S-LCA of two selected hydrogen systems and set of indicators for citizenship (D3.1)

Deliverable 3.1 S-LCA of two selected hydrogen systems and set of indicators for citizenship Ref. Ares(2025)5195147 - 30/06/2025 D 3.1 S-LCA of two selected hydrogen systems and set of indicators for citizenship DELIVERABLE TYPE Report MONTH AND DATE OF DELIVERABLE Month 25, 30/06/2025 WORK PACKAGE WP 3 LEADER IME DISSEMINATION LEVEL Public AUTHORS S.K.R. Maddula, J. Dufour, D. Iribarren PROGRAMME HORIZON EUROPE GRANT AGREEMENT 101111933 START Jun. 2023 DURATION 28 Months 3 Contributors NAME ORGANISATION Sumanth K. R. Maddula IME Javier Dufour IME Diego Iribarren IME Peer Reviews NAME ORGANISATION Aaron Jensen IMI Marianna Franchino Envipark Revision History The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union, neither the European Union Institutions and Bodies nor any person acting on their behalf. VERSION DATE ORGANISATION MODIFICATIONS 1 28/05/2025 IME Complete version for internal review 2 27/06/2025 IME Final version after internal review 4 Index of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 7 2 Methodological specifications & case studies ................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Renewable hydrogen production at an HRS (case 1) .......................................................................... 10 2.2 Bus transport service for urban mobility (case 2) ................................................................................ 11 3 Results .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Results for HRS (case 1) ................................................................................................................................ 12 3.1.1 Inventory data results for HRS .............................................................................................................. 12 3.1.2 Social risks for HRS .................................................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Results for bus transport service (case 2) ............................................................................................... 15 3.2.1 Inventory data results for bus transport service ............................................................................. 15 3.2.2 Social risks for bus transport service ................................................................................................... 16 4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 5 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Index of Tables Table 1 Selected stakeholder categories and social indicators ............................................................................ 9 Table 2 Technical parameters of the HRS ................................................................................................................. 11 Table 3 Technical parameters of the fuel cell bus .................................................................................................. 12 Table 4 Inventory data per kg H2 at HRS (h: worker hours; p: pieces) ........................................................... 13 Table 5 Inventory data for bus transport service (h: worker hours; p: pieces) ............................................ 15 Index of Figures Figure 1 System boundaries of the two case studies ............................................................................................... 8 Figure 2 Hydrogen refuelling station components and country of origin ...................................................... 10 Figure 3 Fuel cell bus components with their respective identified country of origin ............................. 11 Figure 4 Social risks associated with the HRS case study (mrh: medium risk hours; moh: medium opportunity hours) ............................................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 5 Social risks associated with bus transport service (mrh: medium risk hours; moh: medium opportunity hours) ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 5 Acronyms FCB Fuel Cell Bus HRS Hydrogen Refuelling Station IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency PEM Proton Exchange Membrane PSILCA Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment PV Photovoltaic S-LCA Social Life Cycle Assessment S-LCI Social Life Cycle Inventory S-LCIA Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment 6 Executive Summary Deliverable 3.1 details the work carried out in Task 3.1 under work package 3 (citizens’ engagement) of the HYPOP project. In this task, a social life cycle assessment was performed for two case studies: one focusing on hydrogen production and the other on urban mobility. The methodological approach was based on the work conducted in Task 4.1 regarding an assessment framework for reporting to citizens. This document highlights the importance of progress in social assessment and its role in enhancing sustainability outcomes for emerging technologies like hydrogen-related ones. 7 1 Introduction The world is moving towards decarbonisation, seeking sustainable solutions to achieve a low-carbon economy. The energy sector is one of the largest contributors to global emissions. This has driven research into emerging energy technologies that either eliminate carbon emissions or significantly reduce them through safe and sustainable strategies. These emerging technologies are expected to transform current energy systems, ensuring their sustainability for future generations. In particular, hydrogen is