O2ðgÞ þ 2H þ þ 2e− →H2 O ð2Þ
2
➢ Energy security: FC usually runs by utilizing locally available and
1
abundant fuels as one of the criteria for FC selection, hence reducing Overall : O2ðgÞ þ H 2ðgÞ →H2 O þ electricity þ heat ð3Þ
oil importation and consumption. 2
➢ Reliability: As FC is characterized by high availability and operability,
The anode and cathode are made up of bipolar plates (usually graph-
along with minimal degradation of <0.1%/1000 h, due to the lower
ite), with flow channels that allow the flow of reactants into the FC.
operating temperature, and absence of moving parts.
Therefore, the design of the bipolar plate geometry has a significant ef-
➢ Low operating cost: Although of the relatively high capital cost of FC,
fect on the overall performance. It also determines the heat and water
this is compensated by the lower operating cost.
management in the cell. Some FCs have cooling plates positioned be-
➢ Steady power supply: unlike diesel engines, backup generators, or
tween the various cells in the stack to absorb excess heat generated in
uninterruptable power supply (UPS), FC is characterized by the
the FC (Mohammed et al., 2019). Optimization of the FC is crucial due
steady current generation.
to the cost of fuel. This can only be achieved via the optimization of var-
➢ The broad range of fuels: FC can be operated by many types of fuels
ious cell components. The designs of FCs vary depending on the re-
(organic/inorganic, gas/liquid, …etc.) depending on its availability
quired output voltage (Wang et al., 2011). The final design must be
and local cost, in contrast to fossil fuels, which are usually imported.
easy to manufacture, as well as cheap, to be able to compete with
➢ Eco-friendly: FC is environmentally friendly technology, the use of
other energy storage or conversion devices (Ijaodola et al., 2018).
FC reduces or eliminates the emission of GHGs, especially in case of
The electrocatalyst layer is critical as it contributes to the overall cost
using H2 as fuel or other bio-based fuels.
of the fuel cell. A PEMFC usually has Pt as a catalyst to speed up the
➢ Quit operations: FC operation is noiseless, enough to be installed
chemical reaction. These catalysts are bound by a small amount of
indoors; with no need for sound-proofing or hearing-protection.
Nafion (Sulfonated Polytetrafluoroethylene) (Fathy et al., 2020). In the
➢ High-efficiency: The energy conversion efficiency can reach up to
FC, electrons move from the anode via an externally connected circuit
90% (with 30–40% heat recovery), which is much higher than that
to reach the cathode. Simultaneously, the protons move via the electro-
of diesel engines and gas turbines.
lyte to reach the cathode. The electrons, protons, and oxygen eventually
➢ Scalability and applicability: FCs are available in a wide range of
reach the cathode where reduction then occurs. Quick start-up, good
power ratings from few watts, up to 2 MW. Also, it fits well for
mechanical structure, a wide range of power output from mW to kW
service in both stationary and portable applications.
scale, and easy scale-up are some of the advantages of these types of
FC (Das et al., 2017). PEMFCs have some disadvantages, such as slow ox-
3.2. Common types of fuel cells ygen reduction kinetics, poor heat and water management, CO poison-
ing, and the need for high purity hydrogen as a fuel (Mohammed
3.2.1. Proton exchange membrane fuel cell et al., 2019). Regardless, PEMFC is a promising candidate that can re-
A proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) is made up of an place the gasoline engines in vehicle and aviation applications
electrolyte that allows the flow of protons, i.e., H+ from the anode to (Baroutaji et al., 2019).
the cathode. This electrolyte or membrane comes as a solid polymer,
with an operating temperature between 70 and 90 °C, and 1–2 bar pres- 3.2.2. Alkaline fuel cells (AFC)
sure. The typical cell stack voltage for this type is 1.1 V for a single-cell The alkaline fuel cell (AFC) uses an alkaline-based solution such as
stack, and increases proportionately with the number of cells in the cell NaOH or KOH as an electrolyte, and operates at low temperatures
6 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803

between 23–70 °C. An AFC is an anion exchange membrane fuel cell power (CHP) applications (Ito, 2017). The disadvantages of PAFCs are
(AEMFC), unlike PEMFCs, and is the oldest type of FC (Alhassan and their high cost due to the use of the Pt catalyst, long start-up time, and
Umar Garba, 2006). KOH is the most commonly used electrolyte be- lower ionic conductivity. Since it is an intermediate-temperature FC,
cause of its high conductivity, as opposed to other alkaline solutions there is a limited range of cell construction material, and chosen mate-
(Merle et al., 2011). The main benefits of AFCs are high efficiency, easier rials should have similar thermal expansion so as not to crack the mem-
heat management, quick start-up, higher activity, lower cost, and fast brane electrode assembly (MEA) (Hart and Hörmandinger, 1998). The
kinetics of oxygen reduction (Ghouri et al., 2017). In AFCs, there is a pos- electrochemical reactions in PAFCs are similar to those of PEMFCs.
sibility of replacing platinum Pt with nickel Ni or its alloys with other
transition metals at the anode (Eisa et al., 2020). Due to having a higher 3.2.5. Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)
activity than PEMFCs, AFCs can resist CO poisoning, but to a certain ex- Molten Carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) is classified as high-temperature
tent. A major disadvantage of AFCs is their intolerance to CO2, which is a FC, as it operates between 550 and 700 °C. The electrolyte/membrane
major reaction product with hydrocarbon fuels. This intolerance occurs for these types of FCs is made up of molten carbonate salt, mainly lith-
as the CO2 consumes the electrolyte, forming carbonate salt. The car- ium and potassium carbonates. Nickel-based powders are used for
bonate salt causes the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte to drop, and both the anode and the cathode of the MCFC (Wu et al., 2016). There
therefore, reduces the overall performance and efficiency. (Banjong are a variety of fuels that can be used for MCFCs, including natural gas
et al., 2019). The electrochemical reactions of AFC can be simplified as with oxygen or carbon dioxide as oxidants (Rosen et al., 2020). MCFCs
follows, with an overall reaction similar to that of PEMFC: also pose lots of advantages, such as high efficiency. They can also utilize
CO2 as an oxidant, meaning they can be used for carbon capture and
Anode : H2 þ 2OH − →2H2 O þ 2e− ð4Þ storage (CCS) (Rosen et al., 2020). Noble metals are not required for
MCFCs because the cell operates at a higher temperature, which
1
Cathode : H 2 O þ 2e− þ O2 →2OH− ð5Þ makes MCFCs more cost-efficient (Kulkarni and Giddey, 2012). The
2 main limitation of MCFCs is corrosion due to their high operating tem-
peratures, long start-up time, limited options for materials of construc-
tion, and the complex handling of the molten carbonate liquid. The
3.2.3. Direct alcohol fuel cell (DAFC)
electrochemical reactions of MCFC can be summarized as follow, with
Direct alcohol fuel cells (DAFCs) also operate at low-temperatures,
an overall reaction similar to that of PEMFC:
usually <100 °C, and are mainly used for portable power applications
below 250 W (Fadzillah et al., 2019; Feng et al., 2013). A wide range −
Anode : CO2−
3 þ H 2 →H 2 O þ 2e þ CO2 ð9Þ
of alcohols are used as fuels, such as methanol and ethanol in direct
methanol/ethanol fuel cells DMFC and DEFC (Abdelkareem et al.,
1
2020a; Ghouri et al., 2020). The catalyst layer of DAFC is ideally made Cathode : CO2 þ 2e− þ O2 →CO2−
3 ð10Þ
2
of Pt and ruthenium Ru, as the presence of Ru protects the Pt from CO
poisoning (Ito et al., 2013). DAFCs have numerous advantages, such
as: low start-up time, utilization of waste resources as a source of fuels
3.2.6. Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)
(methanol or ethanol that could be obtained from wastes), high energy
Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) is a common type of high-temperature FC
density, fuel is easy to use and to transport, and finally cost-effective
that operates between 600 and 1100 °C (Damo et al., 2019). The solid
(Abdelkareem et al., 2007). The main problem faced in DAFCs is the
electrolyte for SOFC can be made up of Yttrium stabilized zirconia (YSZ).
fuel crossover as fuel moves from the anode to the cathode due to con-
There are specific requirements that must be considered for a material
centration difference, causing mixed potential, which in turn decreases
to be used as the cathode in SOFC, such as thermal stability, stable ionic
the overall performance and poisons the cathode (Abdelkareem and
conductivity and catalytic activity (Abdalla et al., 2018). One of the mate-
Nakagawa, 2006). Accordingly, a lower alcohol concentration is used,
rials that fits all of these characteristics is Lanthanum Strontium Manga-
which lowers the energy density. In addition, alcohols are highly flam-
nite (LSM) (La, Sr)MnO3. It is, therefore, often used as the cathode for
mable and might pose some toxicity, like in the case of methanol. Fur-
SOFCs; the anode can also be made up of nickel-based YSZ, which speeds
thermore, the catalysts used in DAFCs are based on Pt and Ru, which
up the hydrogen oxidation reaction (Nassef et al., 2019a).
are precious and costly metals. The main electrochemical reactions
The merits of SOFC are enormous, hence their usage in many
that take place in DAFC are:
applications. The efficiency of these types of FCs tends to be high, and
Anode : CH 3 OH þ H 2 O þ →6Hþ þ 6e− þ CO2 ð6Þ the excess heat produced during the reaction can be used for cogenera-
tion (Gandiglio et al., 2019). These FCs are functional even in the ab-
3 sence of noble metals, thereby making them affordable, with a long
Cathode : 6Hþ þ 6e− þ O2 →3H2 O ð7Þ operational time up to 80,000 h (Stambouli and Traversa, 2002). Unlike
2
other types of FCs, SOFCs allows different types of fuels to be used. Some
3 of these fuels include methanol and biogas (Andersson et al., 2013). The
Overall reaction : CH3 OH þ O2 →2H2 O þ CO2 þ electricity þ heat ð8Þ
2 main disadvanatge with SOFC is due to the high cell temperature, as
only a limited selection of materials can be thermally, catalytically,
and conductively stable at such high temperatures. The electrochemical
3.2.4. Phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFC) reactions of SOFC are summarized as follows, with an overall reaction
Phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC) is an intermediate-temperature FC, similar to that of PEMFC:
as it operates between 150 and 220 °C, with optimum cell temperature
around 180 °C. The electrolyte of the cell is phosphoric acid H3PO4, Anode : O2− þ H 2 →H2 O þ 2e− ð11Þ
hence the name PAFCs. PAFC is the commonly used FC for commercial
purposes, with a higher maturity level compared to other FCs (Eapen 1
Cathode : 2e− þ O2 →O2− ð12Þ
et al., 2016). PAFCs have many advantages, such as higher tolerance to 2
CO poisoning, and lower Pt catalyst demand compared to PEMFCs due
to the higher activity, thereby reducing cost. Furthermore, they allow The interest in FCs as a promising high-efficiency direct energy con-
for the utilization of waste heat. Since PAFCs operate at higher temper- version tool has attracted many research works, thereby developing a
atures than PEMFCs, it is a very attractive option in combined heat and wide range of FC types and combinations. Given such a wide range of
 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803 7

