Applied Science, Faculty of
Engineering, School of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Correa Carrillo, Maria Lizette
Master of Applied Science - MASc
University of British Columbia
The energy sector is one of the largest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, with the transportation sector alone accounting for approximately one-quarter of these emissions, primarily due to the reliance on fossil fuels. Therefore, clean energy solutions are essential for reducing GHG emissions, and hydrogen has emerged as a promising solution for decarbonizing the transportation sector. This research explores the use of hydrogen in the railway sector, which is recognized as one of the cleanest and most efficient modes of transportation. However, hydrogen can be produced through various pathways, and the potential environmental, economic, and social impacts of its use in locomotives may vary depending on the employed production methods. Consequently, a comprehensive evaluation is necessary to assess these impacts holistically. This thesis employs a life cycle thinking methodology to evaluate the three pillars of sustainability—environmental, economic, and social impacts—across five hydrogen production pathways, comparing these with conventional internal combustion engine locomotives. This life cycle analyzes all phases of the locomotive's life cycle, including the refurbishment with hydrogen technology components, operational use, and end-of-life impacts. Additionally, a multi-criteria decision-making analysis is conducted to compare the life cycle costs, life cycle emissions and potential social impacts of hydrogen-powered locomotives with those of diesel locomotives in seven Canadian regions. This research also presents the development of a multi-criteria decision-making tool designed to assist stakeholders in evaluating hydrogen-powered locomotives with a life cycle perspective. The findings reveal that significant efforts are needed to lower the market cost of hydrogen by around $5/kg to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when implementing hydrogen-powered locomotives. The environmental assessment revealed that the water electrolysis pathway significantly reduced life cycle emissions in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, while steam methene reforming with carbon capture utilization and storage was most effective in Atlantic Canada and none of the hydrogen pathways considered in this analysis reduced emissions in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Additionally, diesel proved to be the least impacted pathway in the social assessment, largely due to its longstanding reliability. This work serves as a baseline for future applications of hydrogen technology in transportation worldwide.
LIFE CYCLE THINKING EVALUATION OF HYDROGEN-POWERED LOCOMOTIVES: A CANADIAN CONTEXT by Maria Lizette Correa Carrillo B. Sc. Engineering, University of Guadalajara, 2021 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in The College of Graduate Studies (Civil Engineering) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan Campus) December 2024 © Maria Lizette Correa Carrillo, 2024 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: Life Cycle Thinking Evaluation of Hydrogen-Powered Locomotives: a Canadian Context submitted by Maria Lizette Correa Carrillo in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science Examining Committee: Dr. Kasun Hewage, School of Engineering Supervisor Dr. Rehan Sadiq, School of Engineering Co-Supervisor Dr. Sumi Siddiqua, School of Engineering Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Sina Kheirhkah, School of Engineering Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Ahmad Al-Dabbagh, School of Engineering University Examiner iii Abstract The energy sector is one of the largest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, with the transportation sector alone accounting for approximately one-quarter of these emissions, primarily due to the reliance on fossil fuels. Therefore, clean energy solutions are essential for reducing GHG emissions, and hydrogen has emerged as a promising solution for decarbonizing the transportation sector. This research explores the use of hydrogen in the railway sector, which is recognized as one of the cleanest and most efficient modes of transportation. However, hydrogen can be produced through various pathways, and the potential environmental, economic, and social impacts of its use in locomotives may vary depending on the employed production methods. Consequently, a comprehensive evaluation is necessary to assess these impacts holistically. This thesis employs a life cycle thinking methodology to evaluate the three pillars of sustainability—environmental, economic, and social impacts—across five hydrogen production pathways, comparing these with conventional internal combustion engine locomotives. This life cycle analyzes all phases of the locomotive's life cycle, including the refurbishment with hydrogen technology components, operational use, and end-of-life impacts. Additionally, a multi-criteria decision-making analysis is conducted to compare the life cycle costs, life cycle emissions and potential social impacts of hydrogen-powered locomotives with those of diesel locomotives in seven Canadian regions. This research also presents the development of a multi-criteria decision-making tool designed to assist stakeholders in evaluating hydrogen-powered locomotives with a life cycle perspective. The findings reveal that significant efforts are needed to lower the market cost of hydrogen by around $5/kg to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when implementing hydrogen-powered locomotives. The environmental assessment revealed that the water electrolysis pathway significantly reduced life cycle emissions in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, while steam methene reforming with carbon capture utilization and storage was most effective in Atlantic Canada and none of the hydrogen pathways considered in this analysis reduced emissions in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Additionally, diesel proved to be the least impacted pathway in the social assessment, largely due to its longstanding reliability. This work serves as a baseline for future applications of hydrogen technology in transportation worldwide. iv Lay Summary Human activities have increased greenhouse gases, causing global warming. Using fossil fuels for transportation is a big part of the problem. To tackle this, cleaner energy options are required, and hydrogen is emerging as a potential solution to decarbonize the transportation sector. This thesis explores the use of hydrogen in Canada's railway system. Hydrogen can be produced in numerous ways, and depending on the method, the impacts on the environment, economy, and society can vary. This research used the life cycle thinking methodology to evaluate the environmental, economic, and social impacts of hydrogen-powered locomotives and compared them to traditional diesel-powered locomotives. Additionally, a decision-making tool is developed to compare these impacts for five hydrogen production pathways and seven Canadian regions. This research will provide valuable insights for decision-makers considering hydrogen in Canadian railways and set a foundation for similar efforts worldwide. v Preface I, Maria Lizette Correa Carrillo, developed all the content in this thesis under the supervision Dr. Kasun Hewage and Dr. Rehan Sadiq. Dr. Faran Razi, a Post Doctoral Fellow, also helped and guided this research. Generative AI was utilized as a tool to improve the grammar of the document. After utilizing the tool, the content was reviewed and edited for accuracy, and I assume full responsibility for the final version. The following are the references for the journal and conference articles that have emerged from this work. Journal Articles: L. Correa, F. Razi, R. Sadiq, and K. Hewage, “Life cycle costing analysis of a retrofitted hydrogen-powered locomotive: Canadian context,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 133, p. 104295, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2024.104295. L. Correa, F. Razi, K. Hewage, and R. Sadiq, “Environmental and social life cycle analysis of hydrogen-powered railway locomotives in Canadian context,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 83, pp. 198–209, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.08.084. Conference Articles: L. Correa-Carrillo, K. Hewage, F. Razi & R. Sadiq, “A comparative life cycle sustainability analysis of hydrogen-powered and diesel locomotives,” In the 2nd Canadian & Cold Regions Rail Research Conference 2024, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Articles under preparation: L. Correa, F. Razi, R. Sadiq, and K. Hewage, “A Multi-criteria decision-making tool for life cycle evaluations of hydrogen technology in railway locomotives in Canada” (Expected to be submitted to the Journal of Cleaner Production in December 2024). vi Table of contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................. iv Preface............................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................... xiii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xvi Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xvii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Motivation ....................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Research Objectives ........................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Research Outcomes and Deliverables ............................................................................. 6 1.5 Thesis Organization ........................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Global Warming...................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Transportation Sector Contribution to Global Warming ........................................ 11 2.2 Decarbonization of the Railway Sector ........................................................................ 12 2.3 H2 as a Potential Solution ............................................................................................. 12 2.4 H2 Production Pathways ............................................................................................... 13 2.4.1 Water Electrolysis ................................................................................................... 14 2.4.2 Steam Methane Reforming ..................................................................................... 15 2.4.3 Coal Gasification .................................................................................................... 16 2.4.4 Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage ................................................................. 16 2.5 Life Cycle Thinking Evaluation of H2 Technology in the Railway Sector .................. 17 2.5.1 Life Cycle Thinking Evaluation of H2 in the Transportation Sector ...................... 17 2.5.2 Life cycle Thinking evaluation of H2 in the Railway Sector .................................. 21 2.5.2.1 Life Cycle Cost Assessment ............................................................................ 21 2.5.2.2 Environmental Life Cycle Assessment............................................................ 22 2.5.2.3 Social Life Cycle Assessment ......................................................................... 24 2.6 Multi-criteria Decision-making Tools for H2 Application in the Railway Sector ........ 25 vii 2.7 Research Gaps ............................................................................................................... 28 2.8 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 32 3.1 Life Cycle Assessment Methodology ........................................................................... 32 3.1.1 Life Cycle Cost Assessment ................................................................................... 33 3.1.1.1 Goal Of The LCC Assessment ........................................................................ 33 3.1.1.2 Scope Of The LCC Assessment ...................................................................... 33 3.1.1.3 Life Cycle Cost Inventory ............................................................................... 35 3.1.1.4 Economic Life Cycle Impact Assessment ....................................................... 35 3.1.1.4.1 Capital Cost .................................................................................................. 36 3.1.1.4.2 Operational Cost ........................................................................................... 37 3.1.1.4.3 Maintenance Cost ......................................................................................... 38 3.1.1.4.4 End-of-Life Cost ........................................................................................... 38 3.1.1.4.5 Financial Analysis ........................................................................................ 39 3.1.2 Environmental Life Cycle Assessment ................................................................... 40 3.1.2.1 Goal and Scope of the ELCA .......................................................................... 40 3.1.2.2 Life Cycle Environmental Inventory ............................................................... 40 3.1.2.3 Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment ............................................... 41 3.1.2.3.1 Refurbishing Phase ....................................................................................... 41 3.1.2.3.2 Operational Phase ......................................................................................... 42 3.1.2.3.3 End-of-Life Phase ......................................................................................... 42 3.1.3 Social Life Cycle Assessment ................................................................................. 43 3.1.3.1 Goal of the SLCA Study .................................................................................. 43 3.1.3.2 Scope of the SLCA Study ................................................................................ 43 3.1.3.3 Social Life Cycle Inventory ............................................................................. 43 3.2 Multi-Criteria Decision-Making ................................................................................... 44 3.2.1 Decision Scenarios for Selecting Emissions Reduction Strategies......................... 44 3.2.2 VIKOR – MCDM Approach for Scenario Ranking ............................................... 45 3.2.3 Case-Specific Methodology and Data Inputs ......................................................... 48 3.3 LCA-MCDM Tool to Evaluate Hydrogen-powered Locomotives in Canada .............. 48 Chapter 4: Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 49 4.1 Life Cycle Cost ............................................................................................................. 49 4.1.1 Travel Trend Scenarios ........................................................................................... 49 4.1.2 Maintenance Scenarios ........................................................................................... 52 viii 4.1.3 Comparison of Operational Cost ............................................................................ 53 4.1.4 Life Cycle Cost Comparison ................................................................................... 56 4.1.5 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................ 57 4.1.5.1 Fuel Cell .......................................................................................................... 57 4.1.5.2 H2 Fuel Price .................................................................................................... 58 4.2 Environmental Life Cycle ............................................................................................. 59 4.2.1 Refurbishing Phase ................................................................................................. 59 4.2.2 Operational Phase ................................................................................................... 62 4.2.3 End-of-Life Phase ................................................................................................... 67 4.2.4 Life Cycle Comparison ........................................................................................... 68 4.2.5 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................ 69 4.3 Social Life Cycle........................................................................................................... 70 4.3.1 Social Categories .................................................................................................... 70 4.3.2 Overall Social Impact Score ................................................................................... 73 4.4 Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis .................................................................... 76 4.4.1 Ranking of H2 Alternatives to Diesel...................................................................... 79 4.4.1.1 British Columbia.............................................................................................. 79 4.4.1.2 Alberta ............................................................................................................. 79 4.4.1.3 Saskatchewan ................................................................................................... 80 4.4.1.4 Manitoba .......................................................................................................... 81 4.4.1.5 Ontario ............................................................................................................. 81 4.4.1.6 Quebec ............................................................................................................. 82 4.4.1.7 Atlantic Canada ............................................................................................... 82 4.5 Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Tool........................................................................... 83 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 89 5.1 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 89 5.2 Recommendations and Design Guidelines ................................................................... 92 5.3 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 93 References ..................................................................................................................................... 94 Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 108 ix List of Tables Table 2-1: Life cycle studies of H2 applications in the Transportation Sector ............................. 19 Table 3-1. Diesel and H2 prices at the refuelling station .............................................................. 36 Table 3-2: Weighting criteria for multiple decision scenarios ...................................................... 45 Table 4-1. Life cycle emissions per GJ of fuel produced in (a) British Columbia, (b) Alberta, (c) Saskatchewan, (d) Manitoba, (e) Ontario, (f) Quebec, and (g) Atlantic Canada .......................... 62 Table 4-2. Locomotive’s social score per category for (a) British Columbia, (b) Alberta, (c) Saskatchewan, (d) Manitoba, (e) Ontario, (f) Quebec, and (g) Atlantic Canada .......................... 71 Table 4-3. Locomotive’s social weighted scores for (a) British Columbia, (b) Alberta, (c) Saskatchewan, (d) Manitoba, (e) Ontario, (f) Quebec, and (g) Atlantic Canada .......................... 74 Table 4-4. Ranking of fuel alternatives for British Columbia ...................................................... 79 Table 4-5. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Alberta ...................................................................... 80 Table 4-6. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Saskatchewan ........................................................... 80 Table 4-7. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Manitoba ................................................................... 81 Table 4-8. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Ontario ...................................................................... 81 Table 4-9. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Quebec ...................................................................... 82 Table 4-10. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Atlantic Canada ...................................................... 82 Table A. 1 - Life cycle inventory data ........................................................................................ 108 Table A. 2 - Decision matrix for British Columbia .................................................................... 110 Table A. 3 - Decision matrix for Alberta .................................................................................... 110 Table A. 4 - Decision matrix for Saskatchewan ......................................................................... 111 Table A. 5 - Decision matrix for Manitoba................................................................................. 111 Table A. 6 - Decision matrix for Ontario .................................................................................... 111 Table A. 7 - Decision matrix for Quebec .................................................................................... 112 Table A. 8 - Decision matrix for Atlantic Canada ...................................................................... 112 Table A. 9 – Normalized decision matrix for British Columbia ................................................. 113 Table A. 10 – Normalized decision matrix for Alberta .............................................................. 113 Table A. 11 – Normalized decision matrix for Saskatchewan.................................................... 114 Table A. 12 – Normalized decision matrix for Manitoba ........................................................... 114 Table A. 13 – Normalized decision matrix for Ontario .............................................................. 115 Table A. 14 – Normalized decision matrix for Quebec .............................................................. 115 x Table A. 15 – Normalized decision matrix for Atlantic Canada ................................................ 116 xi List of Figures Figure 1-1: Thesis workflow ........................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-1. Sector-wise breakdown of GHG emissions in Canada in 2020 (data from [2]) ........ 11 Figure 2-2. Global H2 production sources (data from [50]) .......................................................... 14 Figure 3-1. Life cycle assessment approaches in transportation ................................................... 