expected to play an important role in mitigating carbon emissions (IRENA, 2024). It is abundantly available indirectly, e.g. in water and hydrocarbons. Around 2% of global hydrogen is sourced from water electrolysis, which highlights the need to further promote clean hydrogen production technologies. Moreover, it is crucial to utilise hydrogen efficiently. While many industries consider the use of hydrogen to replace carbon-intensive energy sources, there remains a significant need for its adoption in the transport sector. When assessing the sustainability of hydrogen-based solutions, social aspects should be thoroughly addressed. However, most sustainability assessments for cases such as hydrogen production in refuelling stations and hydrogen use in fuel cell buses (FCBs) are focused on environmental and economic aspects while leaving social assessments largely untouched (Cockroft and Owen, 2006; Wulf and Kaltschmitt, 2012; Lubecki et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2024). In this context, this deliverable of the HYPOP project addresses existing gaps by conducting social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) studies for two cases: hydrogen production through electrolysis powered by renewable onsite electricity at a hydrogen refuelling station (HRS), and urban mobility based on hydrogen use in FCBs. Thus, this report illustrates the role of social assessment to actively engage citizens in the transition to hydrogen-related technologies such as electrolysers and fuel cells. 2 Methodological specifications & case studies The specific S-LCA methodology followed in this report corresponds to the S-LCA framework for reporting to citizens developed in HYPOP Deliverable 4.1 (Maddula et al., 2024). This involves four stages as described below. The first stage of the assessment is goal and scope. The goal of this study is to illustrate how S-LCA works through two hydrogen-relevant cases. The purpose is to identify social hotspots (i.e. areas of potential social risk or impact) that are relevant to citizens. Different functional units (i.e. quantified description of the system’s function) were considered for each case study, depending on their goal and scope, as defined in their respective sections (2.1 and 2.2). The system boundaries of the two cases refer to: renewable hydrogen production at an HRS (case 1) and how that hydrogen is used to power bus transport service in FCBs (case 2) as shown in Figure 1. Both cases, depicted in Figure 1 with their involved supporting components, cover manufacturing and operation life cycle stages of the systems being analysed. Stakeholder categories represent groups of people or organisations (e.g. workers, local communities, consumers, or regulators) that are affected (positively or negatively) by activities carried out by industries and organisations in the product’s life cycle. S-LCA guidelines recommend different approaches (Benoît Norris et al., 2020) to identify which stakeholders are relevant for a particular product or process. In this study, the researchers used lessons learnt from a previous European project 8 eGHOST (which focused on sustainable-by-design hydrogen technologies) to decide which stakeholder groups were relevant for their assessment (Iribarren et al., 2021). The identified stakeholders are presented later in Table 1. Figure 1 System boundaries of the two case studies Social life cycle inventory (S-LCI) is the second stage of the S-LCA methodology. This stage involves collecting the inventory data based on how much labour (measured in worker hours) was used (activity variable) per functional unit. When worker hours were not directly available, they were estimated indirectly using the economic values with respect to the identified country and sector (i.e. how many worker hours were typically involved in producing a certain monetary value of goods in a given sector). Inventory data was compiled based on the design of the product system to reach the functional unit. To determine which countries the components originated from, the protocol developed by MartínGamboa et al. (2020) was used. The compiled inventory data and the identified countries of origin information are presented later in Section 3. Social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA) is the third stage, evaluating the social impacts of the activities identified in the first stage (goal and scope) according to the inventory built in the previous stage (S-LCI). The evaluation procedure detailed in Deliverable 4.1 (Maddula et al., 2024) was followed, ensuring consistency with an established and peer-reviewed framework. The developed inventory data were computationally implemented in the PSILCA database in openLCA software to link inventory data to social risk indicators. It transforms raw data (e.g. worker hours) into meaningful social impact results (expressed in medium risk hours –mrh– or medium opportunity hours –moh–) by multiplying it with risk factors corresponding to each social indicator. Similarly, if the input data is provided in economic values, the background process in PSILCA undergoes an additional step where 9 economic values are transformed into worker hours; subsequently, the same procedure is followed to evaluate social impacts. The assessed social indicators for both cases are presented in Table 1 (Loubert et al., 2023). The final stage of the assessment is the interpretation of the results, clarifying what the findings actually imply. Social hotspots identification