the different advantages and disadvantages of different FCs, it is imper- reducing these emissions. Wind and solar energies are very promising
ative to compare the different aspects of FCs, emphasizing on their technologies for hydrogen production through water electrolysis
advantages and disadvantages. Table 2 below summarizes the various (Zeng and Zhang, 2010), more specifically, seawater electrolysis
points of different FCs, explaining their various advantages and (Dresp et al., 2019). The conventional routes for hydrogen production
disadvantages. are steam methane reforming (SMR), coal gasification (CG), electrolysis,
and thermochemical cycles (Stambouli, 2011). However, recent re-
4. Environmental aspects of fuel cells search and development efforts are focusing on the use of renewable
energy to drive seawater electrolysis considering hydrogen as a means
As discussed in the previous sections, an FC is simply a device or a of energy storage (Saeedmanesh et al., 2018).
tool that can convert the chemical potential or energy directly into elec- PEMFC has been compared to other conventional (internal combus-
trical potential or energy, i.e., electricity. In this section, the different en- tion engine ICE) and emerging alternatives to power passenger cars.
vironmental aspects, i.e., benefits and impacts of utilizing FC for power This is being viewed as one of the promising application fields for FC
generation, are discussed. The advantages and disadvantages of using technology (Bauen and Hart, 2000; Hart and Hörmandinger, 1998).
FCs as a power source to drive vehicles are also discussed, and both The comparative study, as shown in Fig. 5, clarifies the significant envi-
are compared to those of conventional power generation and vehicles. ronmental benefits of utilizing FCs in general over other conventional
The discussion is arranged according to the most common types of FCs and emerging solutions, such as batteries. This is evident from the rela-
currently in application. The main environmental aspects to be consid- tive reduction of gaseous emissions relative to the standard petrol-ICE
ered are associated with gaseous emissions of GHGs, as they are a com- car, which is currently the market standard.
mon feature in both FCs and conventional power generation i.e. both Staffell and Ingram concluded that PEMFCs and AFCs have much
utilize fuels to extract energy (Malinauskaite et al., 2019). The increase lower cumulative impacts in manufacturing for a single FC stack than
in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been directly related to for 10-years power stacks relative to PAFC and SOFC types (Staffell
global warming. Along with other GHGs, NOx has direct impacts on and Ingram, 2010). Pehnt performed a detailed analysis of a 75 kWel
biota through the formation of ozone, which is a potent and microbic mobile and 275 kWel stationary Polymer electrolyte fuel cell (PEFC),- a
toxin (Jouhara et al., 2018). SOx and NOx damage vegetation and type of PEMFC, for power generation and vehicle application. Different
fauna, resulting in reduced photosynthesis, and acidic rains which dam- power mixes were utilized, and the recycle option for noble metals
age plants and buildings, and cause severe implications for human was analyzed as well (Pehnt, 2001). The analysis showed that the mo-
health (Seip et al., 1991). bile stack has much less non-renewable primary energy, global emis-
This discussion compares the life cycle assessment (LCA) results ob- sions, local emissions, global warming, and acidification relative to the
tained for different FCs and conventional systems as a tool to explain the stationary stack for each kWhel. The analysis was expanded to compare
different environmental aspects of each system. The main advantage of the performance of fuel cars using hydrogen and methanol sourced
this system is that LCAs consider the manufacturing, operation, and dis- from NG as a fuel. This analysis showed that hydrogen had less EIs of
posal phases of the product, i.e., the complete life cycle. However, differ- non-renewable primary energy, global emissions, local emissions,
ent reference works will have a different basis, system definitions, and global warming, and acidification relative to methanol for each km
assumptions. Despite this, most of the reported results are usually nor- driven. The analysis also showed that most of the EIs were due to the
malized to unit power production, i.e., kWhe or MJ, which makes the operation phase due to fuel synthesis.
comparison inarguably valid. Sørensen performed a total LCA for PEMFC car, using H2 sourced
from NG and wind energy in comparison to diesel and gasoline car
4.1. Environmental aspects of PEMFC types, (Sørensen, 2004). The results showed lower energy requirements
of 1.74 and 1.6 MJ/km for the PEMFC and diesel car, compared to 3.54 for
Proton exchange membrane fuel cell PEMFC is one of the oldest and the gasoline car, with similar results obtained for the acidification im-
most studied types of FCs, which utilize hydrogen or alcohols such as pact. However, the PEMFC-wind showed a substantially lower global
methanol and ethanol as fuel (Eisa et al., 2020; Nakagawa et al., 2011). warming impact of 34 gCO2-eq/km compared to 97, 120, and 262
However, the use of hydrogen fuel in PEMFCs faces many challenges. gCO2-eq/km for the diesel, PEMFC-NG, and gasoline car, respectively.
Firstly, outsourcing the non-naturally occurring hydrogen is an issue. Schäfer et al. compared the LCA of fuel cell engine/electric hybrid vehi-
In addition, H2 poses some hazardous risks, such as the wide flammabil- cles, using hydrogen and gasoline as engine fuel, and hydrogen FC
ity range, high explosion potential, instantaneous ignition with invisible (Schäfer et al., 2006). The FC-hybrid vehicles showed substantially
flame, high permeation rate, and causes material embrittlement (Barilo lower GHG emissions and energy use per km driven, despite of the
et al., 2017; Wurster, 2016). Despite these critical properties, PEMFC is higher cost, approximately $0.25/km, compared to about $0.19/km for
an upcoming technology with many environmental advantages. Rela- gasoline and diesel vehicles. The authors concluded that the time re-
tive to other FCs, which produce CO, CO2, and unburnt fuel, hydrogen quired for a significant fleet impact could be up to 55 years for FC vehi-
has a high conversion to water, as well as no GHGs emissions (Verne cles with H2 storage onboard, compared to 35 years for gasoline engine/
and Cedex, 2016). battery hybrid vehicles. This further highlights the importance of the
However, the whole cycle for PEMFC has to be considered in order to economic analysis of the technology, which is currently the main barrier
assess its EIs fully. The main challenge of PEMFC is to obtain hydrogen preventing the implementation of FCs in a wide range of applications,
fuel, which is not present as a natural resource and has to be produced despite their many advantages and environmental benefits.
by industrial processes, mainly from coal or NG, both of which are asso- Granovskii et al. performed a detailed LCA for hydrogen PEMFCs and
ciated with severe EIs (Stambouli, 2011). The effect of hydrogen pro- gasoline vehicles. The LCA showed that FC vehicles have a 25–30%
duction for PEMFC applications is significantly affecting the GHG higher efficiency compared to gasoline vehicles mainly referring to fos-
emissions associated with PEMFC operations. Even PEMFC itself is con- sil fuel energy consumption and GHG emissions (Granovskii et al.,
sidered as GHG-free, with low GHG emissions during its manufacturing. 2006b). The authors also showed that H2 sourced by the employment
Fig. 4 below shows the different emissions associated with hydrogen of wind energy had the lowest impacts. However, this was very sensi-
production from different sources (Granovskii et al., 2006a). Though tive to energy cost. Wagner et al. obtained similar results, which con-
the emissions associated with conventional hydrogen production from cluded that an FC car with an electric motor had CO2 emissions in a
natural gas H2-NG are far less than those for the production of gasoline range between 55 and 60 g/km when H2 sourced by wind and solar
from crude oil, it is also clear that the utilization of renewable energies thermal, compared to 140 and 200 g/km when sourced from wood
as a source of energy for hydrogen production significantly helps in and NG respectively. They were also lower than those for methanol as
8 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803

Table 2
Summary of operational aspects, advantages, and disadvantages of most prominent fuel cells.