34 Figure 3-2. Life cycle assessment of a retrofitted hydrogen-powered locomotive – a system boundary ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 3-3. Inflation and discount rates registered in Canada from 2014 to 2023 ....................... 39 Figure 3-4. System boundary definition of the locomotive’s life cycle ....................................... 40 Figure 3-5. Calculation steps for VIKOR method ........................................................................ 46 Figure 4-1. Operation scenarios for a) 100 km/day, b) 300 km/day, c) 500 km/day .................... 50 Figure 4-2. Effect of the locomotive’s lifespan on its life cycle expenses for different daily distances covered .......................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 4-3. Life cycle cost for different regular maintenance scenarios ...................................... 53 Figure 4-4. Operational cost comparison of H2 pathways and diesel for different distances ....... 55 Figure 4-5. Life cycle cost comparison for different locomotive’s fuel alternatives .................... 56 Figure 4-6. Effect of the FC cost on the total Life Cycle Cost of the locomotive ........................ 58 Figure 4-7. Variation of total Life Cycle Cost depending on H2 Fuel Cost.................................. 59 Figure 4-8. Distribution of life cycle emissions from the refurbishing phase .............................. 60 Figure 4-9. Refurbishing components attribution to environmental categories ........................... 61 Figure 4-10. Locomotive operational emissions for different Canada regions ............................ 67 Figure 4-11. Locomotive end-of-life phase emissions ................................................................. 68 Figure 4-12. Locomotive life cycle emissions for several H2 production pathways across various Canadian provinces ....................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 4-13. Sensitivity analysis of travel behaviour on locomotive life cycle emissions ........... 70 Figure 4-14. Triple Bottom Line results for (a) British Columbia, (b) Alberta, (c) Saskatchewan, (d) Manitoba, (e) Ontario, (f) Quebec, and (g) Atlantic Canada .................................................. 78 Figure 4-15. Inputs worksheet - MCDM tool ............................................................................... 84 Figure 4-16. LCC worksheet - MCDM tool ................................................................................. 85 Figure 4-17. ELCA worksheet - MCDM tool ............................................................................... 86 Figure 4-18. SLCA worksheet - MCDM tool ............................................................................... 87 xii Figure 4-19. MCDM worksheet - MCDM tool ............................................................................ 88 xiii Nomenclature Cc Capital cost ($) CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2-eq Carbon dioxide equivalent Dc Disposal cost ($) EOLc End-of-life cost ($) GJ Gigajoule h Hour H2 Hydrogen kg Kilogram km Kilometer kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-hour L Liters Mc Maintenance cost ($) MJ Megajoule Mt Megatons Oc Operational cost ($) r Discount rate (%) RCc Recycling cost ($) RFc Refurbishing cost ($) RMc Regular Maintenance cost ($) Subscripts A1 First compromised solution A2 Second compromised solution Ax Compromised solution DQ Threshold to evaluate the compromised solutions fi+ Maximum value in the criteria under analysis among all the alternatives xiv fi+ Minimum value in the criteria under analysis among all the alternatives fij Value of criteria under analysis of each alternative j Total number of alternatives being evaluated Q Ranking list of the distances of the alternative to the ideal solution Qj Distance of the alternative to the ideal solution R- Minimum value of the negative to ideal solutions R+ Maximum value of the negative to ideal solutions Rj Negative to ideal solution S- Minimum value of the ideal solutions S+ Maximum value of the ideal solutions Sj Ideal solution v Weight to assign more importance to the ideal or negative to ideal solution wi Weight criteria Acronyms AFC Alkaline Fuel Cell CAD Canadian Dollars CCUS Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage DALY Disability adjusted life years ELCA Environmental Life Cycle Assessment FC Fuel cell GHG Greenhouse gas ICE Internal combustion engine ISO International Organization for Standardization LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCC Life Cycle Cost LCI Life Cycle Inventory LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment MCDM Multi criteria decision making xv MCFC Molten Carbonate Fuel cell MEA Membrane Electrode Assembly NPV Net present value PAFC Phosphoric Acid Fuel cell PEM Proton Exchange Membrane PEMFC Proton exchange membrane fuel cell SLCA Social life cycle assessment SMR Steam Methane Reforming SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cells SV Salvage value TOPSIS Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution TTW Tank-to-wheel UCG Underground Coal Gasification UDS United States Dollars UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VIKOR VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje WTT Well-to-tank ZEV Zero-emission vehicles xvi Acknowledgements I would like first to express my gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. Kasun Hewage and Dr. Rehan Sadiq, for their guidance, for believing in me, and for the opportunity they provided to be part of the Life Cycle Management Laboratory, to participate in this industry-funded research project, and for their continuous support throughout my academic and professional journey in the University of British Columbia. Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Faran Razi, who was very patient and dedicated to supporting me in accomplishing the goals of my academic program, his guidance has been instrumental to my learning journey. I would also like to thank my research committee, Dr. Lisa Tober and Dr. Sina Kheirhkah, for their kindness and support. I am grateful for being part of an amazing research group and for having the support of my research fellows. Special thanks to Dr. Haroon Mian, Ms. Ravihari Kotagodahetti, Ms. Thais Rebello, and Messers Tharaka Wanniarachchi and Chamode Wijayasekera for their unconditional support and guidance from the first day of this journey. Moreover, I would like to acknowledge the financial support from Transport Canada, Mitacs Canada, and the College of Graduate Studies of the University of British Columbia. Furthermore, I am blessed to have had the support of my family at every step of my life. Thank you to my beloved husband, Dr. Jose Sapien, for your incredible encouragement day and night and for making my journey more enjoyable and fun. Thank you to my mother and sister, Lupita Carrillo and Nancy Correa, for their motivation and emotional support in all my life stages. Lastly, thank my dad, Miguel Correa, for inspiring me to be a better person every day and always looking after me. xvii Dedication Dedicated to my dad beyond the sky… 1 Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter outlines the study's background, research gaps, motivation, objectives, and deliverables and provides a summary of the workflow. 1.1 Background Human activities have significantly driven climate change since the Industrial Revolution, causing a steady increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) levels in the atmosphere [1]. This leads to environmental, economic and social impacts in the region where they are emitted and beyond. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established as a global treaty to tackle concerns related to climate change collectively. The primary goal of the UNFCCC is to maintain greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that avoids detrimental disruptions to the climate system. Two decades have passed since Canada endorsed and ratified the UNFCCC, and since 2021, it has committed to reducing its GHG emissions to a range of 40-45% below the levels recorded in 2005 by the year 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050 [2]. The transportation sector, which contributes approximately one-quarter of all energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, significantly contributes to climate change [3]. This reliance on fossil fuels, with nearly 91% of its energy demand met by oil products, fuels internal combustion engines (ICE) and results in GHG emissions during combustion [4]. However, the deployment of clean energy is gradually slowing the rate of global emissions [5]. Road transport alone accounts for almost half of the global oil demand [6]. Despite this, the rise of battery electric technology in road transportation has begun to challenge the dominance of ICE vehicles. In contrast, rail transport boasts the highest electrification rate among all modes of transportation, and despite this, oil still constitutes 53% of the energy demand in rail operations [6]. This reliance is particularly evident in non-electrified rail lines, which remain prevalent across various regions across the globe. For instance, most interregional routes in North and South America, 67% of conventional rail lines in Africa, 15% in India, and 38% in Europe still rely on ICE locomotives [7]. Despite this dependence on fossil fuels, rail transport is one of the most efficient modes of transportation [8], making it a more environmentally friendly alternative to road transport. 2 Hydrogen (H2) presents a potential solution for reducing carbon emissions on diesel rail routes where implementing electrification is challenging, and the distances exceed the capabilities of battery electric trains [8]. In this regard, H2 is a source of chemically stored energy, which can be converted into electrical energy via the Fuel Cell (FC) technology. Hydrogen FC locomotives are considered zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) when in operation, as water vapour is the sole byproduct released into the environment. Therefore, H2 has not only been recognized as a critical solution for reaching the net-zero GHG emissions targets set by governments in recent years [9], but it also stands as an alternative for industries that are actively investigating power technologies beyond fossil fuels due to their diminishing reserves [10]. Global efforts are demanded in response to the decarbonization goals; hence, several pilot projects are being developed in the railway sector. For instance, the national train networks in France, Scotland, and sections of the Netherlands have vowed to replace diesel engines with clean options by 2035 [11], [12]. The United Kingdom and Germany have targeted eliminating trains powered by diesel by 2040 and 2038, respectively [13], [14]. These efforts demand a substantial growth of clean energy supplies, such as H2 [15]. Hydrogen-powered trains have been put into experimental use and are undergoing further refinement and development. In 2016, Alstom, a French railway manufacturer, developed a hydrogen-powered passenger train with FCs produced by Hydrogenics (Canadian), which started operating in Germany two years later, serving as the first 14-train fleet powered through H2 FC during mid-2022 [16]. In 2019, Ballard Power Systems introduced the world's inaugural H2 tram line, which is operational in China [17]. Toyota unveiled a collaboration with Japan Rail-East to create a hydrogen-powered train to start testing in Japan in March 2022 [18]. Canadian railways proactively seek alliances with government bodies, academic institutions, and industry stakeholders. This collaboration aims to propel progress toward a more environmentally responsible future [19]. The first demonstration of hydrogen-powered trains in North America was launched by Alstom in Quebec City in 2023 [20]. Although only the operational demonstrations of H2 locomotives have started, its local development is greatly anticipated shortly, with the employment of the intellectual property of Canadian companies worldwide [21]. 3 H2 can be produced using several different methods, and depending on the particular production pathways considered, it can be categorized as gray, blue or green H2. Gray H2 utilizes fossil fuels in its production and currently is the most widely used method [22]. This gray H2 can be converted into blue H2 by incorporating the carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology. On the other hand, green H2 is produced with renewable energies, converting it into the most desirable long-term alternative for decarbonizing the sector [23]. The analysis and evaluation of emerging technologies, such as hydrogen-powered locomotives, must be taken with a comprehensive focus. Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) methods, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing Analysis (LCCA), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), are capable of capturing complexity and interdependencies, offering an in-depth and objective economic-environmental and social balance useful to address the sustainability of energy systems from a life cycle perspective [24]. The implementation of the LCT methodology for evaluating H2 fuel use in the transportation sector has been active, specifically for road transport. Several LCA studies have been published focusing on H2 fuel cell vehicles. More than 70 scientific papers on road transport were published only during 2000-2021 and were analyzed by Rinawati et al. [25], where the fuel cell passenger car was found to be the most common vehicle analyzed. Additionally, the majority of the articles under review were LCA comparison studies on various H2 powertrains and pathways. In terms of maritime transportation, two studies have been found focused on ferries. Trillos et al. [26] introduced a comparison of H2 and a conventional diesel ferry in Scotland, identifying H2 as an alternative fuel for ship propulsion with a better environmental performance. Furthermore, a hydrogen-electric ferry in Norway was analyzed by Jokela et al. [27], to obtain the energy demand and environmental impacts during the entire lifecycle of a hydrogen-electric and a diesel ferry. On the other hand, Gilbert et al. [28] considered H2 as one of the fuel alternatives for ships, to calculate the lifecycle air emissions, Bicer and Dincer [29] investigated the environmental impacts of different sea transportation vehicles powered by H2 and ammonia. Furthermore, Fernández-Ríos et al. [30] evaluated the environmental impacts of two H2 vessel propulsion technologies. Lastly, the life LCA methodology has also been applied to comparing H2 and alternative fuels in the aviation sector, Siddiqui and Dincer [31] and Bicer and Dincer [32] studied the alternative fuels 4 for a passenger aircraft, Pereira et al. [33] for different length of flights, Koroneos et al. [34] for different aircraft types. In contrast, the railway sector has not been studied as extensively as the other transport modes mentioned earlier. 1.2 Research Motivation The transportation sector is among the most fossil fuel-dependent sectors, and its decarbonization is essential for environmental preservation. The implementation of H2 technology in the transportation sector is crucial to attain the Canadian net-zero targets by 2050. In this regard, decarbonizing the railway sector by incorporating H2 energy is imperative to reduce the overall GHG emissions of the transportation sector. When analyzing fuel alternatives to reduce emissions in the railway sector, H2 presents various advantages compared to diesel or electric trains. H2 has the capacity to produce zero emissions during its utilization since no combustion is required to convert the energy to power the locomotive; instead, water vapour is the only byproduct from the electrochemical process that converts H2 to electrical energy in the fuel cell. Additionally, H2 possesses a higher energy density when compared to diesel since the energy content of H2 ranges from 120-142 MJ/kg, whereas the high heating value of diesel can range from 45-50 MJ/k, which converts H2 into a high-energy-dense fuel. Furthermore, the locomotive refuelling times are significantly lower than battery electric locomotives. However, H2 must be produced from clean and sustainable sources to consider H2 an alternative fuel to achieve the emissions goals. Today, H2 is almost entirely produced from natural gas and coal, generating annual CO2 emissions equivalent to the combined emissions of Indonesia and the United Kingdom [35]. Hence, it is imperative to analyze the life cycle impacts of the fuel when considering its application in the railway sector to account for the upstream implications of H2 production and other indirect impacts and interconnections. Comprehensive strategies that recognize interconnections among processes, services and products are likely to be more impactful than those targeting individual components [36]. Planning the energy transition of railway systems can be more effective by equipping decision-makers, transportation planners, investors, researchers, policymakers, and other relevant stakeholders with user-friendly tools and frameworks that analyze the potential environmental, cost, and social impacts of H2 locomotives, considering region-specific conditions and various H2 5 production pathways, and comparing them with conventional diesel locomotives. This research aims to provide a tool that addresses the concerns previously mentioned for different Canadian regions and multiple H2 production pathways. 1.3 Research Objectives The primary objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of implementing H2 fuel to power locomotives as an emissions reduction strategy in Canada. By providing the methodology's application in Canada's context, this study aims to guide its application to retrofitted H2 locomotives worldwide. In this regard, the sub-objectives of the study are as follows:  evaluate the economic viability of hydrogen-powered locomotives with a life cycle costing model. This includes (a) the capital costs of retrofitting a locomotive with H2 technology, (b) the operational costs across various travel patterns and the variability in hydrogen unit costs based on different production pathways, (c) the maintenance costs of the locomotive, and (d) the expenses associated with the end-of-life of retrofitting components.  investigate the environmental sustainability of hydrogen-powered locomotives with a life cycle emissions model that includes (a) the environmental impacts of raw materials and the manufacturing of retrofitting components, (b) fuel life cycle emissions for six H2 production methods, considering the energy grid mix of seven Canadian regions, and (c) emissions associated with the disposal and recycling of the retrofitting components.  assess the social acceptability of implementing H2 in the railway sector. This includes evaluating seven selected potential social impacts related to the implementation of the H2 technology in the railway sector while considering their specific technical challenges and sustainability effects that the H2 production chosen pathway may have.  develop an MCDM framework and software tool to assist stakeholders in analyzing hydrogen-powered locomotives based on the three pillars of sustainability—economic, environmental, and social impacts—within the context of their implementation in Canada from a life cycle perspective. This includes comparing the hydrogen pathways to diesel for seven regions in Canada. 6  provide recommendations and design guidelines for evaluating and implementing hydrogen-powered locomotives in Canada as an alternative to decarbonizing the railway sector. 1.4 Research Outcomes and Deliverables This study developed a tool based on life cycle thinking and MCDM to rank various H2 pathways as alternative locomotive fuels to diesel. The key findings of this analysis benefit decision-makers, transportation planners, investors, researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders focused on emission reduction goals in the railway sector. The environmental, cost, and social life cycle impact database for H2 locomotives is valuable for developing future tools to aid in the pre-project planning of railway projects. Moreover, the insights gained from this project provided conclusive recommendations for implementing H2 locomotives as a cleaner alternative, supporting the path towards TBL sustainability for Canadian regions and serving as a guide for worldwide application. This approach enables decision-makers and investors to make informed choices rather than relying on the customary ad-hoc decision-making process. Regional assessments of H2 production pathways are essential for creating customized climate action policies relevant to specific local contexts involved in the railway industry. The results of the analyses in this thesis were published in journal articles and conference papers, which were provided as deliverables. Details of these publications were outlined in the preface of this document. Following is a description of the specific terms used to describe the research objectives. Life cycle thinking: Life cycle thinking entails evaluating how a product, process, or service impacts the environment, economy, and society throughout its life cycle, from raw materials extraction to the end of life. The life cycle concept was applied to the current study in order to assess the overall life cycle impacts of implementing H2 locomotives in the Canadian railway industry. Multicriteria decision-making: The MCDM is a process that involves analyzing several alternatives based on multiple criteria and ranking them based on their performance. This study 7 used the VIKOR method to perform an MCDM, which used the resulting costs, environmental, and social impacts. A specific reason for choosing this methodology is that it is simple, universally applicable, and considers the difference between an ideal solution and the relative importance of different attributes. Four weighting schemes were applied to this MCDM to illustrate its applicability to various stakeholder preferences. 1.5 Thesis Organization The present thesis consists of seven chapters that cover the literature review, the methodology, the findings and the conclusions. Chapter 1: This chapter offers a general introduction to the research topic selected for this thesis, detailing the research gaps, the motivation behind the study, the research objectives and the deliverables and outcomes. Chapter 2: This chapter provides a literature review of the status of the transportation sector's contribution to global GHG emissions and the reduction goals established globally and in Canada. This review discusses the role of H2 in accomplishing the goals, the different H2 production methods, the state-of-the-art of H2 locomotives, and its TBL sustainability analysis of emission reduction approaches to develop planning tools to evaluate its implementation worldwide and in Canada. Chapter 3: This chapter outlines the methodology utilized for modelling and analyzing the costs, environmental, and potential social impacts of implementing H2 locomotives from a life cycle perspective, considering the energy profiles of seven Canadian regions and five H2 production pathways. Additionally, it details the methodology and analysis of the MCDM study, including the development of the MCDM framework and the creation of an MCDM tool to facilitate the application of this analysis for future estimations. Chapter 4: In this chapter, the modelling and analysis results from Chapter 3 are presented and discussed. The TBL results illustrate the life cycle cost for multiple H2 production pathways, estimate life cycle emissions for seven regions in Canada, and assess potential social impacts based on normalized and aggregated performance scores aligned with TBL sustainability principles. Based on these results, the MCDM-based ranking framework provides multiple rankings to 8 evaluate H2 alternatives to diesel in each region, considering four different decision-making contexts. Furthermore, the final interface of the MCDM tool is presented, detailing the various variables considered in the tool for future applications. The discussion encompasses how these variables can be adjusted and utilized to facilitate comprehensive evaluations and informed decision-making in future studies and practical implementations. Chapter 5: This chapter presents a summary of the study's conclusions of this research, provides recommendations and design guidelines, and highlights key research contributions and limitations encountered during the study. Figure 1-1 outlines the organization of this thesis. 9 Figure 1-1: Thesis workflow 10 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 Introduction This section underscores the pressing need for research on hydrogen-powered railway locomotives. The urgency arises from two critical factors: the escalating global warming crisis and the challenge to ensure energy security. This section presents compelling data on both issues and delves into the transportation sector's alarming role in global warming, examining it from global and local perspectives. 2.1.1 Global Warming Human activities, primarily through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, have undoubtedly caused global warming, raising global surface temperatures by 1.1°C between 1850-1900 and 2011-2020 [1] [37]. This happens because of the greenhouse effect. GHGs absorb and emit thermal radiation, raising the global mean surface temperature by exciting vibrational and rotational molecular states, causing surface temperatures to increase [38]. Several problems have arisen due to the increasing temperatures that warmed the atmosphere, oceans, and land, leading to harmful impacts on weather and climate extremes worldwide. As a result, numerous negative impacts are detected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [37]: - There are approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people (~40% of the world’s population) live in areas highly vulnerable to climate change, where individuals' livelihoods have been affected by the destruction of homes and infrastructure, loss of property and income, and negative impacts on human health and food security, further exacerbating gender and social inequalities. - Climate change has caused significant and increasingly irreversible damage to terrestrial, freshwater, cryospheric, coastal, and open ocean ecosystems. Heat extremes have led to the loss of numerous species, resulting in mass mortality events on land and in the ocean, increased human mortality and health issues, reduced food security, and compromised water security. - Economic damages from climate change have been mostly detected in agriculture, forestry, fishery, energy, and tourism sectors. Furthermore, economic losses have also been detected 11 in cities due to intensified heat extremes, which compromise infrastructure such as transportation, water, sanitation, and energy systems, cause service interruptions, and negatively impact overall well-being. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is leading the charge against climate change, aiming to stabilize atmospheric GHG emissions to prevent harmful interference with the climate system [2]. To align with these goals, intensive global efforts are crucial. Canada has made significant commitments in this context, pledging to reduce GHG emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 [39]. This underscores Canada's role in the global fight against climate change. 2.1.2 Transportation Sector Contribution to Global Warming The transportation sector accounts for ~30% of the global GHG emissions, negatively impacting air quality and the built environment [40], [41]. Furthermore, emissions from the transportation sector have outpaced GHG emissions in all other energy-consuming sectors [42]. During 2020, Canada had a total emissions of 672 megatons of CO2-eq, with approximately 80% of this attributed to CO2 primarily generated from the combustion of fossil fuels [2]. As illustrated in Figure 2-1, the transportation sector is Canada's second-largest source of GHGs. Moreover, GHG emissions from the transportation sector exhibited a consistent annual increase from 1990 to 2021. Of the overall 27% growth during this period, the primary contributors were heavy-duty trucks and passenger light trucks [39]. Figure 2-1. Sector-wise breakdown of GHG emissions in Canada in 2020 (data from [2]) Oil and Gas27%Electricity8%Transport24%Heavy Industry11%Buildings13%Agriculture10%Others7%12 2.2 Decarbonization of the Railway Sector Railway transport is recognized as one of the most energy-efficient modes of transportation [8]. Despite handling substantial traffic, the railway sector contributes to just about 4% of emissions from the transportation sector [19]. Consequently, it stands out as an environmentally friendly option among the various transportation modes. The emissions from railway locomotives primarily result from diesel combustion. Consequently, efforts have been directed towards exploring clean technologies to decarbonize the railway sector. In Canada, alternative propulsion systems such as H2 and electric locomotives have undergone comprehensive numerical, analytical and experimental investigations [19]. Moreover, hybrid locomotives incorporating both battery and H2 technologies are regarded as the most promising option for the future of railway locomotives [43]. Implementing electric rail infrastructure, such as overhead catenary and power substations, can be prohibitively expensive, rendering it unfeasible in some instances [44]. In scenarios where catenary electrification is not viable, adopting alternative clean energy sources, such as H2, becomes imperative to replace the utilization of diesel fuel to mitigate emissions. Furthermore, H2 trains represent a competitive alternative to electric trains, particularly in areas where investment in power supply infrastructure is not feasible, as H2 trains do not rely on such infrastructure [45]. 2.3 H2 as a Potential Solution Hydrogen-powered locomotives are a promising solution for clean railway transport [45]. They can be configured with fuel cells (FC) only or with a hybrid system incorporating an energy storage system into the FC. The power module drive system of diesel locomotives is configured with a diesel fuel tank, an internal combustion engine (ICE), an alternator, power converters and a traction motor [46] [47]. The power module drive system of hydrogen-powered locomotives is not very different from that of diesel locomotives. The power module concept is retained, whereas the ICE of diesel locomotives, being the main component, is replaced with FC systems [48]. Electricity is first generated in the FC from H2, ideally from clean H2 sourced from renewables like solar, wind, hydro, or hydrogen-rich hydrocarbon fuels. This electricity can then be directly supplied to a rail vehicle's propulsion system or stored in batteries [49]. Combining hybrid FC and 13 energy storage systems boosts energy efficiency and greatly diminishes exhaust emissions [45]. Therefore, H2 locomotives with the hybrid system can offer a more competitive alternative to diesel locomotives, and hence, the hydrogen-powered locomotive presented in this investigation includes a hybrid system. Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, constitutes numerous advantages over fossil fuels, including its higher energy density, superior energy conversion efficiencies, and adaptability to various storage forms such as liquid, gaseous, or in combination with metal hydrides [21]. However, it is crucial to note that H2 is not readily available in its pure form on Earth. Instead, it exists within molecules or compounds, requiring sophisticated processes to be employed in various applications. Therefore, H2 production relies on diverse production methods and sources. Currently, H2 is widely utilized in the chemical, refining, and steel industries [50] and has been produced commercially from various sources, including renewables, fossil fuels and nuclear energy [51]. Despite the promising aspects that H2 produced from renewable resources could provide, the current H2 demand, which reached 94 million tonnes (Mt) in 2021, largely depends on fossil fuel use [9]. This reliance underscores the urgent need to transition towards cleaner H2 production methods through sustainable routes to mitigate climate change effectively. From a local perspective, Canada ranks among the top ten H2 producers globally, generating 3 Mt of H2 annually, constituting over 4% of global production [52]. However, Canada's current H2 production relies heavily on fossil fuels. Nevertheless, given Canada's vast resources and production potential, it is well-positioned to transition toward establishing a clean H2 economy [21]. 2.4 H2 Production Pathways H2 can be generated through various methods and feedstocks. The selection of the production methods and energy sources contributes to the overall carbon intensity of H2 [52]. Over 100 H2 production technologies are reported in the open literature, from which more than 80% of these technologies focus on the steam conversion of fossil fuels, with 70% based specifically on natural gas steam reforming [51]. Several emerging technologies, such as ammonia cracking and thermochemical water splitting, offer the potential for producing low-emission H2. However, the technology readiness levels of these production methods remain at the small prototype stage [9]. 14 Commercially, H2 production is dominated by the utilization of fossil fuels as feedstock. Figure 2-2 illustrates the percentage of H2 production from different sources globally, of which 99% is from fossil fuels. Figure 2-2. Global H2 production sources (data from [50]) The literature describes the cleanness level of H2 using different colour codes, primarily green, blue, and grey, depending on the production method [51]. Green H2 is typically generated from entirely renewable sources, such as wind or solar energy, and is characterized by a lower carbon footprint. Grey H2 is produced using fossil fuels, primarily natural gas or coal. Like grey H2, blue H2 is derived from fossil fuels but includes Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) technology to mitigate emissions. Fossil-based and renewable fuels are the primary resources utilized in H2 production [53], [54], [55]. Therefore, based on the commercially used pathways, Steam Methane Reforming (SMR), Coal gasification, incorporating CCUS technology, and water electrolysis methods are selected for analysis in this investigation. 2.4.1 Water Electrolysis As its name suggests, the water electrolysis method utilizes water that is typically purified and then allowed to electrochemically dissociate into H2 and oxygen inside an electrolyzer. The H2 is subsequently dried, purified, compressed at a higher pressure, and eventually stored in a tank. This Natural gas62%Coal21%Oil (as a by-product)16%Electrolysis1%15 method offers the potential for clean H2 production with zero emissions if the electricity utilized in the electrolyzer is produced from renewable sources. Electrolysis is the most established, well-known, and efficient method for H2 production in water-splitting technology [56]. A standard electrolysis system includes two metal electrodes, an anode and a cathode, separated by a membrane and immersed in an electrolyte solution [57]. The water-splitting process is shown in Equation (2.1). 2𝐻ଶ𝑂 → 𝑂ଶ + 2𝐻ଶ (2.1) Water electrolysis is gaining popularity because of its higher efficiency, the ability to produce zero carbon emissions, avoid unwanted by-products like sulphates, carbon oxides, and nitrogen oxides, the provision of highly compressed and high-purity H2, and its dynamic operation [51], [58]. Recently, the global installed capacity to produce green H2 and the number of announced projects developing H2 production plants has been rapidly increasing. In 2022, the global installed capacity of H2 production plants with water electrolysis technology grew by 700 MW, which means 20% more compared to 2021 [50]. However, this method has a drawback: its capacity to produce green H2 relies heavily on purified water and electricity. This method demands large quantities of purified water, which is already scarce globally, and the renewable energy share worldwide is only about 33% [59]. Hence, it is important to ensure that both resources produce green H2 via water electrolysis: renewable energy and water. 2.4.2 Steam Methane Reforming Steam reforming of natural gas, referred to as the SMR method, is commercially the most mature and widely used H2 production technology due to its cost-effectiveness in cracking or reforming fossil-based fuels [51]. This method involves the catalytic conversion of methane and steam into H2 and carbon dioxide (CO2). It consists of three steps that occur under high temperatures and pressures up to 3.5 MPa: reforming or synthesizing gas generation, the water-gas shift reaction, and gas purification [56]. Equations (2.2) and (2.3) show the reaction between natural gas and steam in two steps [56]. First, methane (CH4) interacts with steam. Subsequently, additional steam is introduced to react with any unreacted natural gas, in a water-gas shift reaction, as shown in Equation (2.3). This process recovers more H2 and converts CO into CO2. 16 𝐶𝐻ସ + 𝐻ଶ𝑂 → 𝐶𝑂 + 3𝐻ଶ (2.2) 𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻ଶ𝑂 → 𝐶𝑂ଶ + 𝐻ଶ (2.3) SMR is the most prevalent and least expensive H2 production method [60], [61]. Although economically attractive, a huge disadvantage is that it generates a significant GHG emission footprint, including not only the CO2 but also the release of methane from fugitive emissions [62], [63], [64], [65]. 2.4.3 Coal Gasification Coal gasification is another well-known method commonly used in H2 production [66]. In this process, coal is partially oxidized in an oxygen or air atmosphere to form synthesis gas (SYNGAS), as shown in Equation (2.4) [51]. SYNGAS typically consists of CO, CO2, H2, and unreacted methane. The water-gas shift reaction further enriches the syngas to recover additional H2. Therefore, the combination of Equations (2.3) and (2.4) lead to the overall reaction described in Equation (2.5). 𝐶 + 𝐻ଶ𝑂 ↔ 𝐶𝑂 + 𝐻ଶ (2.4) 𝐶 + 2𝐻ଶ𝑂 ↔ 𝐶𝑂ଶ + 2𝐻ଶ (2.5) Unlike SMR, the coal gasification is less efficient and processes at temperatures ranging from 800-1300 °C and 30-70 bar pressure [51]. 2.4.4 Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage When H2 is produced from fossil fuels, using coal and natural gas through thermochemical methods like coal gasification or SMR, GHGs are emitted during the process. CCUS technology can yield low-carbon intensity H2 when contemplating using fossil fuels in H2 production. There are sixteen H2 facilities worldwide that have a carbon capture capacity above 100,000 tons of CO2 per year [50]. Most of these facilities are located in North America, and with its considerable potential, Canada stands at the forefront of advancing H2 generation and CCUS, offering significant opportunities to substantially reduce GHG emissions [21]. Although emissions can be mitigated with CCUS, not all GHG emissions can be captured since some escape into the atmosphere, and additional emissions may be produced due to the extra 17 electricity required to compress, transport, and store the CO2. To incorporate the CCUS technology with the SMR method, it is important to mention that most SMR facilities capture only the emissions from the shifted syngas, not the reformer furnace combustion process. As a result, they capture only 40-60% of the total CO2 emitted [50]. 2.5 Life Cycle Thinking Evaluation of H2 Technology in the Railway Sector This section presents the literature relevant to the life cycle studies that analyze the application of H2 technology in the railway sector worldwide. It starts by setting the context with a review of the published literature on life cycle thinking evaluations of H2 applications in the transport sector. It then delves into the published literature specific to the railway sector. The literature review is structured around the application of life cycle thinking—economic, environmental, and social assessments—and is presented in that order. 2.5.1 Life Cycle Thinking Evaluation of H2 in the Transportation Sector The life cycle perspective has been extensively applied in the transportation sector to evaluate the economic and environmental impacts of adopting H2 technology. In fact, life cycle thinking has been widely used to compare various fuels and propulsion technologies in road transport, aviation, and marine applications. This comprehensive approach has led to a wealth of research and insights in the field. Most LCA studies have been published to analyze road transport within the transport sector. Several efforts have been made to assess and study specific case studies in which H2 is analyzed as an alternative to diesel and gasoline. Only from 2000-2021, Rinawati et al. [25] found 72 studies that utilized the LCA methodology to assess the use of H2 in road transport. Of these studies, four analyzed Canadian conditions within their scope. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the studies carried out and reported in the open literature that considers the LCA of the various modes of transport, including road, sea, air, and rail, across several regions. Significant efforts have been devoted to studying H2 applications in road transport, particularly for passenger vehicles. The life cycle methodology has been predominantly examined in the literature 18 concerning road transport, which is logical given the technological advancements in the FC technology for applications requiring lower power output. This contrasts with other modes of transport, such as air, sea, and rail, which typically demand higher power outputs and are often used for freight transport. There is a notable difference in the number of LCA studies focusing on aquatic and air-borne transportation modes compared to road transport. Nevertheless, the methodology employed in these studies mirrors that of road transport analyses, often involving environmental comparisons between alternative fuels and fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, or kerosene. These assessments frequently explore various H2 production pathways as part of their analyses. In terms of region-specific studies, road transport has been intensively studied in the Canadian region to analyze its life cycle emissions. Furthermore, the life cycle emissions for sea and air transport were also assessed in Canada. In contrast, no studies have been found that assess the environmental or social life cycle impacts of implementing H2 in Canadian rail transport. 19 Table 2-1: Life cycle studies of H2 applications in the Transportation Sector Study Sector Region Scope Study Outcomes [67] Road transport Worldwide Not specified Not specified ELCA This paper evaluates the environmental performance of FC, ICE, and hybrid electric vehicles, with H2 produced by wind power electrolysis. H2 vehicles are identified as decarbonization solutions. Those using H2 mixed with natural gas or gasoline offer short-term emission reductions compared to conventional vehicles. [68] China Energy efficiency The study assessed H2 fuel cell vehicles and found their well-to-wheel efficiency ranges from 6.8% to 29.2%, with the highest efficiency from renewable-powered electrolysis. Methanol and grid power electrolysis are less efficient. Long-distance H2 transport is best via liquefaction or pipelines. Enhancing vehicle operation and H2 production boosts overall efficiency. [69] Australia Cradle to grave ELCA The study compares the environmental footprint of three buses, covering all phases, with existing diesel and natural gas systems. The buses show comparable performance in some areas but higher emissions, contributing to acidification and photochemical ozone. [29] Sea transport Worldwide Not specified ELCA This analysis presents the environmental impacts of using H2 and ammonia. Results indicate that both significantly reduce GHG emissions during operation, with potential emission reductions when used as dual fuels alongside heavy fuel oils in ocean tankers. [26] Scotland Cradle to grave ELCA The study compares a hydrogen-fueled ferry with conventional diesel and diesel hybrid ferries. It demonstrates a potential GHG emissions reduction of up to 89% and benefits in several environmental impact categories. [27] Noway Production-to-propeller ELCA This study evaluates the environmental impact of switching from diesel to hydrogen-electric, full-hydrogen, and full-electric ferries. Hydrogen-electric ferries have lower global warming potential but higher energy demand than diesel ferries. Full-electric ferries are superior in both GWP and energy efficiency. [28] United Kingdom Well-to-Propeller ELCA This paper presents an LCA for alternative fuels. It concludes that no current fuel meets all environmental goals, but some have potential if key barriers are addressed. H2 and synthetic fuels need decarbonized production processes to reduce emissions. Overcoming these barriers requires efforts beyond the shipping sector. 