was performed across the supply chains defined for both cases to clarify specific countries, sectors, or processes with elevated risk of negative social impacts (e.g. poor working conditions, human rights concerns) and opportunities for economic growth. Furthermore, the identified hotspots were visually represented in the form of a dashboard as an important add-on feature of the framework for reporting to citizens, making the results easier to understand and more engaging. Table 1 Selected stakeholder categories and social indicators Sustainable development goals Stakeholder categories Social indicators Definition Factors Decent work and economic growth; No poverty Workers Fair salary Wage offered to a particular service corresponding to its respective value Minimum wage required by law; Local prevailing industrial wage; Living wage Gender equality Gender wage gap Difference between median earning of men and women relative to median earning of men Median earning by gender Decent work and economic growth Forced labour Work or service that people are compelled to perform without their consent, under the menace of a negative consequence, and often without receiving fair wages Relationship between person performing and exacting the work; Human trafficking; Debt bondage; Exploitation of children Child labour Children aged 7-14 involved in economic activity for at least one hour in the reference week Children involved Society Contribution to economic development Extent to which a sector contributes to the economic development of a country Sector contribution to GDP; Public education expenditure; Literacy rate Good health and well being Health expenditure Indicator assessing health systems of the countries Health status of society; Public health expenditure; Public health coverage; etc. 16 3.2.2 Social risks for bus transport service The social risks evaluated for the bus transport service system per functional unit are shown in Figure 5. For the child labour indicator, the FCB was found to involve the highest contribution. A breakdown of the FCB into components led to identify the chassis, the PEM fuel cell, and the hydrogen bus manufacturing plant as the major contributors. The economic growth indicator shows that 53% of the medium opportunity hours would come from the FCB, while 40% would be linked to hydrogen at the HRS. The opportunities within the FCB were further broken down into components, with the main contribution attributed to the chassis, the PEM fuel cell, and the hydrogen bus manufacturing plant. In the remaining four indicators (forced labour, fair salary, health expenditure, and gender wage gap), hydrogen bus operation was identified as the key social hotspot. For the forced labour indicator, this was found to be mainly due to the relatively high number of worker hours required for operation. On the other hand, for the gender wage gap indicator, the role of high risk levels was found critical in the sector and region where the bus driving occurs. For the health expenditure and fair salary indicators, a combined effect of risk levels and worker hours was found. Figure 5 Social risks associated with bus transport service (mrh: medium risk hours; moh: medium opportunity hours) Comparison of the results with other S-LCA studies on FCBs was not found feasible due to the lack of comparable studies in this field. On the other hand, for contextualisation purposes, the work conducted by Campos-Carriedo et al. (2024) on fuel cell electric cars was considered. The contextualisation of the results indicates that the social impacts of cars per passenger-kilometre could be higher than those of FCBs largely due to the efficient shared usage of buses by multiple passengers, as buses carry more people at once. The S-LCA results for hydrogen production and use successfully enabled the identification of social hotspots in the bus transport service case study across various social aspects, including issues such as labour risks or economic opportunity. To enrich these S-LCA results, additional engagement methods 17 should be utilised, such as online polls, stakeholder consultations, workshops, and media communications. These methods can bring in public and stakeholder perspectives, making the social assessment more complete and tailored. 4 Conclusions The S-LCA methodology was effectively applied to two illustrative hydrogen-related case studies in Spain, aligned with the framework for reporting to citizens developed in HYPOP Task 4.1. Inventory data were compiled to enable the analysis, and key social hotspots were identified and graphically visualised. The findings indicate that the main sources of social risk included the battery inverter plant, hydrogen at HRS, the PEM fuel cell, and the chassis, along with hydrogen bus operation. These were the components or processes most associated with negative social indicators (e.g. labour issues, wage gaps, health expenditure concerns). Across the countries, social hotspots were found to be concentrated in China (linked to its leading role in the supply chain of components), besides Spain as the host country. It should be noted that performing S-LCA studies is inherently case-specific. In particular, the results are significantly influenced by the reference country for which the analysis is conducted — in this case, Spain. In the context of the HYPOP project, the outcomes of this S-LCA study serve multiple purposes. They illustrate a strategic framework for evaluating the social sustainability of