PEMFC AFC PAFC DAFC MCFC SOFC

Ref. (Wang et al., 2020) (McLean et al., 2002) (Stonehart and Wheeler, (Alias et al., 2020) (Antolini, 2011) (B. Yang et al.,
2006) 2020b)
Catalyst layer Pt Pt or Ni Alloys Pt Pt/Ru (1:1) Ni or Ni-based Alloys (Transition
metals)
Membrane/electrolyte Nafion Alkaline Phosphoric Acid Nafion Molten Yttria Stabilized
Carbonate Zirconia (YSZ)
Fuel H2 Methanol, ethanol.. H2/CO/CH
Optimum operating ~80 °C 23–70 °C 180 °C > 60 °C 550–700 °C 700–1000 °C
temperature
Advantages • Vast power range • Possibility of replacing Pt • Can tolerate 1–2%CO • No CO2 emissions • High Efficiency
• Easy scale-up • Cheaper • Cheaper due to lower • Low start-up time • Variety of Fuel
• Short start-up time • High activity of Pt usage • High energy density • Usable with gas turbines
• High power • short start-up time • Ability to be used in • Methanol is easy to • Cheap
density • Simple heat management CHP systems obtain and store • High activity
• Can tolerate a very small • High stability • Resistant to CO poison- • Supports internal reforming
amount of CO • Low vapor pressure ing
• fast kinetics • Higher tolerance to • Methanol is cheap
CO2
Disadvantages • Slow oxygen • Intolerance to CO2 • Long start-up time • Fuel Crossover • Hardware corrosion
kinetics • Requires pure O2 • Limitation in material • Expensive (using Ru and • Low power density
• Heat and water selection Pt) • Cathode dissolution
management • Low membrane ionic • Cathode Poisoning • Long start-up time
• CO poisoning conductivity • Methanol is highly flam- • Limitation in material selection
• Requires high • Low power density mable • Hard to handle liquid electrolyte
purity H2 • Intolerant to CO • Methanol is toxic
Electrical C 50–70% 60–70% 55% 20–30% 55% 60–65%
Efficiencya S 30–50% 62% 40% 10–25% 45–55% 55–60%
Co-gen: 90%
Power Range 1 W-500 kW 10 W-200 kW 50 kW-1 MW 100 mW-1 kW <1 kW-1 MW 5 kW-3 MW
(250 kW Module (250 kW Module
typical) Typical)
Applications • Backup power • Submarines Distributed generation Electronic devices (Laptops • Auxiliary power
• Portable power • Military and Phones) • Electric utility
• Small distributed • Spacecraft • Large distributed generation
generation • Backup power
• Transportation
Cost ($/W) 50–100 – 4–4.5 125 – –
a
C = Cell, S = system/stack.

fuel sourced from NG and miscanthus with 180 and 70 g/km, respec- manufacturing stage of PEMFCs in automotive applications was
tively (Wagner et al., 2006). Ally and Pryor showed that FC bus trans- assessed, showing that PEMFCs, in general, have lower EIs, with respect
portation systems could achieve a reduction of more than 50% in GHG to energy requirements, global warming, and acidification effects
emissions, primary energy demand, and photochemical ozone creation compared to diesel and gasoline ICE (Garraín et al., 2011).
compared to diesel bus systems, and confirmed the substantial benefits Hussain et al. performed a preliminary LCA comparison between
of sourcing H2 fuel from renewables for a significant reduction in EIs PEMFC and gasoline-powered automobiles, considering both feedstock
(Ally and Pryor, 2007). Similarly, the environmental relevance of the and fuel (production and transportation). H2 was used for PEMFC,

Fig. 4. GHG and gaseous emissions associated with different hydrogen production technologies compared to gasoline (Granovskii et al., 2006a). (H2-NG = hydrogen from natural gas, H2-
Wind/Solar = hydrogen from water electrolysis powered by wind/solar energy, respectively).
 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803 9

Fig. 5. Gaseous emissions and energy of FCs as compared to other power sources for passenger cars. (ICE = internal combustion engine, MFC/HFC = methanol/hydrogen fuel cell, NG =
natural gas, FC = fuel cell) (Bauen and Hart, 2000; Hart and Hörmandinger, 1998).

while gasoline was used for ICE. Vehicles were also thoroughly ana- In PEMFCs, a Pt catalyst is commonly used, to significantly reduce
lyzed, with particular regard to material production, assembly, distribu- different EIs. Pt, being a noble metal, is costly, with complex and
tion, use, and disposal. The data is presented in Table 3 below (Hussain energy-extensive mining and extraction processes, hence, it makes up
et al., 2007). The table shows that most PEMFC energy consumption and most of the FC cost. As a result, many efforts have been devoted to to-
GHG emissions are due to feedstock and fuel, rather than FC itself. tally or at least partially replace this costly metal with cheaper, but
Conversely, it is the opposite in the case of gasoline ICE vehicles. Ahmadi equally effective, alternatives. Notter et al. showed that the use of
and Kjeang compared the LCA of H2 FC passenger vehicles in different multi-wall carbon nanotubes MWCNT as carbon support, enhanced
Canadian provinces, showing up to a 90% reduction in GHG emissions the catalyst activity, resulting in about 27% savings in Pt use. In turn,
compared to gasoline-powered vehicles, at almost 40–50% of their this resulted in an approximately 20% overall increase in efficiency in
lifetime cost (Ahmadi and Kjeang, 2015). Evangelisti et al. performed the PEMFC for micro-combined heat and power (μ-CHP), showing a
a comprehensive LCA of the H2 PEMFC system and compared it to a substantial reduction in EIs related to PEMFC manufacturing (Notter
conventional ICE and battery-electric vehicle (B-EV) for passenger et al., 2015). Bachmann et al. performed an LCA for a domestic scale
class vehicles (Evangelisti et al., 2017). The analysis showed high FC-μCHP for single-family and multi-family uses. The LCA showed that
EIs from the FC vehicle, mainly related to the FC production pro- it can eliminate up to 10% in GHG emissions at 6000 h/year load, and
cesses due to the H2 and FC stack. However, the FC had both lower can increase up to 48% at 7000 h/year load, the equivalent of 3.6 t of
global warming and abiotic depletion impacts than the ICE, and is CO2-eq emissions (Bachmann et al., 2019).
comparable to that of B-EV, with opportunity for a 25% reduction in The previous discussions exploring different literature sources
EIs for the FC vehicle. have clearly shown the environmental benefits of using PEMFCs in its
Chen et al. performed an LCA for H2 PEMFC vehicles with careful con- different variations. In addition, the studies have shown that the
sideration to detailed components. The LCA concluded that 94% of coal major EIs of FCs are either associated with the manufacturing phase,
consumption as an energy source is for usage and scarping stages more specifically for electrocatalyst, or for sourcing the H2 fuel. These
(Chen et al., 2019). 80% of NG usage was for raw material acquisition EIs can be reduced either by developing Pt-free or precious metal-free
and usage. The work also revealed that almost 77% of CO2 emissions electrocatalysts for PEMFCs. The new developments in Earth-abundant
were due to the usage stage, followed by 11 and 7% for scraping and metals and carbonous material used for electrocatalysis of different
raw material acquisitions, respectively. Similar results were obtained electrochemical processes seem to be potential candidates to resolve
for other gaseous emissions, except for NMVOC, which was 99% due to this challenge. The use of renewable resources to drive the process of
raw material acquisition. Yang et al. compared the LCA for FCs, Electric sourcing H2 fuel provides a good pathway for further reducing the EIs
vehicles EVs, and conventional ICEs (Z. Yang et al., 2020a). The results associated with fuel sourcing for PEMFCs. Collectively, these solutions
showed that EVs had the highest energy consumption and GHG emis- aim to minimize the EIs associated with PEMFCs, thereby making
sions, almost 1.4 and 1.2 times those of FCs. The lowest value obtained them more environmental-friendly. However, the economic assess-
was that of ICE. The higher EIs of both EV and FC, unlike ICE, were mainly ment of the overall process should be carefully considered, so as to
due to battery production for EVs and the fuel cycle for FCs. make the PEMFC economically attractive.

4.2. Environmental aspects of phosphoric acid fuel cell PAFC

Table 3
Energy consumption and GHG emissions for PEMFC and gasoline ICE vehicles (Hussain
et al., 2007). A phosphoric acid fuel cell PAFC is considered as one of the well-
developed medium temperature FCs, usually working between 160
Energy consumption, GJ GHG emissions, ton CO2
and 220 °C (Stambouli, 2011). As with all Hydrogen-based FCs, one of
PEMFC ICE PEMFC ICE the significant environmental benefits of PAFCs is that they only pro-
Feedstock 130 70.6 24.75 4 duce water, without any other reaction products. Furthermore, the
Fuel 640 150 107.25 12.7 waste heat produced can be recovered and utilized as low-grade
Vehicle 276.3 896.7 5.39 64.4 waste heat with the appropriate waste heat recovery WHR device
Total 1046.3 1117.3 137.4 81.1
(Khanmohammadi et al., 2020). The hydrogen used as fuel in PAFCs
10 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803

