Erratum: Levelized cost of CO2 mitigation from hydrogen production routes (Energy Environ. Sci. (2019) 12 (19–40) DOI: 10.1039/C8EE02079E)

B. Parkinson, P. Balcombe, J.F. Speirs, A.D. Hawkes, K. Hellgardt

Research output: Contribution to journalCorrectionpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)
11 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Some of the references had missing or incorrect details; corrected sections of the affected text are provided below. The reference list has also been corrected and is reproduced in full at the end of this correction. In Section 3.1, ‘‘For literature studies including natural gas supply chain contributions to GHG emissions, the reported total range of LCE values are 10.72–15.86 kg CO2e kg-1 H2 (average of 12.4 of kg CO2e kg-1 H2) 26–34 without CCS and 3.1–5.9 kg CO2e kg-1 H2 (average of 4.3 kg CO2e kg-1 H2) with CCS at 90% capture.27,28,32,33,35’’ should read as ‘‘For literature studies including natural gas supply chain contributions to GHG emissions, the reported total range of LCE values are 10.72–15.86 kg CO2e kg-1 H2 (average of 12.4 of kg CO2e kg-1 H2) 30–38 without CCS and 3.1–5.9 kg CO2e kg-1 H2 (average of 4.3 kg CO2e kg-1 H2) with CCS at 90% capture.31,32,36,37,39’’ ‘‘Direct GHG emissions from the SMR hydrogen production phase are approximately 8–10 t CO2e t-1 H2, 60% of which is generated from the process chemistry, while the remaining 40% arises from heat and power sources required.36’’ should read as ‘‘Direct GHG emissions from the SMR hydrogen production phase are approximately 8–10 t CO2e t-1 H2, 60% of which is generated from the process chemistry, while the remaining 40% arises from heat and power sources required.26’’ ‘‘The majority of CO2 produced exits in two streams, a diluted stream (stack gases with CO2 concentration 5–10 vol%) and a concentrated stream (approximately 50% by vol after pressure swing adsorption).37’’ should read as ‘‘The majority of CO2 produced exits in two streams, a diluted stream (stack gases with CO2 concentration 5–10 vol%) and a concentrated stream (approximately 50% by vol after pressure swing adsorption).27’’ ‘‘If deep decarbonisation is required and emissions must be further reduced from the entire process, then an amine solvent (MEA) based CCS process might be used to capture up to 90% of the CO2 contained in the stack gases,38 although demonstrated removal rates are typically 80%.39’’ should read as ‘‘If deep decarbonisation is required and emissions must be further reduced from the entire process, then an amine solvent (MEA) based CCS process might be used to capture up to 90% of the CO2 contained in the stack gases,28 although demonstrated removal rates are typically 80%.29
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)5425-5433
Number of pages9
JournalEnergy Environ. Sci.
Volume15
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Nov 2022

Keywords

  • hydrogen production routes
  • erratum
  • hydrogen production
  • cost
  • carbon footprint

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Erratum: Levelized cost of CO2 mitigation from hydrogen production routes (Energy Environ. Sci. (2019) 12 (19–40) DOI: 10.1039/C8EE02079E)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this