20 Study Sector Region Scope Study Outcomes [70] Air transport Worldwide Well-to-wake ELCA This paper compares H2, ammonia, methanol, ethanol, and liquefied natural gas fuels. It reveals H2 and liquefied natural gas as environmentally favourable options. [31] ELCA This study compares H2, ammonia, and various hydrocarbon fuels. The steam methane reforming-based route for H2 and ammonia fuels is found to have higher global warming potentials than alternative production routes. [64] Middle East Not specified ELCA An LCA compared kerosene and H2 as aviation fuels. H2, chosen for its absence of CO2 emissions from its use, was assessed for production via natural gas steam reforming and renewable energy sources. The study found air pollution to be the major environmental issue for both fuels. H2 from renewable energy has a lower impact than kerosene, but impacts vary, with photovoltaics having the highest. [32] Worldwide Well-to-wake ELCA This study compared alternative aviation fuels: H2, ammonia, methanol, ethanol, biofuels, and jet fuels. Despite needing modifications to meet aviation standards, these fuels show promise for long-term sustainability. H2 and liquefied natural gas were identified as environmentally preferable despite their higher costs compared to ammonia, jet fuel, and methanol. [33] Portugal ELCA The study examines sustainable alternatives such as liquefied natural gas and H2 as replacements for conventional jet fuel, aiming to reduce energy consumption and mitigate emissions and local pollutants in aviation. Findings indicate that H2 produced from SMR can potentially lower environmental and social impacts. 21 2.5.2 Life cycle Thinking evaluation of H2 in the Railway Sector This section presents an overview of the available literature that analyzes the economic, environmental and social impacts of hydrogen-powered locomotives. This literature review is mainly focused on studies that implement the LCA methodology. 2.5.2.1 Life Cycle Cost Assessment The LCC methodology has been widely used in the railway industry and reported in some investigations. However, as illustrated in Table 3-1, only one LCA study considered the evaluation of H2 in the railway sector. The pioneering research that introduced the utilization of LCC analysis to assess hydrogen-powered locomotives was conducted by Scott et al. [71]. This study specifically delved into the potential implementation of FC locomotives within the Canadian National Rail network. The outcomes of this investigation indicated that hydrogen-powered locomotives were not financially viable at that time. However, there was an anticipation that these locomotives could attain parity with the LCC of diesel locomotives within a 15-year timeframe. When analyzing the application of the LCC methodology in the railway sector, some other studies have utilized the methodology to study the cost impacts for different locomotive applications. Jun and Kim [72] created a comprehensive LCC model for a railway vehicle and selected components. This model was designed to facilitate the evaluation of railway systems by considering the unique characteristics of the Korean railway system. This approach was chosen to provide a more accurate representation of the domestic challenges and issues specific to the Korean railway context. Furthermore, Butor and Labisz [73] analyzed the LCC associated with diesel locomotives in Poland. The aim was to explore cost-reduction strategies that could facilitate the expansion of goods rail transportation. The analysis specifically focused on freight diesel locomotives from a prominent rail company in the country. Through this analysis, the authors examined the effects of implementing lean techniques to minimize costs within transport companies. A comparative LCC study was carried out by Olmos et al. [74], which presented a detailed analysis of hybrid diesel-electric multiple-unit trains. Their focus was to study energy management strategies with various lithium-ion battery technologies. The outcomes of their study enabled them to make a direct cost comparison between the conventional diesel-electric setup and the hybrid diesel-electric configurations they suggested. Their findings indicated that implementing global 22 optimization-based energy management while utilizing lithium titanate oxide batteries in the hybrid system could lead to a substantial 16% reduction in costs. The LCC methodology has not been extensively applied in railway research. Consequently, when assessing the economic viability of railway projects, it is possible that the entire life cycle of the assets has not been adequately considered. Studies concentrating solely on investment or utilization phases fail to account for potential cost implications from other life cycle stages, like maintenance or end-of-life considerations for locomotives. This gap in research neglects the broader financial impacts that could significantly affect the overall LCC of railway projects. Furthermore, the most recent LCC study for the Canadian railway sector dates back to 1993, when Scott et al. [71] anticipated a cost parity of H2 and diesel locomotives by 2018. However, significant changes have occurred in the Canadian market over three decades, particularly in H2 technology advancements. The anticipated timeframe for H2 locomotives to reach cost parity with diesel has already passed, necessitating updated research and analysis to reflect the current landscape accurately. 2.5.2.2 Environmental Life Cycle Assessment Regarding the role of H2 in the railway sector, Haseli et al. [60] presented a comparative assessment of H2 technology in the railway sector, focusing on environmental aspects in Ontario, Canada. Their study compared diesel, electric, and H2 locomotives, highlighting potential environmental benefits based on the impacts of locomotive components and operation. However, it is essential to note that their analysis lacked consideration of the end-of-life phase, and there is no comprehensive comparison of cost implications for the different propulsion systems. Most LCA studies have been performed to analyze diesel, electric, and natural gas propulsion systems. Stodolsky et al. [75] evaluated the environmental lifecycle impacts of long-distance freight transport in the United States, focusing on large motor trucks and trains. This study examines potential reductions in energy use, particularly petroleum, and emissions from freight transport through improved technology, as well as alternative fuels like Fischer-Tropsch diesel and natural gas. The LCA covers raw material extraction, vehicle and fuel production, and fuel combustion during operation. Findings indicate that there are trade-offs between energy use, 23 emissions, and other factors influencing transport mode choices. While this study analyzed alternative fuels, it did not consider H2 as an alternative and failed to assess the end-of-life phase. Chester and Horvath [36] presented a comprehensive inventory of various transport modes in the U.S. The analysis includes vehicles, infrastructure, fuel production, and supply chains to emphasize the importance of considering life-cycle energy use and emissions in transportation decision-making beyond just tailpipe emissions. The findings reveal that life-cycle energy inputs and GHG emissions significantly exceed tailpipe emissions by 63% for on-road, 155% for rail, and 31% for air systems. The study also highlighted that passenger occupancy variations can significantly affect the relative environmental performance of transportation modes. While the study does not analyze alternative fuels, it underscores the necessity of evaluating the entire life cycle of trains to assess this transportation mode's total impacts comprehensively. This approach extends beyond merely considering tailpipe emissions. Another comparative LCA study presented by Chester and Horvath [76] examines sustainable mobility policy for long-distance transportation, focusing on future automobiles, high-speed rail, and aircraft in the California corridor. It considers fuel-efficient vehicles, new train designs, and renewable electricity goals. The LCA results reveal that indirect and supply chain components significantly influence GHG emissions. High-speed rail can provide substantial environmental benefits, particularly if it achieves high ridership and is powered by clean electricity. The study emphasized the importance of shifting automobile trips to high-speed rail, meeting renewable energy targets, and minimizing material production impacts to reduce the overall transportation footprint. It also highlighted the importance of considering the electricity source and its high impact on the total life cycle emissions. Chester et al. [77] evaluated the life-cycle environmental impacts of new bus rapid transit and light rail lines in Los Angeles, considering near-term and long-term scenarios. Their assessment included infrastructure, vehicle, and energy production components and examined reduced automobile travel. The study highlighted the need for a 20-30% shift of transit riders from automobiles to achieve GHG reductions, emphasizing that the greater the shift, the quicker the environmental benefits. These results indicated that when including life-cycle components in the analysis, each mode's energy and GHG footprint significantly increased, with environmental impacts potentially rising to 6200%. Furthermore, as the previous LCA studies discussed, this 24 study also proved that adopting emerging technologies and renewable electricity can mitigate environmental impacts. Logan et al. [78] performed a comparative study between hydrogen-powered trains and electric trains to calculate the total emissions produced during the operating phase of various service categories in the United Kingdom. However, only the operational phase was considered, omitting the impacts from the rest of the life cycle phases. Lastly, only one LCA study was found that evaluated H2 adoption in Canada [44]. This study investigated alternative technologies to reduce GHG emissions in Montreal's commuter rail system, focusing on complete electrification and H2 fuel cell-powered trains. The study concluded that electrification would achieve a 98% reduction in annual emissions, amounting to over 27,000 tons, leveraging Quebec's predominantly hydropower-based electricity at low cost. The study also deemed H2 trains to be less effective compared to electrification, even though showing substantial GHG reductions. Furthermore, the study highlighted that electrification offers lower operational costs despite its higher initial infrastructure investment, whereas H2 trains benefit from not needing extra infrastructure. However, the uncertainties associated with H2 technology must be resolved to achieve widespread adoption. While this is an LCA study, the emissions and costs are assessed only for the train’s utilization and fuel life cycles, failing to consider the impacts from the other train’s life cycle phases. 2.5.2.3 Social Life Cycle Assessment As mentioned earlier, no social life cycle study was found to address the potential social impacts of H2 technology in the railway sector. However, Adami Mattioda et al. [79] presented a social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of H2 energy technologies, emphasizing the critical integration of sustainability into the product development process due to climate change, particularly in the industrial sector. It highlighted the growing research on H2 energy technologies and their links to sustainability. However, it noted that those studies largely neglected the social aspects of LCA, which are still in the early development stages. The paper aimed to address these social considerations, presenting examples of H2 energy applications and discussing their potential societal benefits for different sectors, including the transportation sector, providing potential 25 positive and negative impacts but only from road transport, not specifically with potential impacts that can be obtained in the railway sector. Valente et al. [80] conducted a comparative analysis of different H2 production pathways using a life cycle sustainability assessment that included environmental, economic, and social impacts. The pathways analyzed constituted SMR, water electrolysis, and biomass gasification. The social assessment specifically considered only two indicators: child labour and health expenditure. This study concluded that while renewable H2 is essential for developing an H2 economy, economic and social challenges might overshadow its environmental benefits. However, the study was limited to H2 production and only examined three production pathways without addressing additional social aspects such as practicability, scalability, and safety that could affect H2 technologies. Some studies have analyzed and discussed the potential social impacts of H2 applications in the railway sector with a different perspective. Ehrhart et al. [81] examined the potential benefits of hydrogen fuel cells (HFCs) for rail applications, considering economic, environmental, performance, acceptability, and safety factors. It concluded that H2 was not the obvious choice compared to diesel, catenary electric, battery-only, or natural gas options. It also reiterated that the emission reduction benefits for H2 locomotives depended on their source. However, as previously mentioned, the study did not adopt a life cycle perspective, focusing only on the initial and operating phases and omitting the end-of-life phase and indirect factors. It is evident that the number of S-LCA studies is significantly lower than those focusing on environmental or economic impacts. This trend is observed across various disciplines in the application of the LCA methodology. The inclusion of social aspects in the sustainability debate and practice has been relatively marginal compared to the emphasis placed on economic and environmental assessments [79]. 2.6 Multi-criteria Decision-making Tools for H2 Application in the Railway Sector LCA is a powerful tool commonly used to support industry and public policy decision-making [82]. The concept of sustainability and its assessment tools have recently been integrated into strategic decision systems for product development. These tools hold significant potential for enhancing product sustainability. It is critical to conduct an early sustainability assessment of 26 various alternatives, as it enables decision-makers and stakeholders to make informed, sustainability-oriented decisions [79]. Several industries have intensively used Multi-criteria Decision Making (MCDM) analysis to evaluate different alternatives from a life cycle perspective. In the energy sector, some studies have evaluated the life cycle impacts of energy systems and fuel production [83], [84], [85]. It has also been utilized for industrial purposes [86], including the chemical [87], pulp [88] and metal industries [89] to study different detergents, eucalyptus pulp production and metal fabrication. Furthermore, in the technology industry, it has been applied to evaluate different computer displays [90]. Regarding the transportation industry, some MCDM studies have addressed different problems within the sector. A few studies have presented an analysis of the specific context of fuel alternatives in the transportation sector from a life cycle perspective. In this regard, Safaei Mohamadabadi et al. [83] developed an MCDM model using the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment and Evaluations method to rank different fuel-based vehicles for road transportation. The assessment considered vehicles powered by gasoline, gasoline-electric hybrids, ethanol, diesel, biodiesel, and compressed natural gas, but not H2. These alternatives were evaluated based on five criteria that analyzed economic, environmental and social impacts: vehicle cost, fuel cost, the distance between refuelling stations, number of vehicle options, and life cycle emissions. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to understand the impact of various parameters on the rankings. They presented various scenarios prioritizing the impacts and obtaining different rankings depending on the factors prioritized. Tan et al. [91] presented a software model for a comparative LCA of 10 different fuel options for the Philippine automotive transport sector. This model integrated the GREET 1.5a fuel-cycle inventory model with the Danish EDIP impact assessment method. Enhanced with possibilistic uncertainty propagation and possibilistic compromise programming features, the model allowed for ranking the ten fuel alternatives under multiple criteria and uncertain data. The software incorporated current and anticipated Philippine conditions, including the electricity generation mix. Although the study considered liquid and gaseous H2 as alternative fuels, its application for vehicles and only one H2 production method is limited to its application in the railway sector. 27 Another MCDM study for the transportation sector that included a life cycle perspective was published by Rogers and Seager [92]. This study introduced a stochastic multi-attribute (SMA) life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) to address the limitations of traditional LCIA methods, which often rely on linear-weighted aggregation of normalized data that can obscure significant impacts. The study analyzed various fuel alternatives: gasoline, low-sulfur diesel, soy-biodiesel, electric vehicles, and corn-based ethanol. The results showed that the SMA-LCIA approach produced a rank ordering of fuel alternatives that better reflected decision-maker values than traditional LCIA methods, predominantly influenced by fossil fuel depletion and global warming potential. While this study effectively combined LCA methodology with MCDM analysis to evaluate alternative fuels in the transportation sector, it did not consider H2 as an alternative. It was limited to analyzing environmental impacts, specifically air emissions only. An MCDM framework was developed by Aiello et al. [93] to address the challenge of transitioning transportation fleets to more sustainable propulsion technologies, such as electric or H2 vehicles, to meet climate neutrality goals from a life cycle perspective. This approach incorporated environmental and cost objectives using the TOPSIS model. The results highlighted how decision-makers' perceptions of technological evolution influence their choices, leading to different optimal outcomes in fleet renewal decisions. This is an application of the MCDM and LCA methodology to evaluate H2 for a transport mode; however, the social aspects should also be evaluated to provide comprehensive results to evaluate sustainable solutions. One study was found that addressed the H2 evaluation of trains with a life cycle perspective. Bouwman and Moll [94] integrated the LCA methodology into an MCDM framework to evaluate transportation systems in the Netherlands. Their analysis compared systems based on environmental, economic, and social impacts, including energy use, space utilization, costs, and travel time. The results indicated that no single transportation system excelled in all characteristics, but trains and bicycles emerged as the superior options. However, the study only assessed passenger trains, trams, and metro systems with traditional propulsion systems, excluding clean fuel alternatives like H2. Additionally, the MCDM analysis considered only four elements, with space utilization and travel time representing social evaluation aspects. This limited scope likely omits other significant social impacts, potentially affecting the ranking of the most sustainable alternatives. 28 Although there are numerous MCDM evaluations in the transportation sector with a life cycle perspective, the assessment of H2 technology within this sector is insufficient. A truly sustainable alternative requires a comprehensive evaluation that considers not only the environmental impacts but also the economic and social implications, which need further exploration in the literature. Moreover, the social aspects in the life cycle evaluation of railway systems must encompass multiple perspectives to assess all potential issues that implementing a new technology thoroughly might cause in the sector. 2.7 Research Gaps Various unexplored areas have been identified after thoroughly reviewing the existing scientific literature. This thesis aims to address these unexplored areas, which are as follows. Lack of up-to-date LCA studies assessing H2 as an alternative fuel for locomotives: Among the various sectors in transportation, the railway is one of those sectors that have not been extensively investigated in the literature from the LCA viewpoint. In this regard, Chan et al. [44] conducted an LCA analysis for evaluating diesel, electric and H2 fuel cell trains for the commuter rail system in Quebec, Canada, where the hydrogen-powered trains represented the higher emission reductions compared to the electric alternative. In addition to the environmental impacts, the operating and capital costs were also considered, exhibiting the cost-effectiveness of the hydrogen-powered trains compared to the electric trains. Nevertheless, the study evaluated only the commuter rail system of the case study by considering numerous assumptions for the cost and emissions of the H2 train operation and infrastructure. It did not analyze the locomotive's whole life cycle and neglected its implementation's potential social impacts. Zhang et al. [95] analyzed the environmental and cost impacts associated with the implementation of H2 trams in China, considering the passenger traffic conditions of trams and their comparison with electric trams. However, the analysis does not apply to other types of railway traffic and does not consider the potential social implications of its implementation. Moreover, some life cycle studies have only evaluated either the environmental or cost impacts of hydrogen-powered locomotives. In terms of the life cycle costs of hydrogen-powered trains, Scott et al. [71] analyzed the cost impacts more than three decades ago in 1993 when the study concluded that the H2 locomotives would reach cost parity with diesel locomotives by 2018. Regarding the 29 social assessment only, no studies have been found in the literature that evaluate the impacts of implementing H2 technology in the railway sector from a life cycle perspective. Hence, no previous studies have considered an LCA for hydrogen-powered trains from the viewpoint of environmental, economic, and social impacts, which is this thesis study's primary novelty and motivation. Thus, this study intends to address this research gap by proposing a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach to integrate the hydrogen-powered retrofitted trains' environmental, economic and social impacts to comprehensively assess their implementation in the Canadian railway sector with more accurate and recent data. Lack of H2 locomotive studies in a Canadian context: Only two of the previously mentioned LCA studies have analyzed the Canadian conditions. Furthermore, the most recent study was published in 2013 for Montreal [44], and the second was an LCC study that dates back to 1993 when Scott et al. [71] anticipated a cost parity of H2 and diesel locomotives by 2018. However, significant changes have occurred in the Canadian market over three decades, particularly in H2 technology advancements. The anticipated timeframe for H2 locomotives to reach cost parity with diesel has already passed, necessitating updated research and analysis to reflect the current landscape accurately. Lack of employing Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) in H2 locomotive research: Although numerous MCDM evaluations in the transportation sector adopt a life cycle perspective to assess H2 adoption, the assessment of H2 locomotives within the railway sector is insufficient. Only one study provided an MCDM evaluation of trains with a life cycle perspective [94]. However, this study only assessed passenger trains, trams, and metro systems with traditional propulsion systems, excluding clean fuel alternatives like H2. Additionally, the MCDM analysis considered only four elements overall. This limited scope likely omits other significant social impacts, which could affect the ranking of the most sustainable alternatives. A genuinely sustainable alternative requires a comprehensive evaluation considering environmental, economic, and social impacts, which needs further investigation. Additionally, the social aspects in the life cycle evaluation of railway systems must encompass multiple perspectives to thoroughly assess all potential issues that the implementation of a new technology might cause in the sector. 