can be sourced either as hydrogen gas or from hydrocarbons or as emissions output (Mehmeti et al., 2018). As shown, the MCFC has a
hydrogen-containing fuel (Stambouli, 2011). thermal efficiency of about 77%, and electrical energy conversion of
The groups of Hart and Hormandinger, and Bauen and Hart per- about 44%, producing about 3340 MWh and 3400 GJ, with waste heat
formed an extensive work, comparing solid polymer fuel cells SPFCs recovery of 948 GJ.
(a type of PEMFC) and PAFC to conventional technologies for different Mehmeti et al. summarized the LCA studies performed on MCFC using
applications (Bauen and Hart, 2000; Hart and Hörmandinger, 1998). different methods and functional power units, again highlighting that
Figs. 6 and 7 below show the LCA comparison between these technolo- LCAs are a very useful tool for investigating all of the comparative re-
gies for two main applications, namely transportation via vehicles and sources consumption, emission, and EIs for new technologies, such as
buses, and commercial power generation. The figures show clearly MCFC(Mehmeti et al., 2016). Lunghi and Bove performed a detailed LCA
that SPFCs and PAFCs are more environmentally friendly, and result in study of an MCFC stack. It showed that during the MCFC manufacture
far lower emissions compared to conventional vehicles and power gen- phase, most of the EIs such as acidification, global warming, and energy
eration technologies, with reductions amounting to 26–97.4% across the resources resulted mainly from anode and cathode manufacturing,
different EI categories. accounting for about 75–95% of the total impacts (Lunghi and Bove,
Rooijen performed a comprehensive LCA for the PureCell™ Model 2003). The study was further extended to a comprehensive LCA study, in-
200, which is a 200 kW PAFC with a lifetime of 85,000 h (van Rooijen, cluding the operational phase of MCFC, utilizing landfill-gas (LFG), which
2006). The analysis showed that the operation phase is the major con- contains mainly CH4 of more than 50% and CO2, as compared to natural
tributor to the different EIs with about 98%, mainly due to NG input gas (NG) for power generation (Lunghi et al., 2004). The study showed
and reforming, while only 1.45% being due to the manufacturing that LFG has a clear advantage over NG, with only 10–15% CO2-eq and
phase. Staffell and Ingram compared commercial AFCs and PEMFCs only 40% of SO2-eq compared to NG, with substantially less negative
(250 kW Ballard-Alstrom CHP system and 10 kW PlugPower GenSys impacts on human health, ecosystem quality, and resources.
CHP stack), PAFC (200 kW UTC PureCell CHP system), and SOFC Raugei et al. performed a multi-criteria LCA of 0.5 MW MCFC and
(1 kW Sulzer Hexis system and 24 kW Siemens stack) (Staffell and compared it to other conventional power generation sources, utilizing
Ingram, 2010). The results showed that PAFC was next to PEMFC in NG as fuel (Raugei et al., 2005). The results obtained showed that an
terms of lower cumulative normalized impacts of manufacturing for MCFC compared to a semi-closed combined cycle gas turbine (SCGT/
ten years of operation, followed by AFC, and lastly, SOFC. The major CC), a combined cycle gas turbine (NGCC) with cogeneration, and a dual
EIs of PAFC, similarly to PEMFC, are still associated with the materials steam turbine and gas turbine ST + GT with cogeneration had less EIs.
of construction, as thermally and chemically stable materials are still re- These conclusions further emphasize the more environmental-friendly
quired to withstand the higher operating temperature and acidity of the nature of FCs in general compared to conventional power generation
phosphoric acid electrolyte. Platinum, fortunately, is not a necessary technologies. These results also confirm the crucial impact of the
electrocatalyst for PAFC. However, other precious metals such as nickel electrocatalyst on the overall EIs of FC, hence why developing a cost-
are still required, which nonetheless adds to the EIs. effective and efficient electrocatalyst are essential for expanding the
application of FC to different areas.

4.3. Environmental aspects of molten carbonate fuel cell MCFC

4.4. Environmental aspects of solid oxide fuel cell SOFC
Molten carbonate fuel cell MCFC is another promising FC technology
that operates at high-temperature ranges. MCFC is considered a com- Solid oxide fuel cell SOFC is considered one of the most promising FC
plex FC among the modern FCs, utilizing molten salts of lithium and po- technologies. It has been under development for some time with a high
tassium carbonate as an electrolyte. CO2 is produced at the anode and market penetration potential. One of the main advantages of SOFC over
consumed at the cathode, working at temperatures of 650 °C so that it others that it is an all-solid-state cell, meaning it can withstand high pres-
can be paired with gas or steam turbines for additional power genera- sures to obtain high chemical reaction rates (Abdelkareem et al., 2019b).
tion and utilization of waste heat (Wu et al., 2016). Simplified input/ A simplified mass and energy balance for the SOFC is shown in Fig. 9
output balances for MCFC are presented in Fig. 8 below (adapted from below (adapted from Lee et al., 2015), based on the use of liquified natu-
Mehmeti et al., 2018), showing the fuel input, along with energy and ral gas (LNG) as fuel, to have a better understanding of the basic

Fig. 6. The gaseous emissions and energy of FC and batteries relative to conventional diesel bus technology. (SPFC = solid polymer fuel cell, PAFC = phosphoric acid fuel cell, CNG =
compressed natural gas) (Bauen and Hart, 2000; Hart and Hörmandinger, 1998).
 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803 11

Fig. 7. The gaseous emissions and energy of FC and engines relative to large commercial combined heat/power (CHP = conventional heat/power, SPFC = solid polymer fuel cell, PAFC =
phosphoric acid fuel cell) (Bauen and Hart, 2000; Hart and Hörmandinger, 1998).

principles of SOFC operation (Lee et al., 2015). P. Zapp previously tried to Material Input
perform an environmental analysis of SOFC in comparison to a 10 MW •95 t LNG @54.6 MJ/kg
gas turbine and reported that there is a lack of data, which should be ob- •323 t Water
•3065 t Air
tained upon expanding the work on SOFC (Zapp, 1996). Stambouli and
Traversa later made an overview of SOFC as an efficient and environmen-
tally clean energy source (Stambouli and Traversa, 2002). Seip et al. indi-
cated that for a 200 MW power plant at 7000 h/year, SOFC has a lower
annual fuel consumption of 84*109 MJ, compared to 126*109 and
252*109 MJ for NG and coal respectively, which is mainly attributed to SOFC
the higher efficiency of SOFC (Seip et al., 1991). SOFC has proven to be en-
vironmentally friendly when compared to other power generation tech- Energy Output Material Output
nologies, with far less impacts on the environment (Damo et al., 2019). •90 kWhe Power 263 t CO2, 526 t H2O,
2360 N2, 42.8 CO,
The presiding environmental aspect of SOFC is the reduced air pollu- •30 kWhe Waste heat 51.8 NOx
tion, through both a reduction in CO2 emissions and the elimination of
CO, NOX, SOx, PM, and organic compounds. This was firstly confirmed
by the work of Seip et al. (Seip et al., 1991), and later by the Fig. 9. Simplified material and energy balances for SOFC operation (Basis 1 year of
works of Hart and Hörmandinger (Bauen and Hart, 2000; Hart and operation) (Lee et al., 2015).

Material Input
622 t Fuel, 34,000 t Air, 2511 t Water

MCFC system
44% elec. eff., 77% therm. eff.
423.6 kW net power, 35.5 kW auxilary power consumption
0.76 V & 1350 A/m2

Energy Material
3340 MWh, 3400 GJ, 948 GJ 1705 t CO2, 4125 t H2O, 26,213 t N2, 15
recovered heat kg NOx, 0.15 kg SOx

Fig. 8. Simplified material and energy balances for MCFC operation (Basis 1 year of operation) (Mehmeti et al., 2018).
12 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803

