Review examines life cycle assessment of methane pyrolysis technologies, indicating reliability issues and recommendations for standardization.
Methane pyrolysis has emerged as a promising pathway for sustainable hydrogen production, with the potential to yield valuable solid carbon byproducts. This review critically examines recent advances in the life cycle assessment (LCA) of methane pyrolysis technologies, focusing on methodological frameworks, sensitivity drivers, and modeling infrastructure. Despite increasing interest, current LCA studies are hindered by inconsistencies in system boundary definitions, functional unit selection, coproduct allocation strategies, and life cycle impact assessment methods. These variations undermine cross‐study comparability and limit the reliability of environmental evaluations. This review analyzes recent studies to evaluate how different LCA approaches, spanning data collection, software platforms, and impact methods, shape reported greenhouse gas emissions and broader environmental outcomes. Key findings highlight the need for harmonized LCA protocols, transparent reporting practices, and standardized impact indicators to support robust environmental benchmarking. Special emphasis should be placed on the treatment of solid carbon coproducts, whose valuation and handling can significantly alter emissions and economic feasibility. The review concludes by recommending methodological standardization and integration of regional policy factors to improve the reliability of LCA studies and guide the development and deployment of methane pyrolysis as a scalable low‐carbon hydrogen technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: