Advancement of Greenhouse Gas Incorporating the Sustainable Systems-Thinking Scheme by Employing Profitable Hydrogen Production

Abstract

With an emphasis on the incorporation of cost-effective hydrogen generation technologies, this dissertation explores the control of greenhouse gas emissions from the perspective of a sustainable systems-thinking scheme. There is an urgent need for long-term, creative solutions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as the world struggles to cope with the worst effects of climate change. By conducting a thorough literature analysis, this study delves into the state of greenhouse gas management techniques and highlights the power of systems-thinking ideas to develop long-term, all-encompassing plans. Underlying this research are the theoretical frameworks of systems-thinking and the function of hydrogen in renewable energy infrastructures. A thorough evaluation of several technologies for producing hydrogen, considering their efficiency, cost, and influence on the environment, is a part of the study approach. Finding solutions that are both financially feasible and effective in lowering emissions of greenhouse gases is the goal. This dissertation explores the creation and evaluation of efficient methods for producing hydrogen, with an eye toward their potential incorporation into larger sustainable systems. Case studies provide valuable insights into real-world issues by demonstrating how techniques might be used in practice. Findings are critically examined in the results and comments section, which offers implications for sustainable systems development and greenhouse gas management. This study adds to the continuing conversation about long-term strategies for managing greenhouse gas emissions by presenting a systems-level plan based on efficient hydrogen generation. Policymakers, businesses, and academics may use the offered suggestions as a road map to a more sustainable future by adopting policies that are both ecologically responsible and financially feasible.

Introduction

In response to the escalating threat of climate change and the limitations of traditional greenhouse gas (GHG) management methods, this research proposes a paradigm shift toward integrating sustainable systems thinking with cost-effective hydrogen production. The study emphasizes the interconnected nature of environmental, economic, and social systems and argues for holistic, multidisciplinary solutions to reduce GHG emissions.

Key Concepts:

1. Climate Imperative:

   • Fossil fuel-based energy systems are major contributors to GHG emissions and climate change.

   • There is an urgent need for clean, sustainable alternatives.

2. Systems Thinking:

   • Offers a holistic framework to address complex environmental issues.

   • Recognizes interdependencies and feedback loops in environmental and human systems.

   • Encourages integrated strategies that balance environmental sustainability and socioeconomic viability.

3. Hydrogen as a Sustainable Energy Carrier:

   • Hydrogen is clean, versatile, and capable of decoupling energy production from emissions.

   • It has applications across industries, transportation, and energy sectors.

   • Challenges include cost-effectiveness and scalability of production technologies.

4. Economic Viability:

   • Sustainable energy solutions must be financially feasible.

   • The study analyzes various hydrogen production methods to identify economically viable options.

   • Demonstrates that sustainability and profitability can coexist.

5. Practical Implementation:

   • Focuses on real-world application of theories.

   • Uses case studies to assess challenges and strategies for integrating hydrogen into current systems.

   • Aims to provide actionable recommendations for governments, industries, and communities.

Motivation:
The project is driven by the need to address:

• The environmental urgency of reducing GHG emissions.

• The philosophy of systems thinking for integrated problem-solving.

• The potential of hydrogen to drive a sustainable energy transition.

• The importance of economic practicality.

• The demand for applicable, real-world solutions.

Objective:
To create a comprehensive, actionable framework that combines systems-thinking with cost-effective hydrogen production, enabling a more resilient and sustainable energy future.