Hörmandinger, 1998), Stambouli and Traversa (2002), and more recently, further reduce the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and CO2 emissions,
has also been confirmed by Stambouli (2011). Casas et al. showed that the while increasing the efficiency and power produced (Roshandel et al.,
integration of SOFC in the sugar-ethanol industry for power generation, 2018). Gandiglio et al. analyzed the LCA of SOFC integrated with a waste-
resulted in a reduction of about 52–55% in GHG emissions, 60–64% non- water treatment plant WWTP, to utilize the biogas produced from the an-
renewable resource utilization, and a higher renewability index of 0.93, aerobic digester in biological treatment for combined heat and power
and an exergy efficiency of 38% (Casas et al., 2011). CHP (Gandiglio et al., 2019). The SOFC was able to produce 174 kWel, al-
Table 4 below shows the emissions associated with SOFC operations most 25% of plant power demand, and heat of 90 kWth both self-
compared to those of fossil fuels, from two different studies. The table consumed in the plant, along with a 20–30% reduction in five out of
shows that generally, SOFC has much lower GHG emissions compared seven EI groups, including global warming potential and energy demand.
to fossil fuels in general, and to coal in particular, being the least envi- Lee et al. performed a detailed environmental impact assessment
ronmentally friendly fossil fuel. NG was classified as the cleanest fossil (EIA) of SOFC-based combined heat and power generation systems,
fuel. The use of H2 as fuel resulted in more COx emissions than the direct using the LCA approach (Lee et al., 2015). The LCA showed that SOFC
use of NG, which is mainly due to the reforming processes necessary to stack is the main contributor to the associated EIs of SOFC, with about
obtain H2. However, the use of NG for SOFC resulted in SOx and NOx 72% for manufacturing, and 28% for balance-of-plant (BOP). For the
emissions. In another study, SOFC used for power generation resulted SOFC operation, however, the main contributor was fuel input, with
in a reduction of about 22% CO2, 94.1% NOx, 95.9% SOx, 97.2% CO, 24% about 80–90%. Recent work performed a detailed LCA for a SOFC system
non-methane hydrocarbons NMHC, 22% methane HC (NMHC and HC fueled by biogas sourced from wood chips, wood pellets, and Miscanthus
together are the organic compounds OC), 25% PM, and 22% energy con- pellets. The study showed that fuel production and transportation con-
sumption, compared to conventional heat and power generation tribute about 23–99% to the different EI categories. However, the LCA re-
(Bauen and Hart, 2000; Hart and Hörmandinger, 1998). This has been vealed that biogas-fed SOFC has about 37–95% lower EIs when
further affirmed for different hybridizations of SOFC (SOFC/μ-gas tur- compared to conventional natural gas, combined heat, and power gen-
bine, SOFC/gas turbine/steam turbine, and SOFC/steam turbine injection eration (Moretti et al., 2020).
gas), which resulted in 86–89% reduction in annual CO2 emissions, com-
pared to conventional power generation, as energy efficiency increased 4.5. Comparative assessment of the environmental aspects of different FCs
from 25-30% for the conventional system to 60–65% for the SOFC hybrid
system (Damo et al., 2019). From the previous discussions, it is evident that the use of the previ-
The environmental impacts of SOFC depend mainly on the type of ously discussed fuel cell types for the indicated applications of power
fuel used, as well as how the fuel has been produced, in order to have generation or combined heat and power generation, as well as for trans-
an acceptable life cycle assessment for its power production. A recent portation by powering different vehicles, has resulted in a substantial
study by Bicer and Khaled assessed the different EI categories (Bicer reduction of EIs. In other words, it has resulted in huge environmental
and Khalid, 2020). Fig. 10 below shows that H2 produced using renew- benefits, which are supported by the different life cycle assessment
able wind energy for water electrolysis, whether for direct use as H2 LCA studies. The main environmental benefit of the use of FCs is the sig-
fuel, or through ammonia, resulted in lower EIs compared to NG, and nificant reduction in emissions to the atmosphere and other EI catego-
NG-derived fuels, such as H2, ammonia, and methanol. Mortazaei and ries, as studied in LCA. However, it was concluded as well that the fuel
Rahimi compared SOFCs operating by gas obtained from municipal cycle, i.e., fuel source and production method, has a substantial effect
solid waste, either through the digester, i.e., D-SOFC, or through a on these benefits. Questions have been raised on the comparison be-
gasifier, i.e., G-SOFC (Mortazaei and Rahimi, 2016). It was concluded tween the EIs of different types of FC in comparison to one another. Un-
that D-SOFC has a higher exegetic efficiency of 43.2%, and lower CO2 fortunately, as the current studied FCs systems have different natures,
emissions of 17.87 t/MWh, compared to 37.7% and 21.3 t CO2/MWh working principles, specifications, fuels, operating conditions, etc., it is
for G-SOFC, respectively. difficult to obtain a unified comparison between these systems.
Lin et al. integrated an LCA with thermodynamic analysis to explore One approach that can be taken is to compare the different FC sys-
the utilization of biofuels for sourcing H2 for SOFC (Lin et al., 2013). Bio- tems, with regards to their primary function, i.e., power generation,
diesel from waste cooking oil as feedstock showed the lowest total en- and compare the different EIs. A. Mehmeti et al. compared the different
ergy use of 9.6 MJ, while methane from municipal solid waste showed EIs of MCFC, SOFC, and PEMFC compared to μ-Gas turbine μGT, and com-
the lowest fossil energy use of 0.37 MJ and total GHG emissions of bined heat and power CHP (Mehmeti et al., 2018). Table 6 below clearly
0.09 kg-CO2 eq. Mortazaei and Rahimi expanded their previous work shows that in almost all the EI categories, the FCs are more environmen-
to compare the performance of SOFC for power generation (P), com- tally friendly and less harmful to the environment compared to conven-
bined heat + power generation (CHP), i.e., cogeneration, and combined tional power generation systems. FC inter-comparison showed that
cooling + heating + power (CCHP), i.e., trigeneration (Mortazaei and MCFC and SOFC are relatively more environmentally friendly compared
Rahimi, 2016). The results showed that upon increasing the generation to PEMFC, in most of the categories. This may be due to the impact of the
level, the energetic efficiency increased, while exegetic efficiency and fuel cycle associated with PEMFC when utilizing high purity H2 as fuel,
CO2 emissions decreased for both D-SOFC and G-SOFC systems. Dual as well as the use of the precious Pt catalyst. In contrast, MCFC and
utilization of both electrical and thermal energies, i.e., SOFC-CHP SOFC can utilize the fuel directly because of the internal reforming
compared to only power SOFC-P resulted in an increase of the energy ef- capability, without the need for precious metals for the electrodes.
ficiency by 20–25%, which in turn resulted in a reduction in different EI
categories by 10–30%, as shown in Table 5 for the main EI categories 5. Conclusions
(Longo et al., 2019).
Rillo et al. performed a comprehensive LCA for biogas-fed SOFC Fossil fuels are the primary sources for energy supply worldwide,
sourced from sewage treatment (Rillo et al., 2017). The analysis showed representing about 80% of the current global energy supply. However,
that SOFC was very competitive, with substantially lower EIs of about the dependence on fossil fuels has been declining over the years, with
30–50% when compared to conventional combined heat and power gen- more attention given towards utilizing cleaner technologies, such as: hy-
eration. This is mainly due to the higher efficiency of 52%, compared to 27 dropower, renewable energies, biomass, waste, and, more importantly,
and 29% for the internal combustion engine and micro gas turbine, re- fuel cells. Fuel cells (FCs) are simple devices that directly convert chemical
spectively. The integration of SOFC with other conventional power gener- energy into electrical energy, which explains both their higher energy
ation, such as micro-gas turbine SOFC/μGT, gas turbine and steam turbine conversion efficiency and minimum energy loss as heat. Although FCs
SOFC/GT/ST, and steam injector gas turbine SOFC/STIG have shown to have been widely investigated, with proven eco-environmental benefits
 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803 13

Table 4
Comparison of annual air emissions from fossil fuel and SOFC for power generation.

Air emissions CO2, t SOx, t NOx, t CO, t PM, t OC, t Ref.

Fossiel fuel 1840 12.74 18.85 12.80 0.23 0.21 Basis 1650 MWh/year (Stambouli, 2011; Stambouli and Traversa, 2002)
SOFCa 846.3 – – 0.03 – –
Coal 1.4*106 5300 1500 – 500 – Basis 200 MWh/year (Seip et al., 1991)
Natural gas 695 10 325 – 3 –
SOFCb 460 7 0.8 – 2 –
a
Fueled by hydrogen.
b
Fueled by natural gas.

compared to conventional power generation systems, there are certain Table 5

environmental aspects that still have to be thoroughly discussed. P. Comparision of SOFC-P and SOC-CHP generation per 1 MJ electrical power (Longo et al.,
2019).
Zapp, in 1996, introduced one of the first environmental analysis of
solid oxide fuel cells, introduced by the statment that “Nowadays, for a Environmental impact SOFC-CHP SOFC-P
new technology to be successfully introduced, it should compete not Cumulative energy demand CED, Mj 10.5 12.1
only in terms of economy but also in terms of ecology.” Global warming potential, GWP, g Co2-Eq 620 709
In this work, a review was conducted for the different environmental Ozone depletion OD, μg CFC-11-Eq 77.3 91.1
aspects of FCs, such as global warming potential, gaseous emissions, and Particulate matter formation PM, mg PM2.5-Eq 38.9 43.5
Photochemical ozone formation POF, mg NMVOC-Eq 489 575
many others. The review considered the most used FCs, such as proton
Acidification AC, μmol H+-Eq 645 735
exchange membrane fuel cell PEMFC (that includes hydrogen FC, alka- Freshwater eutrophication FE, mg P-Eq 18.3 21.3
line FC, and direct alcohol FC), phosphoric acid fuel cell PAFC, molten Marine eutrophication ME, mg N-Eq 84.2 103
carbonate fuel cell MCFC, and solid oxide fuel cell SOFC. The environ- Water resources depletion WRD, L Water-Eq 38.5 42.0
mental benefits of using different types of FCs are evident, mainly for
FC operation. However, when considering the life cycle assessment
(LCA) for FC, it still poses some environmental impacts that ought to
be addressed, in addition to the economic barriers. Most of the LCAs per- sourced fuels, such as bio-based fuels, and H2 from water electrolysis
formed on FCs have shown that most of the environmental impacts are using renewable energies. This, in turn, will help minimizing the EIs as-
associated with construction and manufacturing or material acquisition. sociated with fuel sourcing, along with aiding the development of cost-
This is because precious metals, such as Pt for the electrocatalyst for effective electrocatalysts that will collectively help minimizing the EIs of
low-temperature FCs, in addition to thermally and chemically stable FCs, making them more environmentally attractive and cost-efficient.
material for medium- and high-temperature FCs are the significant con- However, when comparing different FCs to one another, it is hard to
tributors. In addition, fuel sourcing, like in the case of hydrogen, contrib- make decisive conclusions for the relative environmental benefits, with
utes significantly to the operation phase of the LCA. Interestingly, both respect to each FC type. This is mainly because different studies have a
factors are significant contributors to FC cost as well. So, developments different basis and life cycle inventory for the different types of FCs.
in both will help to overcome both environmental and economic bar- This, along with the differences in nature and working principles for dif-
riers, and widen the potential application of FCs in many fields. Both ferent FCs. Accordingly, there is a need to perform a standardized per-
the fuel and its source have a substantial effect on the environmental formance analysis of different fuel cells to have good insight for FC
benefits of FCs, with extensive benefits for sustainable and renewable inter-comparison.

Fig. 10. Environmental factors for SOFC utilizing different fuels per 1kWhe power produced (Bicer and Khalid, 2020). (CC = Climate change, kg CO2-eq; PM = particulate matter, kg PM10-
eq; FD = fossil depletion, kg oil-eq; HT = human toxicity, kg-1,4-DB-eq; WD = water depletion m3; POF = photochemical oxidant formation as non-methane volatile organic carbon
NMVOC, kg-NMVOC).
14 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803

Table 6
Comparision of the normalized environmental impacts of PEM, SOFC, MCFC, μ-GT, and CHP per kWhe.
Adapted from (Mehmeti et al., 2018).

Environmental impact PEM 2 kW SOFC 125 kW MCFC 500 kW μ-GT 100 kW CHP 160 kW

Global warming potential GWP, kg CO2-eq 0.752 0.523 0.549 0.736 0.777
Stratopsheric ozone depletion ODP, μg CFC-11-eq 0.204 0.142 4.11 0.280 0.458
Particulate matter formation PM, mg PM2.5-eq 189 83.3 135 99.8 115
Photochemical oxidant formation POF, mg NOx-eq 716 516 445 1243 954
Terrestria acidification potential TAP, mg SO2-eq 700 330 506 798 509
Freshwater eutripication potential FEP, mg P-eq 21.8 12.1 9.81 6.99 8.34
Mineral resources scaricity SOP, g Cu-eq 2.20 0.830 0.612 0.509 0.426
Fossil resources scaricity FFP, kg oil-eq 0.263 0.184 0.187 0.259 0.269
Water consumption potential WCP, l water 204 101 85.4 61.9 51.7
Cummulative excergy extractions from natural environment CEENE, MJex 12.225 8.509 8.845 11.878 12.357