30 2.8 Summary H2 is a promising solution for decarbonizing the energy sector due to its potential for zero emissions in transportation systems, such as locomotives. However, the carbon intensity of H2 can vary significantly depending on the production pathway and energy source used. Therefore, it is imperative that decision-makers analyze the application of H2 in the railway sector with a comprehensive and sustainable assessment that includes environmental, economic, and social impacts that could potentially impact society with the implementation of H2 technology. Furthermore, adopting a life cycle perspective in this analysis is crucial to evaluate the impacts in all locomotive and fuel life cycle phases. This literature review identified the following research gaps: I. Life cycle thinking has been extensively applied to assess H2 in the transportation sector, covering various modes such as passenger vehicles, buses, ferries, and airplanes. However, only two studies were found in this context in rail transport, dating back to 1993 and 2013. This sector requires more analysis and updated results. II. While one study has been found that evaluates the economic impacts of H2 implementation in locomotives from a life cycle perspective, it's crucial to note that this study was published three decades ago. Given the significant changes in conditions since then, the results of this study are now outdated, highlighting the necessity for current and relevant research. III. Studies addressing hydrogen's environmental and social impacts in the rail transport sector are lacking from a full life cycle perspective. Most evaluations focus solely on the use phase, neglecting a comprehensive life cycle perspective that includes the upstream implications of H2 production and the end-of-life phase. IV. No MCDM tools currently support the analysis of H2 locomotives from a life cycle perspective. The existing literature primarily addresses other issues in the transportation sector and lacks a comprehensive sustainable analysis of H2 implementation in the railway sector. Considerable efforts are needed to evaluate H2 technology in the railway sector comprehensively. Conducting a life cycle assessment that considers the economic, environmental, and social implications of H2 locomotives can offer a thorough assessment in a multi-criteria context, 31 essential for sustainable solutions. The updated knowledge and recommendations presented in this review will be valuable for further research on hydrogen's contribution to the life cycle impacts of locomotives and policy formulation and decision-making. 32 Chapter 3: Methodology This chapter outlines the methodology followed for a comprehensive comparative analysis of conventional diesel and hydrogen-powered locomotives, considering various H2 production pathways and feedstocks specific to Canada and its energy sources. The comparative life cycle analysis evaluates the environmental, economic, and potential social impacts (the triple bottom line) of retrofitting conventional diesel locomotives with H2 technology. Additionally, this section elaborates on developing an MCDM framework to rank fuel alternatives, including diesel and the different H2 production pathways. Finally, the chapter presents the methodology for developing an MCDM tool that summarizes the TBL analysis. 3.1 Life Cycle Assessment Methodology The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology is a globally employed tool for assessing and comprehending the impacts linked with products throughout their lifespan [96]. This thesis employed the LCA methodology outlined in the international standards ISO14040 [97] and ISO14044 [96]. These standards provide a set of principles, a framework, and guidelines that are adhered to throughout this study, ensuring a systematic and standardized approach to the assessment. The LCA methodology consists of four phases: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation [97]. The following sections describe each phase of the environmental and social assessment. The goal and scope of the thesis are similar in the three assessments. Its primary aim is to estimate the costs, emissions, and potential social impacts associated with implementing H2 technology in Canada's railway sector. The evaluation compares distinct H2 production pathways in the analyses for comparison among each other as well as with diesel fuel (the current conventional energy source in railway locomotives). The functional unit of the study is defined as a locomotive with an average travel distance of 300 km/day and a lifespan of 20 years. The analyses encompass crucial life cycle phases for the hydrogen-powered locomotive, including refurbishing, operation, maintenance and end-of-life. The refurbishing phase estimates the impacts associated with critical components essential for retrofitting the locomotive. These components include the fuel cell, battery pack, and H2 storage tanks. In the diesel locomotive scenario, the 33 evaluation focuses solely on the operational phase, as no retrofitting components are involved. The operational phase analyzes the production and utilization of H2 and diesel throughout the locomotive's entire lifespan. The maintenance phase includes the regular maintenance required for the locomotive components, and the final phase pertains to the end-of-life, focusing on the refurbishing components' disposal, recycling, or salvage value when the locomotive reaches the end of its operational life. The following sections explain the specific scope and life cycle inventory of each economic, environmental, and social assessment. 3.1.1 Life Cycle Cost Assessment The LCC methodology aims to optimize the management of expenses associated with obtaining, possessing, and running tangible assets by recognizing and measuring all noteworthy costs throughout this lifespan, employing the present value methodology [98]. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defined four mandatory processes within the LCA: goal and scope definition, Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), and interpretation [97]; [96]. The Life Cycle Thinking methodology has many applications in sectors and subjects and has been established as a valuable tool in the transportation sector [41]. To evaluate the inputs, outputs, and potential economic impacts, a costing model is developed to estimate the total LCC of the retrofitted hydrogen-powered locomotive, accounting for its 20-year operational lifespan. 3.1.1.1 Goal Of The LCC Assessment The LCC performed in this thesis aimed to assess the cost impacts across the entire life cycle of the locomotive. It focused on the main retrofitting components needed to convert a conventional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) locomotive to a hydrogen-powered one and its operation and maintenance within the Canadian context. This analysis examines the ownership costs associated with adopting a potential clean energy solution for the railway sector. 3.1.1.2 Scope Of The LCC Assessment Different approaches are commonly used to define the scope of LCC studies. Besides the cradle-to-grave approach, which considers all life stages of the asset, the transportation sector often 34 employs the well-to-tank (WTT) and tank-to-wheel (TTW) approaches to evaluate fuel costs during the production and distribution phases. WTT encompasses the feedstock and fuel phases, from raw material extraction to transport to refuelling facilities, while TTW involves fuel energy conversion within the vehicle itself [99]. Figure 3-1 illustrates the life cycle stages and the scope of these various life cycle approaches. Figure 3-1. Life cycle assessment approaches in transportation Among the various approaches, the cradle-to-grave approach is considered in this thesis to analyze the system's environmental impacts. The FC system, H2 tanks, and battery pack are among the components considered for the locomotive's retrofitting stage. These components are examined throughout the locomotive's lifespan, encompassing stages from raw materials extraction to final disposal. Figure 3-2 illustrates the boundaries selected for the considered system, encompassing the four life stages, including the retrofit, operation, maintenance, and end-of-life phases. The retrofitting phase considers the acquisition of elements necessary for retrofitting the locomotive. The locomotive's operational lifespan analyses the fuel consumption based on the travelling trend. The locomotive’s maintenance includes the annual regular maintenance and the necessary replacement of the components at the end of their lifespan. Finally, The end-of-life considers the final disposal of the retrofitted components. 35 Figure 3-2. Life cycle assessment of a retrofitted hydrogen-powered locomotive – a system boundary 3.1.1.3 Life Cycle Cost Inventory The analysis of locomotive characteristics drew inspiration from the Frankfurt - Hamburg case study conducted by Ruf et al. [100]. This choice was guided by the similarities between the Frankfurt - Hamburg railway line and the conditions prevalent on a typical Canadian railway line, encompassing factors such as extreme weather conditions and rigorous operation. This mainline locomotive design includes a 689 kW fuel cell, an 890-kWh battery capacity, and H2 tanks capable of storing 765 kg of compressed H2. This configuration is designed to deliver an average power output of 1,350 kW while consuming an average of 0.82 kg/km travelled. The life cycle costing analysis aims to furnish cost data sourced from the prevailing market conditions in Canada, America, or globally. When specific cost data was not accessible from the market, the analysis incorporated information obtained from published literature. 3.1.1.4 Economic Life Cycle Impact Assessment A life cycle costing model was created to determine the locomotive’s unit cost per travelled distance ($/km), considering diesel and various H2 production pathways and feedstocks. In this model, the unit price of fuel in Canada is estimated according to the prices illustrated in Table 3-1. 36 The diesel and compressed H2 unit costs were estimated based on the average market prices in refuelling stations in British Columbia and the rest from published literature. Table 3-1. Diesel and H2 prices at the refuelling station Fuel Production ($/kg) Transport ($/kg) Price at the refuelling station ($/l or $/kg) Diesel - - 1.8 H2 Water electrolysis 7.55-10.15 - 12.8 SMR with CCUS 2.3 4.96 7.2 SMR without CCUS 1.7 6.7 Coal with CCUS 2.4 7.4 Coal without CCUS 1. 8 6.7 Nuclear based thermochemical 5.43 10.39 Thermochemical copper-chlorine cycle 4.94 9.93 Data obtained from [101], [102], [103], [104] and [105] The LCC assessment is divided into four categories: capital cost (Cc), operational cost (Oc), maintenance cost (Mc), and end-of-life cost (EOLc). The sum of the four categories represents the system's LCC as defined in Equation (3.1). 𝐿𝐶𝐶 = 𝐶௖ + 𝑂௖ + 𝑀௖ + 𝐸𝑂𝐿௖ (3.1) The data for the various aforementioned cost categories was primarily acquired through an extensive literature review, supplemented by available published market prices for either Canada or North American regions while considering an exchange rate of 1 USD = 1.3 CAD. 3.1.1.4.1 Capital Cost The capital cost refers to the investment required to purchase the main retrofit components, including the FC system, H2 storage tanks, and battery packs. H2 FCs are commonly classified based on the electrolyte variety they utilize. These include Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC), Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC), Alkaline Fuel Cell (AFC), Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC), and Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC). PEMFCs are the 37 most commercialized type of FCs. They are considered ideal for mobility solutions due to their shorter start time, lower operation temperature, and ease of use of their oxidant [106]. In Canada, multiple manufacturing firms produce PEMFCs. In 2019, Ballard Power Systems, a prominent Canadian company in this sector, estimated the cost of FC systems for transportation applications to be around 1,500 USD/kW [106]. In recent years, lithium-ion batteries have shown a significantly declining cost trend. Nevertheless, the cost of battery systems can vary based on the specific battery technology employed and how the batteries are used. For electric vehicle applications, the battery system costs range from 203 to 415 USD/kWh [107]. In terms of H2 storage technology, high-pressure cylinders type 4 have been adapted by mobility applications due to their higher fatigue strength, lightweight, and higher cycle performance [108]. Considering this storage technology, H2 cylinder costs estimated based on the individual market prices are approximately 2,200 USD/cylinder [109]. 3.1.1.4.2 Operational Cost The operational cost was calculated based on the distance travelled by the locomotive during its lifespan, the fuel consumption rate, and the price of H2 at the refuelling station from different production pathways. In 2021, 59,872 km long railway tracks were operated in Canada. From this extensive network, 42,631 km were allocated to freight transport, while 17,166 km were designated to passenger transport [110]. To evaluate the LCC of the train, an average daily travelling trend is employed to estimate the H2 consumption during the operation phase of the locomotive. The average journey length for passenger trains was approximately 348 km in 2021, whereas the cumulative distance covered by freight trains across Canada was estimated to be 271,654 km [110]. This thesis study does not focus on a particular rail route. Instead, the objective is to showcase potential suitable scenarios for Canadian rail routes that accommodate both passenger and freight transportation. As a result, a daily average distance of 300 km is chosen as the baseline for this study to illustrate these scenarios. 38 3.1.1.4.3 Maintenance Cost The maintenance cost includes the locomotive's Regular Maintenance cost (RMc) and the Refurbishing cost (RFc), which covers the replacement of retrofit components at the end of their lifespan within the evaluated 20-year period. The precise expense for regular maintenance of the hydrogen-powered locomotives remains to be determined. The anticipated cost exhibits significant variability. This uncertainty is examined more comprehensively in the scenarios outlined in Section 3.2. These scenarios draw from estimations centred on the maintenance of locomotives employed in GO Transit within Ontario, Canada, which incurs an annual expenditure of $27,000 [111]. 3.1.1.4.4 End-of-Life Cost The end-of-life cost encompasses the Disposal cost (Dc) or Recycling cost (RCc) of the fuel cell system, battery pack, and H2 storage tanks, along with the salvage value (SV) of these components at the locomotive's end-of-life. The recycling cost of the PEMFC is, in all cases, considered an SV. The higher initial costs of the PEMFCs are mainly attributed to the platinum used as a catalyst [112]. Currently, Ballard offers a program aimed at refurbishing FC stacks that have reached their end of life to save around 30% of the costs compared to purchasing a new FC stack [113]. This program replaces the PEMFC’s Membrane Electrode Assembly (MEA) component while retaining the original hardware and plates. The MEA is subsequently forwarded to a third party to retrieve precious metals, including platinum. The optimal approach for managing used cylinders entails acquiring them from companies that have established a return policy. For this study, the H2 storage cylinders were assumed to be returned to the manufacturer. Recycling the battery is a crucial step while considering its lifespan. Increasingly, Canadian battery recycling companies are encountering larger lithium battery sizes, commonly found in Powersport and other substantial applications. Such batteries necessitate transportation to authorized recycling facilities, incurring approximately $12 to $15/lb [114]. 39 3.1.1.4.5 Financial Analysis In business and economics, the net present value (NPV) is widely employed to compare cash flows at different times. From Equation (3.2), the Cc is expressed in terms of present value, while the Oc and RMc are costs incurred yearly in the entire locomotive’s lifespan. The PEMFC’s RFc, Dc, RCc, and SV are attributed to the end-of-life phase of the components, and they incur only for a specific year at the end of their lifespan. The estimation of LCC represented as present value is determined using the following equation: 𝐿𝐶𝐶ே௉௏ = 𝐶௖ + ∑ை௖ାோெ௖(ଵା௥)೔௡௜ୀଵ + ோி௖ା஽௖ାோ஼௖(ଵା௥)೔− ௌ௏(ଵା௥)೔ (3.2) where n refers to the locomotive's lifetime, the discount rate is represented with r, which reduces the value of future expenses compared to their cost when they are incurred [115]. The discount rate accounts for the actual inflation and interest rates. This study considered the sum of the average inflation and discount rates registered by the Bank of Canada in the last 10 years [116] [117], as illustrated in Figure 3-3. The LCC estimations in this study were all based on the NPV concept, providing a present locomotive’s LCC with an expected average discount rate of 4.1%. Figure 3-3. Inflation and discount rates registered in Canada from 2014 to 2023 0123456782014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Consumer Price Index (%) Interest rate (%)40 3.1.2 Environmental Life Cycle Assessment This thesis study followed the methodology requirements established in the LCA standard ISO 140140 [97] to evaluate the locomotive's environmental impacts, as explained in the preceding sections. The specific environmental life cycle model characteristics are explained in detail in the following sections. 3.1.2.1 Goal and Scope of the ELCA The primary objective of this assessment was to conduct a comprehensive analysis and estimation of the GHG emissions and the potential social impacts associated with a hydrogen-powered locomotive. The assessment considered various H2 production pathways and feedstocks, emphasizing a life cycle perspective within the Canadian context. The analysis was conducted from a cradle-to-grave perspective, encompassing the entire life cycle of the locomotive. The three key life cycle phases considered herein are refurbishing, operational and end-of-life, as illustrated in Figure 3-4. The functional unit of the study was defined as a locomotive with a 20-year lifespan, operating in a specific region of Canada and powered by either diesel or H2 produced through various pathways. Figure 3-4. System boundary definition of the locomotive’s life cycle 3.1.2.2 Life Cycle Environmental Inventory The second phase of the LCA is the life cycle inventory, which involves collecting and estimating the data required for the analysis. For this thesis study, data on materials and processes for every 41 system component was gathered from various sources, as described in the following life cycle phases. This section elaborates on the specific inputs needed for each life cycle phase and the data collection procedures for the environmental impacts model. The materials and quantities for the environmental life cycle inventory were sourced from the study conducted by Miotti et al. [118]. Subsequently, these values were scaled up to match the quantities pertinent to the characteristics of the locomotive system under consideration. The refurbishing components were modelled using SimaPro software to determine the emissions generated during the refurbishing and end-of-life phases. The data acquired from the life cycle inventory was modelled using the Ecoinvent database contained in SimaPro. This software is a widely used tool developed by PRé Sustainability, which aims to make sustainability a fact-based endeavour while applying a life cycle perspective [119]. The environmental impact assessment stage was elaborated using the ReCiPe 2016 v1.1 method. The global warming category is selected to obtain the total emissions in kg CO2 equivalent from the refurbishing components for further analysis During the operation phase, the emissions produced within the fuel production stage were estimated using the GHGenius model, version 502a. GHGenius is a tool provided by Natural Resources Canada and (S&T) Squared Consultants Inc., which calculates life cycle emissions based on historical data for various fuels and feedstocks, including H2 and diesel. Specific details considered in the model can be found in the report provided by (S&T) Squared Consultants Inc. [120]. 3.1.2.3 Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment The environmental life cycle impact assessment model was developed for the three life cycle phases: refurbishing, operational, and end-of-life. The specific model characteristics for each of these phases are explained in the following sections, including technical-specific data and the data acquisition procedures adopted for this analysis. 3.1.2.3.1 Refurbishing Phase This phase included analyzing the environmental impacts of the components required to retrofit a conventional diesel locomotive: a PEMFC, H2 storage tanks, and a battery pack. 42 Data from Miotti et al.'s inventory [118] was used to fulfill the data requirements. The inventory details the materials and processes associated with refurbishing components. The quantities were scaled up to match the system's specific characteristics under study and can be found in Appendix A of this thesis. 