hydrogen-related technologies, particularly for the worker and society stakeholder groups. For example, indicators such as fair salary and gender wage gap directly inform discussions around labour rights and equality, while forced and child labour indicators highlight potential human rights concerns within the involved supply chains. Furthermore, this study helps engage and inform public in HYPOP events with science-based insights. At broader level, it initiates narratives/discussion related to hydrogen within the society through fair transition lens. The S-LCA results also illustrate the potential to bridge the gap between public perception and policy or corporate strategy towards a socially responsible hydrogen economy. Finally, continuous alignment with progress in the field of S-LCA is recommended to further enhance the potential of this methodology when it comes to supplementing other social analysis procedures relevant to hydrogen-related systems. 5 References Benoît Norris C., Traverso M., Neugebauer S. et al., 2020. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations 2020. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Guidelines-for-Social-Life-CycleAssessment-of-Products-and-Organizations-2020-22.1.21sml.pdf. Campos-Carriedo F., Dufour J., Iribarren D., 2024. Towards suitable practices for the integration of social life cycle assessment into the ecodesign framework of hydrogen-related products. Sustainable Production and Consumption 46, 29-39. 10.1016/j.spc.2024.02.015. Campos-Carriedo, F., Iribarren, D., Martín-Gamboa, M., et al., 2024. LCSA application report. SH2E project. Cockroft, C.J., Owen, A.D., 2008. Hydrogen fuel cell buses: an economic assessment. World Hydrogen Energy Conference, 2006. 18 Elgowainy, A., Reddi, K., Lee, D.Y., Rustangi, N., Gupta, E., 2017. Techno-economic and thermodynamic analysis of pre-cooling systems at gaseous hydrogen refueling stations. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42, 29067-29079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.09.087. IRENA, 2024. World energy transitions outlook 2024: 1.5°C pathway. International Renewable Energy Agency. Iribarren D., Puig-Samper G., Bargiacchi E., Dufour J., 2021. Metrics in social impacts. eGHOST project. https://eghost.eu/. James, B.D., Houchins, C., Huya-Kouadio, J.M., DeSantis, D.A., 2016a. Hydrogen storage system cost analysis. Strategic Analysis Inc. https://doi.org/10.2172/1343975. James, B.D., Huya-Kouadio, J.M., Houchins, C., DeSantis, D.A., 2016b. Mass production cost estimation of direct H2 PEM fuel cell systems for transportation applications (2012-2016). Strategic Analysis Inc. https://doi.org/10.2172/1346414. Loubert M., Maister K., Di Noi C., et al., 2023. PSILCA v. 3.1 A Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment database. GreenDelta. Lubecki, A., Szczurowski, J., Zarębska, K., 2023. A comparative environmental Life Cycle Assessment study of hydrogen fuel, electricity and diesel fuel for public buses. Applied Energy 350, 121766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121766. Maddula, S.K.R., Dufour, J., Iribarren, D., 2024. Training material for S-LCA addressed to decisionmakers. HYPOP project. Martín-Gamboa M., Dias A.C., Arroja L., Iribarren D., 2020. A protocol for the definition of supply chains in product social life cycle assessment: application to bioelectricity. Sustainable Energy & Fuels 4, 5533-5542. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0SE00919A. Neis, S., 2019. Cities speeding up the integration of fuel cell buses in public fleets. High V.LO City project. https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/278/278192/final1-hvlo-final-report.pdf. Poudel, S., Tun, H., Reddi, K., Elgowainy, A., 2024. Investigation of precooling unit design options in hydrogen refueling station for heavy-duty fuel-cell electric vehicles. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 61, 493-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.02.197. PVGIS, 2024. Photovoltaic geographical information system. European Commission. https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en. Smith, B.L., Woodhouse, M., Horowitz, K.A.W., Silverman, T.J., Zuboy, J., Margolis, R.M., 2021. Photovoltaic (PV) module technologies: 2020 benchmark costs and technology evolution framework results. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-7A40-78173. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/78173.pdf. Valente, A., Iribarren, D., Dufour, J., 2021. Comparative life cycle sustainability assessment of renewable and conventional hydrogen. Science of the Total Environment, 756, 144132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144132. Wu, L., Zhu, Z., Feng, Y., Tan, W., 2024. Economic analysis of hydrogen refueling station considering different operation modes. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 52, 1577-1591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.09.164. 19 Wulf, C., Kaltschmitt, M., 2012. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen supply chain with special attention on hydrogen refuelling stations. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 37, 16711-16721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.03.028. Yates, J., Daiyan, R., Patterson, R., Egan, R., Amal, R., Ho-Baille, A., Chang, N.L., 2020. Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen electrolysis from off-grid stand-alone photovoltaics incorporating uncertainty analysis. Cell Reports Physical Science, 1, 100209.