CRediT authorship contribution statement via electrode structure design. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45, 2244–2256. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.11.041.
Barakat, N.A.M., Abdelkareem, M.A., Shin, G., Kim, H.Y., 2013. Pd-doped Co nanofibers
All authors have equal contribution. immobilized on a chemically stable metallic bipolar plate as novel strategy for direct
formic acid fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 38, 7438–7447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2013.04.012.
Declaration of competing interest
Barilo, N.F., Weiner, S.C., James, C.W., 2017. Overview of the DOE hydrogen safety, codes
and standards program part 2: hydrogen and fuel cells: emphasizing safety to enable
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest of the commercialization. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 42, 7625–7632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
current work. ijhydene.2016.04.070.
Baroutaji, A., Wilberforce, T., Ramadan, M., Olabi, A.G., 2019. Comprehensive investigation
on hydrogen and fuel cell technology in the aviation and aerospace sectors. Renew.
References Sust. Energ. Rev. 106, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.022.
Bauen, A., Hart, D., 2000. Assessment of the environmental benefits of transport and sta-
Abdalla, A.M., Hossain, S., Azad, A.T., Petra, P.M.I., Begum, F., Eriksson, S.G., Azad, A.K., tionary fuel cells. J. Power Sources 86, 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753
2018. Nanomaterials for solid oxide fuel cells: a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. (99)00445-0.
82, 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.046. Bicer, Y., Khalid, F., 2020. Life cycle environmental impact comparison of solid oxide fuel
Abdelkareem, M.A., Nakagawa, N., 2006. DMFC employing a porous plate for an efficient cells fueled by natural gas, hydrogen, ammonia and methanol for combined heat and
operation at high methanol concentrations. J. Power Sources 162, 114–123. https:// power generation. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45, 3670–3685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.07.012. ijhydene.2018.11.122.
Abdelkareem, M.A., Morohashi, N., Nakagawa, N., 2007. Factors affecting methanol trans- Casas, Y., Dewulf, J., Arteaga-Pérez, L.E., Morales, M., Van Langenhove, H., Rosa, E., 2011.
port in a passive DMFC employing a porous carbon plate. J. Power Sources 172, Integration of solid oxide fuel cell in a sugar-ethanol factory: analysis of the efficiency
659–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.05.015. and the environmental profile of the products. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1395–1404. https://
Abdelkareem, M.A., Allagui, A., Taha, E., Haj, M. El, Said, Z., Elsaid, K., 2019a. Comparative doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.018.
analysis of liquid versus vapor-feed passive direct methanol fuel cells. Renew. Energy Chen, Y., Hu, X., Liu, J., 2019. Life cycle assessment of fuel cell vehicles considering the de-
131, 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.055. tailed vehicle components: comparison and scenario analysis in China based on dif-
Abdelkareem, M.A., Tanveer, W.H., Sayed, E.T., Assad, M.E.H., Allagui, A., Cha, S.W., 2019b. ferent hydrogen production schemes. Energies 14, 7–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/
On the technical challenges affecting the performance of direct internal reforming en12153031.
biogas solid oxide fuel cells. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 101, 361–375. https://doi.org/ Damo, U.M., Ferrari, M.L., Turan, A., Massardo, A.F., 2019. Solid oxide fuel cell hybrid sys-
10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.025. tem: a detailed review of an environmentally clean and efficient source of energy. En-
Abdelkareem, M.A., Sayed, E.T., Alawadhi, H., Alami, A.H., 2020a. Synthesis and testing of ergy 168, 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.091.
cobalt leaf-like nanomaterials as an active catalyst for ethanol oxidation. Int. Das, V., Padmanaban, S., Venkitusamy, K., Selvamuthukumaran, R., Blaabjerg, F., Siano, P.,
J. Hydrog. Energy 45, 17311–17319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.04.156. 2017. Recent advances and challenges of fuel cell based power system architectures
Abdelkareem, M.A., Sayed, E.T., Mohamed, H.O., Obaid, M., Rezk, H., Chae, K.J., 2020b. and control – a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 73, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Nonprecious anodic catalysts for low-molecular-hydrocarbon fuel cells: theoretical j.rser.2017.01.148.
consideration and current progress. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 77. https://doi.org/ Dones, R., Heck, T., 2004. Greenhouse gas emissions from energy systems, comparision
10.1016/j.pecs.2019.100805. and overview. In: Cleveland, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy. vol. Volume 3. Elsevier
Abdelkareem, M.A., Sayed, E.T., Nakagawa, N., 2020c. Significance of diffusion layers on Inc, pp. 77–95.
the performance of liquid and vapor feed passive direct methanol fuel cells. Energy Dresp, S., Dionigi, F., Klingenhof, M., Strasser, P., 2019. Direct electrolytic splitting of sea-
209, 118492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118492. water: opportunities and challenges. ACS Energy Lett 4, 933–942. https://doi.org/
Ahmadi, P., Kjeang, E., 2015. Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell pas- 10.1021/acsenergylett.9b00220.
senger vehicles in different Canadian provinces. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 40, Eapen, D.E., Suseendiran, S.R., Rengaswamy, R., 2016. Chapter 2 phosphoric acid fuel cells.
12905–12917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.07.147. In: Barbir, F., Basile, A., Veziroğlu, T.N. (Eds.), Compendium of Hydrogen Energy Vol-
Alami, A.H., Abdelkareem, M.A., Faraj, M., Aokal, K., Al Safarini, N., 2020. Titanium dioxide- ume 3: Hydrogen Energy Conversion. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 57–70 https://doi.org/10.1016/
coated nickel foam photoelectrodes for direct urea fuel cell applications. Energy 208, B978-1-78242-363-8.00002-5.
118253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118253. Eisa, T., Mohamed, H.O., Choi, Y.J., Park, S.G., Ali, R., Abdelkareem, M.A., Oh, S.E., Chae, K.J.,
Alhassan, M., Umar Garba, M., 2006. Design of an alkaline fuel cell. Leonardo Electron. 2020. Nickel nanorods over nickel foam as standalone anode for direct alkaline meth-
J. Pract. Technol. 5, 99–106. anol and ethanol fuel cell. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45, 5948–5959. https://doi.org/
Alias, M.S., Kamarudin, S.K., Zainoodin, A.M., Masdar, M.S., 2020. Active direct methanol fuel 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.08.071.
cell: an overview. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.04.202. Ellabban, O., Abu-Rub, H., Blaabjerg, F., 2014. Renewable energy resources: current status,
Ally, J., Pryor, T., 2007. Life-cycle assessment of diesel, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell future prospects and their enabling technology. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 39, 748–764.
bus transportation systems. J. Power Sources 170, 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.113.
jpowsour.2007.04.036. Elsaid, Khaled, Kamil, Mohammed, Taha Sayed, Enas, Ali Abdelkareem, Mohammad,
Andersson, M., Yuan, J., Sundén, B., 2013. SOFC modeling considering hydrogen and car- Wilberforce, Tabbi, Olabi, A., 2020a. Environmental impact of desalination technolo-
bon monoxide as electrochemical reactants. J. Power Sources 232, 42–54. https:// gies: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 748, 141528.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.12.122. Elsaid, K., Sayed, E.T., Abdelkareemb, M.A., Mahmoud, M.S., Ramadan, M., Olabi, A.G., 2020b.
Antolini, E., 2011. The stability of molten carbonate fuel cell electrodes: a review of recent im- Environmental impact of emerging desalination technologies : a preliminary evaluation.
provements. Appl. Energy 88, 4274–4293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.07.009. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8, 104099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104099.
Asongu, S.A., Agboola, M.O., Alola, A.A., Bekun, F.V., 2020. The criticality of growth, urban- Elsaid, K., Taha, E., Ali, M., Baroutaji, A., Olabi, A.G., 2020c. Environmental impact of desa-
ization, electricity and fossil fuel consumption to environment sustainability in Africa. lination processes : mitigation and control strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 740, 140125.
Sci. Total Environ. 712, 136376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140125.
Bachmann, T.M., Carnicelli, F., Preiss, P., 2019. Life cycle assessment of domestic fuel cell Evangelisti, S., Tagliaferri, C., Brett, D.J.L., Lettieri, P., 2017. Life cycle assessment of a poly-
micro combined heat and power generation: exploring influential factors. Int. mer electrolyte membrane fuel cell system for passenger vehicles. J. Clean. Prod. 142,
J. Hydrog. Energy 44, 3891–3905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.12.076. 4339–4355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.159.
Banjong, J., Therdthianwong, A., Therdthianwong, S., Yongprapat, S., Wongyao, N., 2019. Fadzillah, D.M., Kamarudin, S.K., Zainoodin, M.A., Masdar, M.S., 2019. Critical challenges in
High performance alkaline-acid direct glycerol fuel cells for portable power supplies the system development of direct alcohol fuel cells as portable power supplies: an
 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803 15