3.1.2.3.2 Operational Phase The locomotive’s operational phase emissions were estimated for six different H2 pathways and diesel fuel. The GHG emissions steaming from the operational phase were estimated based on the fuel life cycle emissions for the H2 locomotive scenario. In contrast, the diesel locomotive accounts for the life cycle fuel emissions, in addition to the emissions produced in the combustion process during the locomotive’s operation. The six H2 production pathways considered and analyzed in this study include water electrolysis, steam methane reforming (SMR) with and without carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS), and coal with and without CCUS. All these production pathways considered the local grid energy mix as an electricity source wherever required. The emissions generated during the fuel life cycle were estimated based on the GHGenious model's modelling results. 3.1.2.3.3 End-of-Life Phase The end-of-life phase involves the disposal of the retrofitting components at the end of their lifespan and the locomotive's 20-year lifespan. The lifespan of retrofitting components may vary depending on the locomotive's travel behaviour. However, for the baseline case in this analysis, it was assumed that none of the three components needed replacement throughout the locomotive's 20-year lifespan. Therefore, emissions in the baseline scenario from this phase were solely attributed to the disposal of retrofitting components at the end of the locomotive's lifespan. In the case of PEMFC, recycling the metal in the membrane is crucial for emissions in this phase. The recycling rate for these metals can be up to 95%, as considered in this study. The disposal of the battery pack and H2 storage tanks involves the treatment of a used Li-ion battery and various materials in the H2 storage tanks, including aluminum, foam, glass fibre, and large quantities of carbon fibre. This disposal scenario was also modelled using SimaPro with the Ecoinvent database. 43 3.1.3 Social Life Cycle Assessment The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has provided guidelines for better social sustainability practices in terms of S-LCA [121]. This study's methodology followed the UNEP guidelines by implementing a reference scale approach to evaluate the potential social impacts of the H2 locomotive. 3.1.3.1 Goal of the SLCA Study This portion of the study evaluates a conventional diesel locomotive's environmental and potential social impacts. This section aimed to obtain and present a comprehensive social evaluation of the findings related to using H2 as an alternative energy source. 3.1.3.2 Scope of the SLCA Study The scope of the SLCA encompasses the entire locomotive’s life cycle, as detailed in the LCC and ELCA sections. The SLCA analyzes various social concerns related to implementing H2 technology in the Canadian railway sector. This analysis included economic and environmental impacts, along with technical considerations. Hence, the SLCA scope includes the LCC and ELCA scope, which are explained in the previous sections. 3.1.3.3 Social Life Cycle Inventory Several social concerns may arise when analyzing the implementation of new technologies in the railway sector. Potential social concerns include economic and environmental concerns, safety, practicality, and scalability [81], [122]. This study analyzed these categories and presents diesel and H2 locomotives' economic and environmental impacts from a life cycle perspective. The economic and environmental impacts were assessed based on the results obtained from each fuel alternative's life cycle cost and environmental emissions estimated in this thesis. This data was considered as cost and emissions per km driven by the locomotive. The human health category was analyzed based on the emissions from the environmental life cycle assessment presented herein. The damage assessment of these emissions is expressed in Disability 44 Adjusted Life Years (DALY) as a common unit representing the years of life lost and those lived disabled [123]. Practicality, safety, and scalability concerns were evaluated based on the results of the Farooq et al. [122] report, which utilized vital informant interviews and a literature review to analyze different fuel alternatives in Canada. Finally, data from the previously mentioned sources was utilized to create a scale that assesses the social impact at three levels to obtain the social score. 3.2 Multi-Criteria Decision-Making A comprehensive evaluation requires that decision-makers consider numerous aspects when analyzing the potential impacts of implementing H2 technology in the railway sector. The Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) analysis has frequently been used to assess various fuel alternatives with a life cycle perspective [83], [91], [92]. This approach allows for consideration of the three pillars of sustainability, providing a comprehensive evaluation of H2 by ensuring that the emission reduction goals are met while the economic and social impacts of H2 implementation are acceptable for the specific application. Furthermore, this analysis provides an overall demonstration of the potential benefits and challenges that H2 can offer to the railway sector. This section details the methodology used to develop an MCDM framework. This framework evaluates the economic, environmental, and social life cycle impacts, which were assessed in this thesis as the evaluation criteria. 3.2.1 Decision Scenarios for Selecting Emissions Reduction Strategies Due to the evolving conditions and contextual factors influencing a problem, decision-makers may adopt diverse perspectives to address it effectively. The conditions in which decision-makers need to act can change very often. Hence, multiple perspectives are required in MCDM analysis to account for a wide range of involved criteria. Furthermore, providing different decision scenarios allows the demonstration of the potential results based on diverse weights selected for specific criteria to understand the potential scenarios better and select the most desired alternative by considering a comprehensively evaluated approach. In this thesis study, the decision scenarios were based on four alternatives a decision-maker may adopt. These alternatives include an equal priority, cost priority, environmental priority, and social 45 priority based on the respective weight that is assigned to the category of preference. This reflects the importance and impact the decision-maker may have and wants to reflect in the MCDM model. As illustrated in Table 3-2, the equal priority considers an equal distribution of the weights to be assigned to the selected scenario, reflecting 33.33% of the impact for each economic, environmental and social impacts. The cost, environmental and social priority scenarios reflect a high percentage of importance, 80%, against 20% for the rest of the non-prioritized impacts. This scenario can provide a comprehensive analysis that considers all the life cycle impacts resulting from the TBL evaluation, with a special priority for the most desired pillar if required. Table 3-2: Weighting criteria for multiple decision scenarios Decision Scenario LCC ELCA SLCA Equal priority 0.33 0.33 0.33 Cost priority 0.8 0.1 0.1 Environmental priority 0.1 0.8 0.1 Social priority 0.1 0.1 0.8 3.2.2 VIKOR – MCDM Approach for Scenario Ranking MCDM is a powerful tool for assisting in the decision-making process in complex situations in which diverse factors play crucial roles. Multiple MCDM methods exist. Among these, the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is a popular method that has been used to analyze alternatives for a more sustainable transport sector [93], [124]. TOPSIS is very similar to VIKOR (from the Serbian “VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje”) method, which refers to multi-criteria optimization and compromise solution. Both methods identify the solution closest to the ideal alternative. However, the VIKOR method was selected for this analysis due to its ability to assign relative importance to the criteria, achieving the optimal balance between individual priorities [125]. The various research phases of this thesis were combined to finalize the decision support framework for the best H2 pathway as a sustainable fuel alternative to diesel in the railway sector. To illustrate the framework's applicability and demonstrate that the optimal H2 pathway can differ based on regional conditions, the framework was applied to seven Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. 46 As illustrated in Figure 3-5, the VIKOR method is based on the following calculation steps [126], [127], [128], [129]: Figure 3-5. Calculation steps for VIKOR method STEP 1: Decision Matrix The method starts by establishing a matrix of criteria ( Table A. 2 to Table A. 8) c1, c2, … cn, and alternatives a1, a2, … an. STEP 2: Decision Matrix Normalization Step two consists of a linear normalization of the decision matrix (Table A. 9 – Normalized decision matrix for British ColumbiaTable A. 9 to Table A. 15). STEP 3: Determine the ideal solutions and negative to the ideal solutions Steps two and three are estimated based on the following Equations (3.3) and (3.4), which integrate the weight into the normalized decision matrix: 𝑆௝ = ∑ ൤௪೔൫௙೔శ ି௙೔ೕ൯௙೔శି ௙೔ష൨ (3.3) 47 𝑅௝ = 𝑀𝑎𝑥 ൤௪೔൫௙೔శ ି௙೔ೕ൯௙೔శି ௙೔ష൨ (3.4) where 𝑓௜శ = Max (fij) and 𝑓௜ష = Min (fij) STEP 4: Compute the distance for each alternative The computation of Qj for the group utility function that computes the distance for each alternative and calculates the relative closeness to the ideal solution is determined as from Equation (3.5): 𝑄௝ = ௩(௦ೕି௦శ)(௦శି௦ష)+ (1 − 𝑣)(ோೕିோశோషିோశ) (3.5) STEP 5: Ranking the alternatives By sorting Sj, Rj, and Qj from their minimum value, three ranking lists are obtained. STEP 6: Acceptance of rank choice The compromised solution A1 is ranked based on the minimum Q and is the best option if the two following conditions are satisfied.  Condition 1 (acceptable advantage): Q (A2) – Q (A1) ≥ DQ, where DQ = ଵ௝ିଵ (𝑗 − 𝑛) and A2 is the second-positioned alternative under the Q ranking list.  Condition 2 (acceptable stability in decision-making): the A1 must be the best ranked in S or/and R. If only one of the conditions is not met, If none of the conditions are met, neither A1 nor A2 can be proposed as a compromised solution based on the Q values. If at least one of the conditions is met, a set of compromised solutions results based on: a) If the second condition is not met, the compromised solutions are A1 and A2 b) If the first condition is not met, A1, A2, … Ax are the compromised solutions for Q (Ax) – Q (A1) < DQ for the maximum x value. 48 3.2.3 Case-Specific Methodology and Data Inputs This framework was demonstrated for a locomotive with a 20-year lifespan and an average travel distance of 300 km /day. As mentioned above, the results from the TBL analysis were applied to seven Canadian provinces. The decision matrix was elaborated based on the total life cycle cost, the life cycle emissions and the average social life cycle scores estimated on the LCA in this thesis study for the five H2 pathways and diesel. The life cycle cost was represented in Canadian dollars, the life cycle emissions in kg of CO2-eq and the potential social impacts as the average score representing a rating of the potential impacts, and is further explained in Chapter 4.3.1. 3.3 LCA-MCDM Tool to Evaluate Hydrogen-powered Locomotives in Canada An MCDM tool was developed to facilitate the application and utilization of the MCDM-LCA framework. This tool enables stakeholders to access and interact with life cycle variables throughout the different locomotives' life cycle stages, highlighting the costs, emissions, and potential social impacts associated with transitioning the traditional diesel locomotives to H2. Considering the three sustainability pillars, this innovative tool aims to provide stakeholders with a user-friendly tool that supports more informed decisions. The MCDM-LCA model was developed in Microsoft Excel. This model can accommodate multiple scenarios applicable to the local conditions of seven regions in Canada. The tool’s output highlights the impact of the H2 production pathways, considering Canada's diverse energy profiles. The model uses life cycle data obtained from the TBL analysis in this thesis as input for a comprehensive analysis. Additionally, it allows users to interact with and update various life cycle variables to enhance the precision of the model’s output. 49 Chapter 4: Results and Discussion This section presents the results obtained from the economic, environmental, and social analyses previously defined. The results are illustrated and discussed, including the various analyses conducted, variables in the system such as operating conditions, variability in the market, and stakeholders' perspectives. The results presented in this section have been published as journal articles. The journal article (L. Correa, F. Razi, R. Sadiq, and K. Hewage, “Life cycle costing analysis of a retrofitted hydrogen-powered locomotive: Canadian context”) is published in the Transportation Research Part D journal. The journal article (L. Correa, F. Razi, K. Hewage, and R. Sadiq, “Environmental and Social Life Cycle Analysis of Hydrogen-powered Railway Locomotives in Canadian Context”) is published in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 4.1 Life Cycle Cost Numerous dynamic conditions strongly influence the LCC throughout the locomotive's lifespan. To encompass the fluctuations in these conditions, a range of potential scenarios was assessed. Different travelling trend scenarios and four possible maintenance cost scenarios were modelled. This section presents further analysis of the operational phase, which is the most impactful phase. It compares H2 and diesel locomotives from the operational and lifecycle perspectives. Moreover, a few sensitivity analyses demonstrate the impact of potential cost reductions in H2 production technologies. 4.1.1 Travel Trend Scenarios One of the primary factors significantly influencing the overall life cycle cost of the locomotive is its travel trend. To assess the impact of the distance travelled on the associated LCC, three specific scenarios were modelled for average daily distances of 100 km, 300 km, and 500 km, as presented in Figure 4-1. 50 (a) (b) (c) Figure 4-1. Operation scenarios for a) 100 km/day, b) 300 km/day, c) 500 km/day The distribution of LCC varies across the stages of each modelled scenario. The percentage of LCC attributed to the capital cost in the refurbishing phase differs based on the distance travelled. When considering a daily travelling distance of 100 km, the capital cost accounts for 21% of the Refurbishing24%Operation 62%Maintenance 6%End-of-life (-)-6%Refurbishing9%Operation 86%Maintenance 3%End-of-life (-)-2%Refurbishing6%Operation 89%Maintenance 3%End-of-life (-)-2%51 LCC. Conversely, for the locomotive travelling 300 km daily, the capital cost represents only 9% of the LCC. The operational cost primarily influences trains with longer routes, constituting a significant portion of their total life cycle cost. Other life cycle stages, such as refurbishing, maintenance, and end-of-life, marginally influence the overall cost. Therefore, the operational cost substantially impacts the total LCC of trains with longer daily distances covered. Operational and capital costs highly impact trains with shorter daily distances. The capital cost significantly influences the total LCC of these trains. Hence, trains travelling shorter distances experience meaningful cost impacts in the operational and refurbishing stages throughout their life cycle. Figure 4-2 provides a unique visualization of the costs, showcasing the yearly expenses of the locomotive for the various travel trends previously analyzed. These annual expenses represent costs across the four life cycle phases over the years. Cash outflows are depicted from year 0, representing the present time when the initial retrofitting investment is required, prior to the start of the operational phase. The subsequent years, from 1-20, represent the cash flows from the operation, maintenance and end-of-life costs, necessitating the discount rate application. Figure 4-2. Effect of the locomotive’s lifespan on its life cycle expenses for different daily distances covered $(1.0) $(0.5) $- $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Yearly expensesMillionsLifespan (years)100 km/day 300 km/day 500 km/day52 The investment required for retrofitting the locomotive in year zero remains the same across the three travel trends analyzed. Consistent expenses are estimated from years 1 to 19, covering regular maintenance and operation costs. However, a notable deviation occurred in year 14 for the 500 km/day series, attributed to the required retrofit of the fuel cell system at the end of its lifespan. There is no need for this expense for shorter travel trends, as the component's lifespan is typically estimated in hours of operation. Furthermore, year 20 is significantly impacted by end-of-life costs. These costs positively affect the LCC due to the salvage value of the retrofitting components, resulting in lower overall expenses in the final year. 4.1.2 Maintenance Scenarios The maintenance cost of hydrogen-powered locomotives is currently a research subject within the railway sector. According to studies [44], [130], the maintenance cost of hydrogen-powered locomotives could be comparable to that of conventional internal combustion diesel engines. This assessment is based on the understanding that fuel cells generally exhibit higher reliability than internal combustion engines. Conversely, according to Marin et al. [131], hydrogen-powered locomotives are considered to demand two to three times more maintenance costs than diesel locomotives, primarily due to the fuel cell power package. Hence, this thesis study analyzed different life cycle cost scenarios, considering these varying perspectives to account for the variation in maintenance cost expectations. In these scenarios, the maintenance cost for hydrogen-powered locomotives was adjusted, ranging from 0.5 to 3 times the regular maintenance cost of diesel locomotives. This analysis aims to visualize the potential impacts of different maintenance cost scenarios on the overall LCC and LCC per km driven. Figure 4-3 presents the total life cycle cost results for the four different scenarios, assuming a travel trend of 300 km/day. The most favourable cost is achieved by considering half the regular maintenance cost of a conventional combustion engine locomotive, which could represent 11 cents saving per km travelled compared to the same regular maintenance as an ICE locomotive. When considering twice the regular maintenance cost of the conventional locomotive, an increase of around 2.7% in the LCC is estimated, impacting 22 cents per km travelled. In the most expensive 53 H2 maintenance cost scenario, the LCC per km travelled is 43 cents higher than the ICE locomotive scenario, accounting for a 5.4% potential increase in the total LCC for the H2 locomotives. Figure 4-3. Life cycle cost for different regular maintenance scenarios The availability of more accurate data for the regular maintenance cost of hydrogen-powered locomotives is crucially expected through comprehensive testing of the key components such as fuel cells, batteries, and H2 tanks in diverse climates, power rates, and physical trail conditions. 4.1.3 Comparison of Operational Cost The operational cost is the most significant contributor to the LCC of railway locomotives. In this regard, the influence of operational cost was studied by comparing the hydrogen-powered locomotive to the conventional diesel locomotive. Two factors were evaluated: the average daily distance travelled and the unit cost of H2, which varies depending on the method of H2 production. Canada is among the top ten H2 producers globally; however, most H2 produced in Canada is not generated through low-carbon intensity methods [21]. To address this, studies have focused on incorporating Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) processes in Underground Coal Gasification (UCG), nuclear-based thermochemical, and Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) methods and exploring clean production pathways like water electrolysis powered by wind or solar energy. 7.67.77.87.988.18.28.38.48.5$17$17$17$17$17$18$18$18$18$18$19$190.5 1 2 3LCC/km (CAD)Total LCC (CAD)MILLIONSMaintenance Cost ScenarioTotal LCCLCC per km54 In addition to the H2 production costs, transportation to the refuelling facility must be considered. This adds $4.96 per kilogram to the final price of H2 [104]. This analysis considered five scenarios, with the unit cost of H2 ranging from $12.75 per kilogram (representing the existing commercial unit H2 cost in British Columbia produced via electrolysis) to $6.69 per kilogram (the lowest unit cost of H2 from Table 3-1, corresponding to the SMR method without CCUS delivered to the refuelling facility). Considering the H2 consumption rate of the system under study (0.82 kg/km) and the H2 energy content of 120 MJ/kg, the energy consumed per km travelled was evaluated to be 98.4 MJ. With fuel cell efficiency ranging from 50% to 80% [68] and assuming a 60% efficiency along with an average train speed of 75 km/h, the power output of the train is estimated to be approximately 1.23 MW, calculated using the following Equation [60]: 𝜂act = 𝑃out 𝑄inൗ . (4.1) In contrast to the higher efficiency of FCs, diesel engines have a relatively lower efficiency of 40% [132], and they release 40.9 MJ/L upon combustion. 