Conclusion

Using cheap hydrogen generation through methane pyrolysis as part of a sustainable systems-thinking approach can have big effects on lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Finding a way to reduce greenhouse gas pollution that does not cost a lot of money, like using methane pyrolysis to make hydrogen, is important for planning for the future. The suggestions above are meant to help make this technology work well by focusing on important areas like new technology, involving stakeholders, supporting policies, and getting people involved in the community. The viable systems-thinking approach recognizes the need for a comprehensive plan by focusing on how economic, social, and environmental variables are all linked. Working together, coming up with new ideas, and being flexible will be needed to solve problems, get rid of risks, and encourage a lot of people to use cheap ways to make hydrogen. This way of doing things can make a big difference in making the future healthier and more low-carbon by working with global environmental goals and switching to cleaner energy sources. The conclusions that can be made from this method emphasize important results and things to think about: 1) Effects on the environment: Compared to traditional ways of making hydrogen, methane pyrolysis has the ability to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a large amount. The process of capturing and using carbon helps the environment and is in line with the worldwide climate targets. 2) Being able to make money: The Levelized Cost of Gasoline (LCOH) study shows that methane pyrolysis is an economically viable method that can compete with other ways of making hydrogen. Cost optimization and exploring economies of scale must be done all the time for the economy to stay successful. 3) Improvements in technology: For methane pyrolysis methods to get better, they need to keep doing research and development. To make things more efficient, scalable, and effective overall, new ideas need to be brought to the table for reactor design, catalyst creation, and process optimization. 4) Integration of Renewable Energy: Renewable energy sources should be looked into as possible additions to methane pyrolysis processes. Hybrid systems that use both renewable energy and methane as a fuel can make hydrogen production more environmentally friendly. 5) Getting stakeholders involved: For methane pyrolysis to work, it\'s important for everyone involved—government agencies, business partners, study institutions, and local communities—to work together. Active participation and open conversation promote trust and support. 6) Advocacy for policy: Promoting policies and rules that support hydrogen production is important for making the environment suitable for long-term hydrogen generation. Getting involved with lawmakers helps create frameworks that make it easier for methane pyrolysis technologies to be used. 7) Community Service: To make people more aware of and open to methane pyrolysis, community outreach projects are suggested. Dealing with concerns, giving full details, and involving the local population are all important parts of a successful project execution. 8) Reporting and monitoring all the time: Environmental, economical, and social success needs to be checked on a regular basis. Publicly sharing key performance measures makes sure that people are held accountable and lets managers be flexible enough to deal with new problems as they come up. 9) Building up capacity: Putting money into training programs and projects that build the skills of people who work with methane pyrolysis makes sure that the process is safe and effective. Better skills are a part of the technology\'s general success. 10) Checks along the lifecycle: Ongoing lifecycle studies help us understand how methane pyrolysis affects the environment as a whole. These evaluations help guide ongoing efforts to make the technology more long-lasting and find places where it can be improved even more. As a result, the sustainable systems-thinking plan for making hydrogen through methane pyrolysis cheaply shows promise for a more environmentally friendly and low-carbon future. The conclusions stress how important it is to keep working together, coming up with new ideas, and taking a complete method that looks at social, economic, and environmental variables. This method helps the world move toward cleaner energy sources and lower greenhouse gas emissions by taking advantage of opportunities and constantly dealing with problems.