overview. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 44, 3031–3054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Lin, J., Babbitt, C.W., Trabold, T.A., 2013. Life cycle assessment integrated with thermody-
ijhydene.2018.11.089. namic analysis of bio-fuel options for solid oxide fuel cells. Bioresour. Technol. 128,
Fathy, A., Abdelkareem, M.A., Olabi, A.G., Rezk, H., 2020. A novel strategy based on salp 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.074.
swarm algorithm for extracting the maximum power of proton exchange membrane Lion, S., Vlaskos, I., Taccani, R., 2020. A review of emissions reduction technologies for low
fuel cell. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.02.165. and medium speed marine diesel engines and their potential for waste heat recovery.
Feng, C., Takeuchi, T., Abdelkareem, M.A., Tsujiguchi, T., Nakagawa, N., 2013. Carbon-CeO2 Energy Convers. Manag. 207, 112553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112553.
composite nanofibers as a promising support for a PtRu anode catalyst in a direct Longo, S., Cellura, M., Guarino, F., Brunaccini, G., Ferraro, M., 2019. Life cycle energy and en-
methanol fuel cell. J. Power Sources 242, 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vironmental impacts of a solid oxide fuel cell micro-CHP system for residential applica-
jpowsour.2013.04.157. tion. Sci. Total Environ. 685, 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.368.
Gandiglio, M., De Sario, F., Lanzini, A., Bobba, S., Santarelli, M., Blengini, G.A., 2019. Life Lunghi, P., Bove, R., 2003. Life cycle assessment of a molten carbonate fuel cell stack. Fuel
cycle assessment of a biogas-fed solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) integrated in Cells 3, 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/fuce.200330124.
awastewater treatment plant. Energies 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12091611. Lunghi, P., Bove, R., Desideri, U., 2004. Life-cycle-assessment of fuel-cells-based landfill-
Garraín, D., Lechón, Y., Rúa, C. de la, 2011. Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells gas energy conversion technologies. J. Power Sources 131, 120–126. https://doi.org/
(PEMFC) in automotive applications: environmental relevance of the manufacturing 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2004.01.006.
stage. Smart Grid Renew. Energy 02, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.4236/sgre.2011.22009. Malinauskaite, J., Jouhara, H., Ahmad, L., Milani, M., Montorsi, L., Venturelli, M., 2019. En-
Ge, Y., Chen, L., Sun, F., 2016. Progress in finite time thermodynamic studies for internal ergy efficiency in industry: EU and national policies in Italy and the UK. Energy 172,
combustion engine cycles. Entropy 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/e18040139. 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.130.
Ghouri, Z.K., Elsaid, K., Al-Meer, S., Barakat, N.A.M., 2017. Applicable anode based on McLean, G.F., Niet, T., Prince-Richard, S., Djilali, N., 2002. An assessment of AFC technology.
Co3O4–SrCO3 heterostructure nanorods-incorporated CNFs with low-onset potential Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 27, 507–526.
for DUFCs. Appl. Nanosci. 7, 625–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13204-017-0601-z. Mehmeti, A., Santoni, F., Della Pietra, M., McPhail, S.J., 2016. Life cycle assessment of mol-
Ghouri, Z.K., Elsaid, K., Abdel-Wahab, A., Abdala, A., Farhad, M.Z., 2020. Electrooxidation ten carbonate fuel cells: state of the art and strategies for the future. J. Power Sources
behavior of ethanol toward carbon microbead-encapsulated ZnO particles derived 308, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.12.023.
from coffee waste. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 31, 6530–6537. https://doi.org/ Mehmeti, A., Pedro Pérez-Trujillo, J., Elizalde-Blancas, F., Angelis-Dimakis, A., McPhail, S.J.,
10.1007/s10854-020-03209-w. 2018. Exergetic, environmental and economic sustainability assessment of stationary
Granovskii, M., Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2006a. Environmental and economic aspects of hy- molten carbonate fuel cells. Energy Convers. Manag. 168, 276–287. https://doi.org/
drogen production and utilization in fuel cell vehicles. J. Power Sources 157, 411–421. 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.04.095.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.07.044. Merle, G., Wessling, M., Nijmeijer, K., 2011. Anion exchange membranes for alkaline fuel
Granovskii, M., Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2006b. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell cells: a review. J. Memb. Sci. 377, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.04.043.
and gasoline vehicles. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 31, 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Mofijur, M., Rasul, M.G., Hyde, J., Azad, A.K., Mamat, R., Bhuiya, M.M.K., 2016. Role of bio-
ijhydene.2005.10.004. fuel and their binary (diesel-biodiesel) and ternary (ethanol-biodiesel-diesel) blends
Hart, D., Hörmandinger, G., 1998. Environmental benefits of transport and stationary fuel on internal combustion engines emission reduction. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 53,
cells. J. Power Sources 71, 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(97)02730-4. 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.046.
Hussain, M.M., Dincer, I., Li, X., 2007. A preliminary life cycle assessment of PEM fuel cell Mohamed, H.O., Abdelkareem, M.A., Park, M., Lee, J., Kim, T., Prasad Ojha, G., Pant, B., Park,
powered automobiles. Appl. Therm. Eng. 27, 2294–2299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. S.J., Kim, H.Y., Barakat, N.A.M., 2017. Investigating the effect of membrane layers on
applthermaleng.2007.01.015. the cathode potential of air-cathode microbial fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 42,
IEA International Energy Agency, 2020. World energy outlook 2019: electricity [WWW 24308–24318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.07.218.
document]. URL. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019/ Mohammed, H., Al-Othman, A., Nancarrow, P., Tawalbeh, M., El Haj Assad, M., 2019. Direct
electricity#abstract. (Accessed 14 January 2020). . hydrocarbon fuel cells: a promising technology for improving energy efficiency. En-
Ijaodola, O., Ogungbemi, E., Khatib, F.N., Wilberforce, T., Ramadan, M., El Hassan, Z., ergy 172, 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.105.
Thompson, J., Olabi, A.G., 2018. Evaluating the effect of metal bipolar plate coating Moretti, C., Corona, B., Rühlin, V., Götz, T., Junginger, M., Brunner, T., Obernberger, I., Shen,
on the performance of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Energies 11. https:// L., 2020. Combining biomass gasification and solid oxid fuel cell for heat and power
doi.org/10.3390/en11113203. generation: an early-stage life cycle assessment. Energies 13. https://doi.org/
Ike, G.N., Usman, O., Sarkodie, S.A., 2020. Fiscal policy and CO2 emissions from heteroge- 10.3390/en13112773.
neous fuel sources in Thailand: evidence from multiple structural breaks Mortazaei, M., Rahimi, M., 2016. A comparison between two methods of generating
cointegration test. Sci. Total Environ. 702, 134711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. power, heat and refrigeration via biomass based solid oxide fuel cell: a thermody-
scitotenv.2019.134711. namic and environmental analysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 126, 132–141. https://
Inayat, A., Nassef, A.M., Rezk, H., Sayed, E.T., Abdelkareem, M.A., Olabi, A.G., 2019. Fuzzy doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.07.074.
modeling and parameters optimization for the enhancement of biodiesel production Nakagawa, N., Ali Abdelkareem, M., Takino, D., Ishikawa, T., Tsujiguchi, T., 2011. PAN
from waste frying oil over montmorillonite clay K-30. Sci. Total Environ. 666, based carbon nanofibers as an active ORR catalyst for DMFC. ECS Trans. 41,
821–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.321. 2219–2229. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.3635754.
International Energy Agency, 2020. The 2019 global energy & CO2 status report [WWW Nassef, A.M., Fathy, A., Sayed, E.T., Abdelkareem, M.A., Rezk, H., Tanveer, W.H., Olabi, A.G.,
document]. URL. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-co2-status-report-2019. 2019a. Maximizing SOFC performance through optimal parameters identification by
Ito, H., 2017. Economic and environmental assessment of phosphoric acid fuel cell-based modern optimization algorithms. Renew. Energy 138, 458–464. https://doi.org/
combined heat and power system for an apartment complex. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.072.
42, 15449–15463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.038. Nassef, A.M., Sayed, E.T., Rezk, H., Abdelkareem, M.A., Rodriguez, C., Olabi, A.G., 2019b.
Ito, Y., Takeuchi, T., Tsujiguchi, T., Abdelkareem, M.A., Nakagawa, N., 2013. Ultrahigh Fuzzy-modeling with particle swarm optimization for enhancing the production of
methanol electro-oxidation activity of PtRu nanoparticles prepared on TiO2- biodiesel from microalga. Energy Sources, Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 41,
embedded carbon nanofiber support. J. Power Sources 242, 280–288. https://doi. 2094–2103. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2018.1549171.
org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.05.064. Nazir, M.S., Mahdi, A.J., Bilal, M., Sohail, H.M., Ali, N., Iqbal, H.M.N., 2019. Environmental im-
Jouhara, H., Khordehgah, N., Almahmoud, S., Delpech, B., Chauhan, A., Tassou, S.A., 2018. pact and pollution-related challenges of renewable wind energy paradigm – a review.
Waste heat recovery technologies and applications. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 6, Sci. Total Environ. 683, 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.274.
268–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2018.04.017. Notter, D.A., Kouravelou, K., Karachalios, T., Daletou, M.K., Haberland, N.T., 2015. Life cycle
Kamil, M., Ramadan, K.M., Olabi, A.G., Shanableh, A., Ghenai, C., Al Naqbi, A.K., Awad, O.I., assessment of PEM FC applications: electric mobility and μ-CHP. Energy Environ. Sci.
Ma, X., 2019. Comprehensive evaluation of the life cycle of liquid and solid fuels de- 8, 1969–1985. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ee01082a.
rived from recycled coffee waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 150, 104446. https://doi. Oetari, P.S., Hadi, S.P., Huboyo, H.S., 2019. Trace elements in fine and coarse particles emit-
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104446. ted from coal-fired power plants with different air pollution control systems.
Kamil, M., Ramadan, K.M., Olabi, A.G., Al-Ali, E.I., Ma, X., Awad, O.I., 2020. Economic, tech- J. Environ. Manag. 250, 109497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109497.
nical, and environmental viability of biodiesel blends derived from coffee waste. Olabi, A.G., Wilberforce, T., Sayed, E.T., Elsaid, K., Rezk, H., Abdelkareem, M.A., 2020. Re-
Renew. Energy 147, 1880–1894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.09.147. cent progress of graphene based nanomaterials in bioelectrochemical systems. Sci.
Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., Maupin, M.A., 2009. Esti- Total Environ. 141225 (In press).
mated use of water in the United States in 2005 circular 1344. U.S. Geological Survey. Pan, S.-Y., Snyder, S.W., Packman, A.I., Lin, Y.J., Chiang, P.-C., 2018. Cooling water use in
Khanmohammadi, S., Saadat-Targhi, M., Ahmed, F.W., Afrand, M., 2020. Potential of ther- thermoelectric power generation and its associated challenges for addressing
moelectric waste heat recovery in a combined geothermal, fuel cell and organic Ran- water-energy nexus. Water-Energy Nexus 1, 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
kine flash cycle (thermodynamic and economic evaluation). Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45, wen.2018.04.002.
6934–6948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.113. Peer, R.A.M., Sanders, K.T., 2018. The water consequences of a transitioning US power sec-
Kulkarni, A., Giddey, S., 2012. Materials issues and recent developments in molten car- tor. Appl. Energy 210, 613–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.021.
bonate fuel cells. J. Solid State Electrochem. 16, 3123–3146. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Pehnt, M., 2001. Life-cycle assessment of fuel cell stacks. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 26, 91–101.
s10008-012-1771-y. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3199(00)00053-7.
Lee, Y.D., Ahn, K.Y., Morosuk, T., Tsatsaronis, G., 2015. Environmental impact assessment Rahmani, K., 2017. Reducing water consumption by increasing the cycles of concentration
of a solid-oxide fuel-cell-based combined-heat-and-power-generation system. En- and considerations of corrosion and scaling in a cooling system. Appl. Therm. Eng.
ergy 79, 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.035. 114, 849–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.12.075.
Li, X., Xu, H., 2020. The energy-conservation and emission-reduction paths of industrial Raugei, M., Bargigli, S., Ulgiati, S., 2005. A multi-criteria life cycle assessment of molten
sectors: evidence from Chinas 35 industrial sectors. Energy Econ. 86, 104628. carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) - a comparison to natural gas turbines. Int. J. Hydrog. En-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104628. ergy 30, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.04.009.
16 M.A. Abdelkareem et al. / Science of the Total Environment 752 (2021) 141803