𝑄in = 𝑃out 𝜂actൗ = 1.23 𝑀𝑊 0.40ൗ = 3.075 MW The energy consumed by the diesel locomotive per km is estimated as follows: 𝐸consumed = 𝑄in 𝑉ൗ =3.075 𝑀𝑊0.0208 ೖ೘ೞ൘ = 147.6 MJ/km where 𝑉 refers to the average speed of the locomotive. Finally, the diesel consumption is 147.6 MJ/km / 40.9 MJ/L = 3.61 L/km. Figure 4-4 illustrates the comparison of the operation cost scenarios, considering the average retail price of diesel at a refuelling station in British Columbia, which is 1.78 CAD/L. 55 Figure 4-4. Operational cost comparison of H2 pathways and diesel for different distances The cost of H2 plays a crucial role in offering a competitive alternative to conventional diesel locomotives. The analysis of the operational costs reveals that, in most cases, H2 is a more expensive option when compared to diesel as a fuel choice. H2 production methods like electrolysis, thermochemical, and nuclear, while environmentally friendly, tend to be costlier compared to diesel locomotives. On the other hand, methods such as UCG and SMR, with or without CCUS, have similar or even lower operational costs compared to diesel. While specific H2 production methods may be considered economically feasible, analyzing the carbon footprint based on regional conditions is imperative. For instance, the energy source of the H2 production process is a crucial component to be studied to ensure economic feasibility and a cleaner fuel alternative. Therefore, special attention is needed for potential cleaner methods like electrolysis and thermochemical processes when powered through renewable energy sources. Their optimization is essential to minimize costs and make H2 cost-competitive with diesel fuel. Consequently, investing in renewable energy plants alongside H2 production facilities may be necessary to achieve emission reduction goals effectively. $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $251 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0Operational cost (CAD)MillionsDaily travel trend (km)H2 electrolysisH2 thermochemical nuclearH2 thermochemical copper-chlorineH2 UCG/SMR with carbon captureH2 SMR without carbon captureDiesel56 Moreover, while examining the operational cost for locomotives with potentially shorter distances, the operational cost shows minimal variation among the multiple fuel alternatives. However, as the distance travelled increases, the disparity between the operational cost scenarios becomes more pronounced. Hence, implementing H2 locomotives along shorter routes may demonstrate a relatively lower cost difference between the operation of H2 or diesel locomotives. 4.1.4 Life Cycle Cost Comparison Further analysis is conducted on the various H2 production pathways and their comparison with diesel from a life cycle perspective. When considering the necessary investments for implementing H2 technology in locomotives, the LCC of H2 locomotives tends to be higher. In the diesel scenario, it is assumed that no additional investment beyond operational and regular maintenance costs is needed. The results illustrated in Figure 4-5 indicate that while considering the entire LCC of the locomotive, H2 locomotives emerge as a costlier alternative than diesel. In contrast, when only operational costs are considered, pathways such as UCG and SMR with or without CCUS may appear similar or less expensive than diesel. Nevertheless, all H2 pathways result in a higher LCC than diesel locomotives when factoring in all life cycle phases, including initial investment and maintenance. Figure 4-5. Life cycle cost comparison for different locomotive’s fuel alternatives $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10100 200 300 400 500Lcc per km (CAD)DailyTravel trend (km)Hydrogen electrolysisHydrogen thermochemical nuclearHydrogen thermochemical copper-chlorineHydrogen UCG/SMR with carbon captureHydrogen SMR without carbon captureDiesel57 The SMR without the CCUS method, the less expensive H2 alternative, demonstrates a comparable LCC to diesel, particularly when analyzing longer distances. However, the H2 alternatives exhibit significantly higher costs for shorter distances. Given the substantial capital investment needed for retrofitting locomotives, it's crucial to factor in the anticipated usage of the locomotive when estimating the overall LCC. Implementing H2 technology in locomotives with potentially longer travel distances could minimize the LCC per km driven, enhancing the economic feasibility of H2 locomotives. 4.1.5 Sensitivity Analysis The integration of H2 technology significantly influences the LCC of the retrofitted locomotive. Given the technology's ongoing development, reductions in the FC system and H2 fuel costs are anticipated. To account for this expected cost reduction, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess its potential impact on the LCC, considering both system components, recognizing the inherent uncertainty in current cost projections and enabling a range of estimations. 4.1.5.1 Fuel Cell Fuel cells are a technology that is continuously improving and optimizing. Since fuel cells are a potential solution to decarbonizing the energy sector, substantial efforts are needed to decrease costs and provide investors with a more cost-competitive option. This sensitivity analysis highlights the potential benefits of reducing FC costs. A decrease in the FC cost can substantially impact the overall LCC of hydrogen-powered locomotives, making them more economically attractive, especially for rail routes with higher power requirements. Figure 4-6 illustrates the influence of the FC cost on the overall LCC of the retrofitted hydrogen-powered locomotive. The FC cost varies from CAD 1,950 to CAD 300, representing a substantial 58 cost reduction of approximately 85%. This analysis assumed a daily travel trend of 300 km and a maintenance cost similar to that of the conventional diesel locomotive. Figure 4-6. Effect of the FC cost on the total Life Cycle Cost of the locomotive The FC power output in this study's system design was set at 680 kWh. However, it's important to note that this design can vary depending on the system's energy needs for different routes. Consequently, the impact of the FC would be more pronounced in systems that demand higher power rates based on their specific design requirements. Continued research and development efforts focused on cost reduction and optimization of FC technology will play a crucial role in accelerating the adoption of hydrogen-powered locomotives and advancing sustainable transportation solutions. 4.1.5.2 H2 Fuel Price This section comprehensively evaluates the impact of H2 fuel cost on the LCC. The unit H2 cost can vary significantly depending on various aspects, such as the production pathway considered, the power sources of the H2 plant, the delivery method, and location. The objective of the sensitivity analysis on H2 fuel cost is to account for price variations across different production conditions, making it applicable in various contexts. As illustrated in Figure 4-7, the starting cost is $12.75/kg, representing the retail price of green H2 produced in Western Canada and delivered at refuelling stations currently working in the region [102]. The lowest 16,30016,50016,70016,90017,10017,30017,5001,9501,8721,7941,7161,6381,5601,4821,4041,3261,2481,1701,0921,014936858780702624546468390300Life Cycle Cost (CAD)ThousandsFuel Cell Cost (CAD/kWh)59 considered cost of H2 is $1.50/kg through an anticipated drastic reduction in the unit H2 cost due to the significant influence of economies of scale and technological advancements with a rise in demand by 2050 [52]. Figure 4-7. Variation of total Life Cycle Cost depending on H2 Fuel Cost The cost of H2 fuel plays a crucial role in the LCC of FC locomotives. Unlike the impact of the FC itself on the LCC, the price of H2 plays a significant role and can have a higher influence on the overall LCC. By reducing the cost of H2, further savings can be achieved in the operational phase, contributing significantly to the locomotive’s lifecycle. 4.2 Environmental Life Cycle The environmental life cycle assessment results were examined across each phase of the locomotive's life, spanning from refurbishing to the end-of-life. All findings were expressed in terms of CO2 equivalent emissions, making attribution to the global warming category. Notably, the refurbishing phase undergoes an additional analysis step, explicitly evaluating the H2 technology across various environmental categories. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was incorporated to address the influence of the locomotive's travel behaviour on the overall life cycle emissions. 4.2.1 Refurbishing Phase The outcomes of this phase are linked to the environmental consequences stemming from the materials and energy required to acquire the locomotive's three primary components during $5 $7 $9 $11 $13 $15 $17 $19 12.75 12.37 11.99 11.60 11.22 10.84 10.46 10.07 9.69 9.31 8.93 8.54 8.16 7.78 7.40 7.01 6.63 6.25 5.87 5.48 5.10 4.72 4.33 3.95 3.57 3.19 2.80 2.42 2.04 1.66LCC (CAD)MillionsHydrogen Fuel (CAD/kg)60 refurbishing: battery, PEMFC, and H2 storage tanks. This phase makes a nearly one-ton contribution to the locomotive's overall life cycle emissions, with the distribution illustrated in Figure 4-8. The battery and PEMFC components contribute marginally to the refurbishing phase due to the significant impact of H2 storage tank materials. Comparing the quantities of materials needed for batteries and PEMFC with those for storage tanks, it becomes evident that the carbon fibre utilized in compressed gas storage tanks is the most environmentally impactful material. H2 storage tanks are typically developed using aluminum and externally reinforced with carbon fibre. Carbon fibre production for these tanks requires substantial energy, making it the primary factor contributing to the environmental impacts. Figure 4-8. Distribution of life cycle emissions from the refurbishing phase Further analysis was carried out to examine other environmental impact categories. In this regard, Figure 4-9 illustrates that in addition to the global warming category, in which the H2 storage tanks proved to be the most environmentally harmful component, similar behaviour is observed in 16 out of 18 categories analyzed. A different outcome was obtained for terrestrial ecotoxicity, where the battery contributes the most. Furthermore, the FC was the most impactful component in the mineral resource scarcity category. Battery10,982 kgCO2-eq PEMFC29,582 kgCO2-eq4%Tanks827,587 kgCO2-eq95%61 Global warminStratospheric ozIonizing radiatioOzone formatiFine particulateOzone formatiTerrestrial acidifiFreshwater eutroMarine eutrophTerrestrial ecotoxFreshwater ecotoMarine ecotoxicHuman carcinoHuman non-carLand useMineral resourcFossil resource scWater consumpti100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10BatteryPEMFCTanksFigure 4-9. Refurbishing components attribution to environmental categories 62 4.2.2 Operational Phase The results obtained from the GHGenius model describe the emissions produced from the different fuel’s life cycle phases, from the raw materials to the transportation to the refuelling facility. A region-specific analysis was performed for six Canadian provinces and the Canadian Atlantic region. The fuel life cycle emissions were estimated for each region under analysis. Table 4-1 illustrates the distribution of the emissions produced in each Canadian region's different life cycle stages of H2 production, based on the GHGenious model. Table 4-1. Life cycle emissions per GJ of fuel produced in (a) British Columbia, (b) Alberta, (c) Saskatchewan, (d) Manitoba, (e) Ontario, (f) Quebec, and (g) Atlantic Canada (a) Fuel Diesel H2 Electrolysis H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Thermo nuclear cracking H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS Fuel dispensing 136 1,775 1,775 1,775 903 1,775 1,775 Fuel distribution and storage 647 5,088 5,088 5,088 5,088 5,088 5,088 Fuel production 16,816 35,226 16,062 83,156 683 172,160 37,638 Feedstock transmission 125 0 4,977 4,606 0 15 19 Feedstock recovery 8,633 0 13,377 12,379 409 1,832 2,340 Feedstock upgrading 3,652 0 7,497 6,937 0 5,681 7,256 Land management emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Direct land use change 255 0 0 0 0 7,251 9,260 Fertilizer manufacture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Feedstock coproducts 0 0 0 0 0 -932 -1,190 Avoided emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel coproducts -235 0 0 0 0 -6,745 -2,006 Total 30,029 42,089 48,776 113,941 7,083 186,126 60,180 63 (b) Fuel Diesel H2 Electrolysis H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Thermo nuclear cracking H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS Fuel dispensing 690 14,395 14,395 14,395 976 14,395 14,395 Fuel distribution and storage 1,003 8,101 8,101 8,101 8,101 8,101 8,101 Fuel production 16,887 285,648 26,068 84,726 675 172,139 52,383 Feedstock transmission 627 0 3,324 3,076 0 41 52 Feedstock recovery 8,732 0 13,376 12,378 632 3,019 3,855 Feedstock upgrading 3,657 0 7,592 7,026 0 5,681 7,255 Land management emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Direct land use change 255 0 0 0 0 7,250 9,259 Fertilizer manufacture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Feedstock coproducts 0 0 0 0 0 -1,005 -1,284 Avoided emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel coproducts -247 0 0 0 0 -6,784 -2,593 Total 31,604 308,144 72,856 129,701 10,384 202,835 91,423 (c) Fuel Diesel H2 Electrolysis H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Thermo nuclear cracking H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS Fuel dispensing 741 15,557 15,557 15,557 982 15,557 15,557 Fuel distribution and storage 1,386 8,369 8,369 8,369 8,369 8,369 8,369 Fuel production 16,622 308,697 26,989 84,870 672 172,135 53,739 Feedstock transmission 673 0 3,039 2,813 0 43 55 Feedstock recovery 8,542 0 13,366 12,369 652 3,126 3,993 Feedstock upgrading 3,631 0 7,284 6,741 0 5,681 7,255 Land management emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Direct land use change 255 0 0 0 0 7,247 9,255 Fertilizer manufacture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Feedstock coproducts 0 0 0 0 0 -1,011 -1,291 Avoided emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel coproducts -247 0 0 0 0 -6,788 -2,647 Total 31,603 332,622 74,604 130,717 10,673 204,359 94,285 64 (d) Fuel Diesel H2 Electrolysis H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Thermo nuclear cracking H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS Fuel dispensing 124 1,499 1,499 1,499 907 1,499 1,499 Fuel distribution and storage 826 5,051 5,051 5,051 5,051 5,051 5,051 Fuel production 17,077 29,751 15,843 83,123 686 172,164 37,316 Feedstock transmission 115 0 5,269 4,876 0 14 18 Feedstock recovery 8,877 0 13,388 12,389 406 1,813 2,316 Feedstock upgrading 3,672 0 7,803 7,221 0 5,681 7,256 Land management emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Direct land use change 255 0 0 0 0 7,248 9,257 Fertilizer manufacture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Feedstock coproducts 0 0 0 0 0 -932 -1,190 Avoided emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel coproducts -235 0 0 0 0 -6,744 -1,993 Total 30,710 36,302 48,854 114,160 7,050 185,795 59,530 (e) Fuel Diesel H2 Electrolysis H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Thermo nuclear cracking H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS Fuel dispensing 172 2,494 2,494 2,494 913 2,494 2,494 Fuel distribution and storage 598 5,306 5,306 5,306 5,306 5,306 5,306 Fuel production 18,340 49,512 16,639 83,282 732 172,235 38,495 Feedstock transmission 155 0 9,533 8,821 0 16 21 Feedstock recovery 7,790 0 18,438 17,062 429 1,212 1,548 Feedstock upgrading 1,732 0 6,723 6,221 0 14,165 18,091 Land management emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Direct land use change 138 0 0 0 0 6,144 7,847 Fertilizer manufacture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Feedstock coproducts 0 0 0 0 0 -950 -1,213 Avoided emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel coproducts -156 0 0 0 0 -6,995 -2,350 Total 28,769 57,312 59,132 123,187 7,380 193,627 70,238 65 (f) Fuel Diesel H2 Electrolysis H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Thermo nuclear cracking H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS Fuel dispensing 129 1,492 1,492 1,492 910 1,492 1,492 Fuel distribution and storage 538 5,081 5,081 5,081 5,081 5,081 5,081 Fuel production 18,386 29,620 15,846 83,168 738 172,258 37,328 Feedstock transmission 115 0 10,603 9,812 0 14 18 Feedstock recovery 7,886 0 18,478 17,099 413 1,150 1,469 Feedstock upgrading 1,737 0 6,783 6,277 0 14,167 18,094 Land management emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Direct land use change 138 0 0 0 0 6,145 7,848 Fertilizer manufacture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Feedstock coproducts 0 0 0 0 0 -943 -1,204 Avoided emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel coproducts -149 0 0 0 0 -6,995 -2,306 Total 28,778 36,193 58,283 122,928 7,142 192,369 67,819 (g) Fuel Diesel H2 Electrolysis H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Thermo nuclear cracking H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS Fuel dispensing 289 5,274 5,274 5,274 878 5,274 5,274 Fuel distribution and storage 772 5,858 5,858 5,858 5,858 5,858 5,858 Fuel production 22,536 104,650 18,834 83,579 670 172,128 41,720 Feedstock transmission 1,158 0 2,470 2,286 0 22 28 Feedstock recovery 4,621 0 13,360 12,363 462 1,285 1,641 Feedstock upgrading 0 0 7,510 6,950 0 24,807 31,681 Land management emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Direct land use change 0 0 0 0 0 5,495 7,018 Fertilizer manufacture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Feedstock coproducts 0 0 0 0 0 -977 -1,247 Avoided emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel coproducts 0 0 0 0 0 -7,351 -2,931 Total 29,375 115,782 53,306 116,309 7,869 206,542 89,044 Among the various fuel life cycle stages, the fuel production stage has the most significant impact on distinguishing between the different pathways. Emissions in this phase vary across pathways due to differences in the energy intensity of the production process and hydrocarbon utilization. For instance, water electrolysis requires significant energy to produce H2, meaning that the environmental impacts associated with electricity can be attributed to the fuel production stage. 66 Similarly, the other pathways rely on fossil fuels, which are the primary sources of environmental impacts in their production stage. The H2 production pathways of SMR and coal gasification contribute to GHG emissions, primarily driven by the demand for natural gas and coal as feedstock during the fuel production phase. Integrating CCUS with these processes leads to a considerable reduction in the total life cycle emissions. Opting for coal as feedstock maintains a high-emission-intensive profile for the H2 fuel used in locomotive operations. In contrast, the thermonuclear cracking pathway, which uses nuclear energy for its production, resulted in the cleanest H2 among the six pathways analyzed. However, it is essential to highlight that H2 obtained from this pathway is still not commercially available and is under investigation for development, and it is expected to be developed after 2030 [120]. Figure 4-10 illustrates the cumulative emissions stemming from the operational phase, encompassing both fuel life cycle emissions and fuel utilization throughout the locomotive's lifespan. The regional comparison underscores the significant influence of local feedstock characteristics on the operational phase. Notably, the most substantial difference is observed in the water electrolysis pathway, attributable to the large electricity quantities consumed for H2 production and the electricity feedstocks employed in each region. For instance, in the provinces of Manitoba, Quebec, and B.C., 97%, 94%, and 87% of power are respectively generated using hydro sources, while in Alberta and Saskatchewan, 87% and 81% of power are respectively obtained through fossil fuels [133]. Hence, up to 52% of emissions could be reduced during the locomotive’s utilization phase when considering H2 produced from water electrolysis with Manitoba’s grid. In contrast, H2 locomotives utilizing H2 from water electrolysis in Saskatchewan would produce more than three times the emissions of diesel locomotives. The emissions arising from the combustion process in the diesel locomotive significantly contribute to the overall impact of the operational phase. For instance, in B.C., the life cycle emissions per unit of energy from diesel are lower than those from H2 produced through SMR and coal with CCUS or electrolysis pathways. However, when considering fuel combustion, the total emissions of the operational phase indicate that H2 remains a more environmentally benign option than diesel. 67 Figure 4-10. Locomotive operational emissions for different Canada regions 4.2.3 End-of-Life Phase The results from the end-of-life phase indicate an overall emissions saving. Although the H2 storage tanks and battery pack contribute to the locomotive’s life cycle emissions, recycling platinum in the PEMFC's disposal would offer a more significant environmental benefit. This recycling process saves the need to extract additional precious metals to produce the FC membrane. Figure 4-11 illustrates the estimated emission contributions of each retrofitting component, highlighting the H2 storage tanks as the most impactful component. These emissions are primarily associated with the disposal of carbon fibre. Consequently, recycling the tanks' carbon fibre content emerges as a potential solution to mitigate end-of-life emissions. However, several uncertainties associated with this recycling process must be addressed before its implementation [134]. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35DieselH2 Water electrolysisH2 SMR with CCUSH2 SMR without CCUSH2 Coal without CCUSH2 Coal with CCUSH2 Thermo nuclearcrackingOperational emissions (kg CO2-eq/km)Atlantic CanadaQuebecOntarioManitobaSaskatchewanAlbertaB. C.68 Figure 4-11. Locomotive end-of-life phase emissions 4.2.4 Life Cycle Comparison It is crucial to evaluate the region-specific conditions when comparing the locomotive's life cycle emissions. Significantly, within a single country, the environmental profiles of H2 production showcase substantial variations across different pathways. Moreover, variations are observed even within the same selected pathway. In this regard, Figure 4-12 provides a comprehensive overview of the total life cycle emissions, incorporating the diverse life stages previously discussed. The results were detailed for each region, allowing for a comparison of the various fuel alternatives examined in this study. The optimal alternative to diesel differs across regions. Notably, H2 from thermo-nuclear cracking emerges as the most environmentally favourable alternative to diesel. However, when assessing other advanced technologies, the water electrolysis pathway is deemed the best choice for B.C., Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, where the electricity utilized for H2 production is obtained from cleaner sources such as hydro and nuclear, resulting in up to 47% reduction in the locomotive’s life cycle emissions. In contrast, the SMR with CCUS pathway stands out as the best alternative for Alberta and Atlantic Canada, where the carbon footprint for power generation is higher due to the utilization of fossil fuel sources such as coal and has the potential to achieve up to 23% reduction in the locomotive’s life cycle emissions. Notably, for Saskatchewan, none of the H2 alternatives prove to be more environmentally friendly than diesel. -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10PEMFCBATTERYTANKSEmissions (kg CO2-eq)Thousands69 Figure 4-12. Locomotive life cycle emissions for several H2 production pathways across various Canadian provinces 4.2.5 Sensitivity Analysis Locomotives exhibit diverse travel behaviours that significantly influence overall life cycle emissions. The environmental life cycle assessment is considered for a generic locomotive with an assumed average daily travel distance of 300 km. To account for locomotives with varying travel distances, the total emissions were estimated for those travelling shorter or longer distances. In this regard, Figure 4-13 illustrates the results of a sensitivity analysis, highlighting the influence of travel behaviour on the life cycle environmental impacts of the locomotive. When a retrofitted locomotive is utilized for shorter distances or is not intensively used throughout its lifespan, the life cycle emissions per unit of distance can experience exponential increases. This is because emissions from refurbishing components are distributed over the total distance the locomotive travels throughout its lifespan. Conversely, as the distance travelled by the locomotive increases, the life cycle emissions per unit of distance decrease. Given this exponential behaviour, considering the expected usage of the locomotive throughout its lifespan becomes crucial. In scenarios where the railway line has a shorter distance, retrofitting the locomotive with H2 technology may significantly impact the expected overall emissions of the locomotive. 