References

[1] Chow C. 2020. \" Carbon taxation: A Shared Global Responsibility for Carbon Emissions.\" Earth.org. Retrieved July 28, 2022 (https://earth.org/Carbon-tax-a-shared-global-responsibility-for-Carbon-emissions/) [2] Crawley, E., Cameron, B., and Selva, D. 2016. System Architecture. Strategy and Product Development for Complex Systems. Boston, MA: Pearson [3] Department of Energy, U.S. 2020. \"H2@Scale.\" Energy.Gov. Retrieved Jan 12, 2022 (https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcel1s/h2scale) [4] Department of Energy, U.S. 2021. \"Energy Earthshots: Hydrogen.\" Energy.Gov. Retrieved July 12, 2022 (https://www.energy.gov/eere/fue1cells/Hydrogen-shot) [5] Department of Energy, U.S. 2021. Hydrogen Production: Natural Gas Reforming.\" Energy.Gov. Retrieved June 10, 2022 (https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/Hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming) [6] Dagle R., Dagle V., and Bearden., M. 2017. An Overview of Natural Gas Conversion Technologies for Coproduction of Hydrogen and Value-Added Solid Carbon Products. PNNL-26726; ANL-17/11. doi:10.2172/141193 [7] Dori, D. 2002. Object-Process Methodology - A Holistic Systems Paradigm. Berlin: Springer. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. \"Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030.\" EPA. Retrieved June 10, 2022 (http://www.epa.gov/c1imatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/MAC Report 2013.pdf) [8] Eurostat. 2019. \"Eurostat Energiebilanzen - Daten 2017.\" European Kommission. Retrieved July 25, 2022 (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/de/web/energy/data/energy-balances) [9] European Environment Agency. 2019. \"Trends and projections in Europe 2019 - Tracking progress towards Europe\'s climate and energy targets.\" EEA. Retrieved Jul, 2022 (https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/trends-and-projections-in-europe-I) [10] European Hydrogen Backbone. 2021. \"Analysing future demand supply, and transport of Hydrogen.\" Guidehouse. Retrieved July 17, 2022 (https://qasforclimate2050.eu/wy-content/uploads/2021/06/EHBAnalysing-the-future-demand-supply-and-transport-of-Hydrogen June-2021.pdf) [11] Forschungsstelle für Energiewirtschaft (FFE) e.V. 2021. ExtremOS Summary Report Modeling Kit and Scenarios for Pathways Towards a Climate Neutral Europe.\" Extremos.FFE.DE. Retrieved Jul, 2022 (https://extremos.ffe.de/findings) [12] Grand View Research. 2019. \"Carbon Black Market Size & Share | Industry Report, 2019-2025.\" Retrieved June 10, 2022 (https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4764571/Carbon-black-market-size- share-and-trends) [13] Hausman, C., Muehlenbachs, L. 2018. \"Price Regulation and Environmental Externalities: Evidence from Methane Leaks.\" JAERE The Association of Environmental and Resource Economists volume 6, number 1. Retrieved July 11, 2022 (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/700301) [14] Hydrogen Council. 2020. Path to Hydrogen Competitiveness - A Cost Perspective [15] ICF International. 2014. \"Economic Analysis of Methane Emission Reduction Opportunities in the U.S. Onshore Oil and Natural Gas Industries.\" ICF. Retrieved June 10, 2022 (https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/Methane cost curve report.pdf) [16] International Energy Agency. 2019. \"The future of Hydrogen.\" IEA. Retrieved June 15, 2022 (https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-Hydrogen) [17] International Energy Agency. 2021. \"Driving Down Methane Leaks from the Oil and Gas Industry.\" IEA. Retrieved May 10, 2022 (https://www.iea.ore/reports/driving-down-Methane-leaks-from-the-oil-and-gas-industry) [18] International Energy Agency. 2022. \"Global Energy Review: COz Emissions in 2021 Global emissions rebound sharply to highest ever level.\" IEA. Retrieved July 11, 2022 (https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/c3086240-732b-4f6a-89d7- db0lbe0l8f5e/G1oba1EnergyReviewCO2Emissionsin2021.pdf) [19] International Energy Agency & Nuclear Energy Agency. 2020. \"Projected Costs of Generating Electricity.\" IEA. Retrieved June 25, 2022 (https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec- 2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf) [20] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2021. Climate Change 2021- The Physical Science Basis. “Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. IPCC AR6 WGI. IPCC International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). 