Life cycle assessment evaluates the environmental performance of green hydrogen projects in Chile, highlighting key impacts.
Chile, endowed with exceptional renewable energy potential, has identified green hydrogen as a key element of its energy transition. This study presents the first comprehensive assessment of the environmental performance associated with the deployment of Chile’s projected electrolyser capacity by 2030. The work evaluates nine projects submitted to the national Environmental Impact Assessment Service using a life cycle assessment (LCA) framework, complemented by sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. The results indicate that the operational stage dominates the environmental burdens (>95%) across all projects. Electricity supply from solar photovoltaic (PV) systems is the dominant contributor, accounting for 54-94 % of total impacts. Electrolyser projects powered exclusively by wind exhibit the lowest global warming impacts (1.3-1.5 kg CO 2 eq/kg H 2 ), followed by hybrid supply configurations (2.8-4.0 kg CO 2 eq/kg H 2 ) and solar PV-based projects (4.3-4.5 kg CO 2 eq/kg H 2 ). Accordingly, wind-powered projects in southern Chile exhibit better environmental performance than those in central and northern regions. However, despite their lower environmental impacts across most categories, the large-scale deployment of wind-powered projects leads to higher absolute mineral resource scarcity impacts than solar and hybrid configurations. The assessment shows that proton-exchange membrane electrolysers exhibit higher environmental burdens than alkaline systems across most impact categories, with platinum accounting for over 50% of manufacturing impacts. Sensitivity analysis indicates that a 50% increase in specific energy consumption increases environmental impacts by 42-48%. Overall, the results underscore the importance of aligning renewable electricity sources with electrolyser technologies to minimise the environmental impacts of green hydrogen production in Chile.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schneider et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: