Work

Comparative life cycle assessment of different configurations of type IV hydrogen tank for heavy mobility

Year: 2026

Type: article

Abstract: Hydrogen is an energy carrier increasingly used in mobility applications through fuel cell systems. Many national hydrogen strategy documents identify compressed hydrogen gas as a promising solution for decarbonising the transport sector, particularly in heavy-duty mobility. However, the processes involved in hydrogen production, storage and conversion, together with the manufacturing and end-of-life management of the associated systems, generate environmental impacts. These impacts arise from resource extraction, manufacturing activities, and the disposal or recycling of system components. In this context, this article presents a life cycle assessment (LCA) focused on gaseous hydrogen storage systems intended for heavy-duty mobility. Four configurations of type IV hydrogen storage tanks are evaluated within a heavy-duty truck scenario with a 44 ton payload and a driving range of 700 km: two configurations based on 9L tanks, one based on a 23L tank, and one based on a 62L tank, as well as their auxiliaries. The results show that carbon fibres and auxiliary components are clearly the main contributors to the environmental impacts of a type IV hydrogen tank, accounting together for more than 90% of the total impact. Among the four configurations, the 62L tank emerges as the most favourable option overall, exhibiting the best environmental performance. Sensitivity analyses performed on the liner material for the 62L system show only limited variations in the results. This limited change is mainly explained by the negligible contribution of the liner compared with the two dominant contributors, namely carbon fibres and balance of plant (BOP) components, which largely drive the impacts across most categories. Regarding the end-of-life stage, solvolysis and pyrolysis of the carbon fibre composite provide the highest environmental credits, with very similar performances across most impact categories.

Source: Cleaner Environmental Systems

DOI: 10.1016/j.cesys.2026.100523

Authors: Imad Karim, David Chapelle, Anne Maynadier, Frédéric Thiébaud, Hervé Mathis, Stéphane Villalonga