Rillo, E., Gandiglio, M., Lanzini, A., Bobba, S., Santarelli, M., Blengini, G., 2017. Life cycle as- Tiwari, J.N., Tiwari, R.N., Singh, G., Kim, K.S., 2013. Recent progress in the development of
sessment (LCA) of biogas-fed solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) plant. Energy 126, 585–602. anode and cathode catalysts for direct methanol fuel cells. Nano Energy 2, 553–578.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2013.06.009.
Rosen, J., Geary, T., Hilmi, A., Blanco-Gutierrez, R., Yuh, C.-Y., Pereira, C.S., Han, L., Johnson, Tsujiguchi, T., Abdelkareem, M.A., Kudo, T., Nakagawa, N., Shimizu, T., Matsuda, M., 2010. De-
R.A., Willman, C.A., Ghezel-Ayagh, H., Barckholtz, T.A., 2020. Molten carbonate fuel velopment of a passive direct methanol fuel cell stack for high methanol concentration.
cell performance for CO 2 capture from natural gas combined cycle flue gas. J. Power Sources 195, 5975–5979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2009.11.051.
J. Electrochem. Soc. 167, 064505. https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ab7a9f. Turconi, R., Boldrin, A., Astrup, T., 2013. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity genera-
Roshandel, R., Golzar, F., Astaneh, M., 2018. Technical, economic and environmental opti- tion technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.
mization of combined heat and power systems based on solid oxide fuel cell for a 28, 555–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.013.
greenhouse case study. Energy Convers. Manag. 164, 144–156. https://doi.org/ US-EPA, 2020. US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2018.
10.1016/j.enconman.2018.02.023. van Rooijen, J., 2006. A Life Cycle Assessment of the Purecell Stationary Fuel Cell System :
Saeedmanesh, A., Mac Kinnon, M.A., Brouwer, J., 2018. Hydrogen is essential for sustainabil- Providing a Guide for Environmental Improvement. University of Michigan.
ity. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 12, 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.2018.11.009. Verne, D.P.J., Cedex, A., 2016. 1 - Proton exchange membrane fuel cells. In: Barbir, F.,
Sayed, E.T., Abdelkareem, Mohammad A., 2013. Yeast as a biocatalyst in microbial fuel Basile, A., Veziroğlu, T.N. (Eds.), Compendium of Hydrogen Energy Volume 3: Hydro-
cell. In: Lucas, C., Pais, C. (Eds.), Old Yeasts - New Questions. InTech, p. 13 https:// gen Energy Conversion. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 3–56 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-
doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.12.014. 78242-363-8.00001-3.
Wagner, U., Eckl, R., Tzscheutschler, P., 2006. Energetic life cycle assessment of fuel cell
Sayed, E.T., Eisa, T., Mohamed, H.O., Abdelkareem, M.A., Allagui, A., Alawadhi, H., Chae, K.,
powertrain systems and alternative fuels in Germany. Energy 31, 3062–3075.
2019. Direct urea fuel cells: challenges and opportunities. J. Power Sources 417,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.10.031.
159–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.12.024.
Wang, Y., Chen, K.S., Mishler, J., Cho, S.C., Adroher, X.C., 2011. A review of polymer electro-
Sayed, E.T., Shehata, N., Abdelkareem, M.A., Atieh, M.A., 2020. Recent progress in environ-
lyte membrane fuel cells: technology, applications, and needs on fundamental re-
mentally friendly bio-electrochemical devices for simultaneous water desalination
search. Appl. Energy 88, 981–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.09.030.
and wastewater treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 141046 In press.
Wang, S., Qing, L.J., Wang, H., Li, H.Y., 2018. Integrated assessment of environmental
Schäfer, A., Heywood, J.B., Weiss, M.A., 2006. Future fuel cell and internal combustion en-
performance-based contracting for sulfur dioxide emission control in Chinese coal
gine automobile technologies: a 25-year life cycle and fleet impact assessment. En-
power plants. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 878–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.280.
ergy 31, 2064–2087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.09.011.
Wang, Y., Ruiz Diaz, D.F., Chen, K.S., Wang, Z., Adroher, X.C., 2020. Materials, technological
Seip, K.L., Thorstensen, B., Wang, H., 1991. Environmental impacts of energy facilities: fuel status, and fundamentals of PEM fuel cells – a review. Mater. Today 32, 178–203.
cell technology compared with coal and conventional gas technology. J. Power https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2019.06.005.
Sources 35, 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7753(91)80003-G. Wilberforce, T., Baroutaji, A., El Hassan, Z., Thompson, J., Soudan, B., Olabi, A.G., 2019a.
Shcheklein, S.E., Dubinin, A.M., 2020. Analysis of nitrogen oxide emissions from modern Prospects and challenges of concentrated solar photovoltaics and enhanced geother-
vehicles using hydrogen or other natural and synthetic fuels in combustion chamber. mal energy technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 659, 851–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45, 1151–1157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.10.206. scitotenv.2018.12.257.
Sheykhi, M., Chahartaghi, M., Balakheli, M.M., Hashemian, S.M., Miri, S.M., Rafiee, N., 2019. Wilberforce, T., Ijaodola, O., Khatib, F.N., Ogungbemi, E.O., El Hassan, Z., Thompson, J.,
Performance investigation of a combined heat and power system with internal and Olabi, A.G., 2019b. Effect of humidification of reactive gases on the performance of
external combustion engines. Energy Convers. Manag. 185, 291–303. https://doi. a proton exchange membrane fuel cell. Sci. Total Environ. 688, 1016–1035. https://
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.01.116. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.397.
Sørensen, B., 2004. Total life-cycle assessment of PEM fuel cell car. Proceedings of the 15th Wu, S., Zhang, H., Ni, M., 2016. Performance assessment of a hybrid system integrating a
World Hydrogen Energy Conference (Yokohama, Japan). molten carbonate fuel cell and a thermoelectric generator. Energy 112, 520–527.
Soudan, B., 2019. Community-scale baseload generation from marine energy. Energy 189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.06.128.
116134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116134. Wurster, R., 2016. Hydrogen safety. In: Barbir, F., Basile, A., Veziroğlu, T.N. (Eds.), Compen-
Staffell, I., Ingram, A., 2010. Life cycle assessment of an alkaline fuel cell CHP system. Int. dium of Hydrogen Energy Volume 3: Hydrogen Energy Conversion. Elsevier Ltd,
J. Hydrog. Energy 35, 2491–2505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.12.135. pp. 195–213 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-364-5.00009-9.
Stambouli, A.B., 2011. Fuel cells: the expectations for an environmental-friendly and sus- Yang, Z., Wang, B., Jiao, K., 2020a. Life cycle assessment of fuel cell, electric and internal
tainable source of energy. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15, 4507–4520. https://doi.org/ combustion engine vehicles under different fuel scenarios and driving mileages in
10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.100. China. Energy 198, 117365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117365.
Stambouli, A.B., Traversa, E., 2002. Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs): a review of an environ- Yang, B., Wang, J., Zhang, M., Shu, H., Yu, T., Zhang, X., Yao, W., Sun, L., 2020b. A state-of-
mentally clean and efficient source of energy. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 6, 433–455. the-art survey of solid oxide fuel cell parameter identification: Modelling, methodol-
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(02)00014-X. ogy, and perspectives. Energy Convers. Manag. 213, 112856. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Stonehart, P., Wheeler, D., 2006. Phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFCs) for utilities: j.enconman.2020.112856.
electrocatalyst crystallite design, carbon support, and matrix materials challenges. Zapp, P., 1996. Environmental analysis of solid oxide fuel cells. J. Power Sources 61,
Modern Aspects of Electrochemistry https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25838-8_4. 259–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(96)02368-3.
Zeng, K., Zhang, D., 2010. Recent progress in alkaline water electrolysis for hydrogen pro-
Sun, Y., Cui, Y., 2018. Evaluating the coordinated development of economic, social and en-
duction and applications. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 36, 307–326. https://doi.org/
vironmental benefits of urban public transportation infrastructure: case study of four
10.1016/j.pecs.2009.11.002.
Chinese autonomous municipalities. Transp. Policy 66, 116–126. https://doi.org/
Zhou, M., Chen, G., Dong, Z., Xie, B., Gu, S., Shi, P., 2020. Estimation of surface albedo from
10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.02.006.
meteorological observations across China. Agric. For. Meteorol. 281, 107848. https://
Tidwell, V.C., Macknick, J., Zemlick, K., Sanchez, J., Woldeyesus, T., 2014. Transitioning to
doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107848.
zero freshwater withdrawal in the U.S. for thermoelectric generation. Appl. Energy
131, 508–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.11.028.