2020. \"Global Renewables Outlook: Energy transformation 2050.\" IRENA. Retrieved August 4, 2022 (httns://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Apr/IRENAG1oba1 Renewables Outlook 2020.pdf) [21] Jackson, R.B., Solomon, E.I., Canadell, J.G., et a1. 2019. \"Methane removal and atmospheric restoration.\" Nat Sustain 2, 43 38. doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0299-x [22] Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis. 2015. \"Potential Cost-Effective Opportunities for Methane Emission Abatement.\" JISEA. Retrieved June 10, 2022 (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/62818.pdf) [23] MIT Industry Liaison Program. 2020. \" Lower Cost, CO2-Free, H2 Production from CH4 Using Liquid Tin.\" ILP.MIT. Retrieved Jan, 2022 (https://ilp.mit.edu/node/50033) [24] MIT ASE. 2020. \" COz Free Hydrogen Production.\" ASE.MIT. Retrieved Nov, 2021 (https://ilp.mit.edu/node/50033) [25] Myhre, G., D. et a1. 2014. \"Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing.\" Climate Change 2013 — The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pp: 659-740. doi.org/10.1017/CBO97811074l5324.018 [26] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2022. \"Simple Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) Calculator Documentation.\" NREL. Retrieved June 2, 2022 (https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech-lcoe-documentation.html) [27] Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 2021. \"Energy Storage Cost and Performance Database PNNL.\" Energy Storage Cost and Performance Database. Retrieved June 14, 2022 (https://www.pnnl.gov/ESGC-cost-performance) [28] Parkinson, B., P. Balcombe, J. F. Speirs, A. D. Hawkes, and K. Hellgardt. 2019. \"Levelized Cost of COz Mitigation from Hydrogen Production Routes.\" Energy & Environmental Science 12(1):19—40. doi: 10.1039/C8EE02079E [29] Parkinson, B., Matthews J. W., McConnaughy T. B, Upham D. C., and McFarland E. W. 2017 \"Techno-Economic Analysis of Methane Pyrolysis in Molten Metals: Decarbonizing Natural Gas,\" Chem. Eng. Technol., 40(6), 1022-1030.doi: 10.1002/ceat.201600414 [30] Raimi D., Campbell, E., Newell, R.G., Prest, B., Villanueva S., and Wingenroth, J. 2022. \"Global Energy Outlook 2022: Turning Points and Tension in the Energy Transition.\" Retrieved July 11, 2022 (https://media.rff.org/documents/Report 22-04 v1.pdf) [31] Ramsden, T., and D. Steward., J. Zuboy. 2009. Analyzing the Levelized Cost of Centralized and Distributed Hydrogen Production Using the H2A Production Model, Version 2. NREL/TP-560-46267, 965528. Retrieved June 2, 2022 (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46267.pdf) [32] Schneider, S., Siegfried, B., Graf, F., Kolb, T. 2020. \"State of the Art of Hydrogen Production via Pyrolysis of Natural Gas,\" ChemBioEng Rev., 7 (5), 150-158. doi: 10.1002/cben.202000014 [33] Schwietzke, S., Sherwood, 0., Bruhwiler, L. et al. 2016. \"Upward revision of global fossil-fuel Methane emissions based on isotope database.\" Nature 538, 88-91. doi.org/10.1038/naturel9797 [34] Simbeck, D., and E. Chang. 2002. Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate for Hydrogen Pathways-- Scoping Analysis. NREL/SR-540-32525, 15002482. SFA Pacific Inc. doi: 10.2172/1500248 [35] U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2022. Price of U.S. Natural Gas Exports ($/MMBtu). EIA. Retrieved Aug 4, 2022 (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdM.htm) [36] U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2022. Annual Energy Outlook 2022. EIA. Retrieved Aug 4, 2022 (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/) [37] U.S. Driving Research and Innovation for Vehicle efficiency and Energy sustainability Partnership, 2017. \"Hydrogen Production Technical Team Roadmap.\" Energy.Gov. Retrieved Feb, 2022 (https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/1l/f46/HPTT%20Roadmap%20FYl7%20Final Nov%202017.pdf) [38] World Bank. 2022. \"World Development Indicators - Popular Indicators - GDP per capita.\" Retrieved July 20, 2022 (https://databank.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/1ff4a498/Popular- Indicators)

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Sk Insaruddin , Prof. Abhijit Mangaraj . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.