01020304050607080B. C. Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Quebec Atlantic CanadaLife cycle emissions (kg CO2-eq)Millions DieselH2 Water electrolysisH2 SMR with CCUSH2 SMR without CCUSH2 Coal without CCUSH2 Coal with CCUS70 Figure 4-13. Sensitivity analysis of travel behaviour on locomotive life cycle emissions 4.3 Social Life Cycle The subsequent sections describe and discuss the social life cycle assessment categories for diesel and H2 pathways. All pathways previously examined in the environmental assessment section except for thermo nuclear cracking were included. This omission is due to its status as a non-mature technology, and its associated social concerns warrant further analysis during future testing. The analysis of each of the six categories—economic, environmental, human health, practicability, safety, and scalability—is presented in this section, considering the potential concerns associated with the implementation of H2 technology in the railway sector. While the results from B.C. are presented in this section, it is crucial to note that the current analysis is versatile and can be applicable to any region of interest, with results varying based on region-specific characteristics. Furthermore, an estimation of the overall social impact score is provided for seven potential scenarios. In these scenarios, each social category was thoughtfully weighted to assign higher importance based on specific considerations. 4.3.1 Social Categories The social evaluation of H2 pathways and diesel is summarized in Table 4-2, providing the ratings based on potential social impacts. Each alternative was assessed by assigning a score ranging from 1.0 to 3.0 across various categories. In this social scale, 1 was considered the most favourable 051015202530354045501 35 69 103 137 171 205 239 273 307 341Life Cycle Emissions(kg CO2-eq/km)Distance traveled per day (km)71 rating, with less socially harmful impact, 2 was considered a moderate rating, and 3 was the highly undesired rating, with the most socially harmful impact. This continuous scale enhances specificity in the economic, environmental, and human health assessments. For instance, in the economic category, diesel, coal, and SMR without CCUS all received a 1.0 score, indicating the most economical alternatives with minimal variation in their life cycle costs. However, when CCUS was incorporated, the life cycle cost variation of coal and SMR pathways became more significant, though not as pronounced as the water electrolysis pathway, which emerges as the most expensive alternative. The scores are adapted from [122], [135], [43]. Table 4-2. Locomotive’s social score per category for (a) British Columbia, (b) Alberta, (c) Saskatchewan, (d) Manitoba, (e) Ontario, (f) Quebec, and (g) Atlantic Canada (a) Fuel Category score Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Average Diesel 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 H2 Water electrolysis 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.2 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.3 1.1 1.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.1 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.1 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.8 (b) Fuel Category score Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Average Diesel 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 H2 Water electrolysis 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.8 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.3 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.3 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.3 1.2 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.1 2.1 2.1 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 72 (c) Fuel Category score Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Average Diesel 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 H2 Water electrolysis 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.8 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.3 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.3 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.3 1.2 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.1 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (d) Fuel Category score Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Average Diesel 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 H2 Water electrolysis 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.2 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.3 1.2 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.1 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.1 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.8 (e) Fuel Category score Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Average Diesel 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 H2 Water electrolysis 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.2 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.3 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.1 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.3 1.2 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.1 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.8 (f) Fuel Category score Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Average Diesel 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 H2 Water electrolysis 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.2 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.1 2.1 2.1 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.3 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.1 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.8 73 (g) Fuel Category score Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Average Diesel 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 H2 Water electrolysis 3.0 1.8 1.8 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.4 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.3 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.3 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.1 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.8 The environmental and human health categories received equal scores, as the human health category was derived from converting global warming category results to DALYs. Despite sharing equal scores, it is essential to note that these categories address distinct social concerns, and both are independently considered in the overall assessment results. 4.3.2 Overall Social Impact Score The seven scenarios analyzed pertain to the possible social importance that may be assigned by a stakeholder, ranging from equal to weighted categories. The overall results from the social score estimation are presented in Table 4-3, reflecting an average of all the categories previously discussed. The first scenario considers the six categories equally important. Every fuel pathway received the average of the scores of all categories without any associated weight, as illustrated in Table 4-2. The following columns represent scenarios where the selected category is prioritized as the most important among the others. This was achieved by assigning different weights to the categories: 50% of the total weight was allocated to the selected category, while 10% was assigned to each of the remaining five categories. The weights were assigned randomly within this structure. The purpose of this weighting scheme is to explore how variations in weights impact the social score of the fuel alternative and to better align with the social priorities of the stakeholders. 74 Table 4-3. Locomotive’s social weighted scores for (a) British Columbia, (b) Alberta, (c) Saskatchewan, (d) Manitoba, (e) Ontario, (f) Quebec, and (g) Atlantic Canada (a) Fuel Overall weighted score No weights Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Diesel 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 H2 Water electrolysis 2.2 2.5 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.1 2.5 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.9 1.6 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.9 1.5 (b) Fuel Overall weighted score No weights Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Diesel 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 H2 Water electrolysis 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.9 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.2 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.3 1.7 1.3 (c) Fuel Overall weighted score No weights Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Diesel 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 H2 Water electrolysis 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.9 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.2 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 (d) Fuel Overall weighted score No weights Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Diesel 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 H2 Water electrolysis 2.2 2.5 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.1 2.5 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.9 1.6 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.9 1.5 75 (e) Fuel Overall weighted score No weights Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Diesel 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 H2 Water electrolysis 2.2 2.5 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.1 2.5 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.9 1.6 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.9 1.5 (f) Fuel Overall weighted score No weights Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Diesel 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 H2 Water electrolysis 2.2 2.5 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.1 2.5 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.3 1.7 1.3 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.9 1.6 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.9 1.5 (g) Fuel Overall weighted score No weights Economic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability Diesel 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 H2 Water electrolysis 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.7 H2 SMR with CCUS 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 H2 SMR without CCUS 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.3 H2 Coal with CCUS 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 H2 Coal without CCUS 1.9 1.6 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.9 1.5 Diesel emerged as the least affected fuel in terms of potential social impacts. In all scenarios, diesel maintains the most favourable rating among the H2 alternatives. It stands out as one of the most economical alternatives, having been used for decades, demonstrating its practicality, scalability, and safety. These positive ratings persist even when the environmental and human health categories indicate that diesel presents a higher societal impact than some H2 pathways. In most scenarios analyzed, SMR without CCUS emerged as the H2 alternative with the lowest social impact, followed by SMR with CCUS, coal with CCUS, coal without CCUS, and water electrolysis. 76 Water electrolysis exhibited the highest social impact scores among all the fuels. Although it has the lowest social scores in the environmental and human health categories, it scored the highest in terms of economics, practicality, and scalability. Therefore, substantial cost reductions and technological improvements are essential to position water electrolysis pathways as the best alternative to diesel regarding environmental and human health concerns and as an economically practical and scalable solution for society. 4.4 Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis The MCDM analysis results were obtained based on the decision matrix defined for each region under study for various decision-making scenarios. The TBL analysis was the main input to determining the ranking of the best H2 alternative to diesel. Figure 4-14Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the integration of the LCA results, together presenting the sustainability performance of the impacts a locomotive may have throughout its lifespan. (a) (b) 77 (c) (d) (e) 78 (f) (g) Figure 4-14. Triple Bottom Line results for (a) British Columbia, (b) Alberta, (c) Saskatchewan, (d) Manitoba, (e) Ontario, (f) Quebec, and (g) Atlantic Canada The TBL analysis reveals that the most sustainable alternative varies by region due to significant differences in environmental and social impacts. The cost impacts can be evaluated based on the potential emission reductions that H2 can provide compared to diesel locomotives. From this analysis, most H2 production pathways result in higher costs and environmental impacts than diesel, leading to higher potential social impacts. Exceptions to this trend were found in certain H2 pathways, such as water electrolysis, SMR, and coal with CCUS in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, and SMR with CCUS in the Atlantic region. These pathways offer substantial emission reductions and, in some cases, comparable costs to diesel locomotives. Among these cases, the water electrolysis pathway 79 achieved the highest emission reductions. However, it also resulted in a more costly alternative to diesel. 4.4.1 Ranking of H2 Alternatives to Diesel Based on the VIKOR method, the H2 pathways and diesel rankings were estimated for the four decision-making scenarios with cost, environmental, social and equal priorities. The ranking results are presented in this section by region. 4.4.1.1 British Columbia In this province, the best alternative in all the priority scenarios resulted in having the best Sj and Rj values. When considering equal priority, diesel resulted in the best alternative with an acceptable advantage against all the H2 alternatives. The ranking is similar when adopting a cost priority. However, except for water electrolysis, all the H2 pathways resulted in a compromise solution since they do not have an acceptable advantage against diesel. Lastly, the environmental and social priorities scenarios resulted in H2 being ranked in the first three positions; however, the first four ranks resulted in compromised solutions since they do not have an acceptable advantage against SMR with CCUS (Table 4-4). Table 4-4. Ranking of fuel alternatives for British Columbia Rank Priority scenario Equal Cost Environmental Social 1 Diesel Diesel H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS 2 H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS 3 H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis 4 H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS Diesel Diesel 5 H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS 6 H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS 4.4.1.2 Alberta In Alberta, diesel was consistently ranked first in all priority scenarios. From a sustainable perspective, the province's energy profile and H2 cost are essential factors contributing to the lower scores assigned to H2 compared to diesel. The only difference in the ranking positions is observed from ranks two to five, where based on the priority defined, the H2 pathway suggested with better ranking varies. Another noticeable constant is the last ranked position, which was consistently 80 observed with water electrolysis. The water electrolysis pathway does not reduce the life cycle emissions of the locomotive. Instead, it resulted in more environmentally harmful and was also the pathway that resulted in the highest LCC (Table 4-5). Table 4-5. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Alberta Rank Priority scenario Equal Cost Environmental Social 1 Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 2 H2 SMR without CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS 3 H2 SMR with CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS 4 H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS 5 H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS 6 H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis 4.4.1.3 Saskatchewan The MCDM ranking of Saskatchewan was equal to the ranks obtained for Alberta. This is a consequence of the similar TBL results obtained in both regions. In addition to diesel, some H2 pathways resulted in compromised solutions depending on the priority scenario. When considering an equal priority, SMR without CCUS resulted in a compromised solution. From a cost-priority perspective, all the H2 pathways, except for water electrolysis, are compromised, while SMR and coal with CCUS are compromised solutions for environmental priority. Lastly, in the social priority, only the SMR without CCUS is a compromised solution (Table 4-6). Table 4-6. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Saskatchewan Rank Priority scenario Equal Cost Environmental Social 1 Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 2 H2 SMR without CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS 3 H2 SMR with CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS 4 H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS 5 H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS 6 H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis 81 4.4.1.4 Manitoba In Manitoba, diesel was the best alternative for equal cost and social priorities. In contrast, the ranking of the environmental priority resulted in H2 being positioned above Diesel, where SMR and coal with CCUS, water electrolysis, and diesel were compromised solutions. For the equal and social priority scenarios, diesel was the only alternative suggested by the model. In contrast, the cost priority scenario suggested all the H2 pathways, except for water electrolysis, as compromised solutions (Table 4-7). Table 4-7. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Manitoba Rank Priority scenario Equal Cost Environmental Social 1 Diesel Diesel H2 SMR with CCUS Diesel 2 H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Water electrolysis H2 SMR without CCUS 3 H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS 4 H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS Diesel H2 Coal with CCUS 5 H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS 6 H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Water electrolysis 4.4.1.5 Ontario The Ontario results were equal to those obtained for Manitoba. The only difference was observed in the ranking of the environmental priority, where water electrolysis occupied the rank of diesel. However, those pathways are still considered a compromise solution as considered in Manitoba. Hence, a similar analysis was obtained for both regions since both provinces have similar life cycle impact results (Table 4-8). Table 4-8. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Ontario Rank Priority scenario Equal Cost Environmental Social 1 Diesel Diesel H2 SMR with CCUS Diesel 2 H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS Diesel H2 SMR without CCUS 3 H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS 4 H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 Water electrolysis H2 Coal with CCUS 5 H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS 6 H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Water electrolysis 82 4.4.1.6 Quebec The results in Quebec showed similar trends to those in Manitoba and Ontario when considering equal cost and social priorities. However, when prioritizing environmental factors, H2 from SMR with CCUS and water electrolysis emerged as higher-ranked alternatives to diesel. Despite this, the advantage of water electrolysis over SMR with CCUS was not significant within the top four ranks. Therefore, the model suggested considering the top four alternatives as compromised solutions when adopting an environmental priority (Table 4-9). Table 4-9. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Quebec Rank Priority scenario Equal Cost Environmental Social 1 Diesel Diesel H2 SMR with CCUS Diesel 2 H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Water electrolysis H2 SMR without CCUS 3 H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS Diesel H2 SMR with CCUS 4 H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS 5 H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS 6 H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Water electrolysis 4.4.1.7 Atlantic Canada Similarly to most provinces, diesel was the best alternative for equal cost and social priorities in the Atlantic region. However, from a cost-priority perspective, all the H2 pathways, except for water electrolysis, were also compromised solutions. Furthermore, when adopting the environmental priority, SMR with CCUS was the highest-ranked alternative, with diesel suggested as a compromised solution (Table 4-10). Table 4-10. Ranking of fuel alternatives for Atlantic Canada Rank Priority scenario Equal Cost Environmental Social 1 Diesel Diesel H2 SMR with CCUS Diesel 2 H2 SMR with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS Diesel H2 SMR without CCUS 3 H2 SMR without CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR with CCUS 4 H2 Coal with CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS H2 SMR without CCUS H2 Coal with CCUS 5 H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Water electrolysis H2 Coal without CCUS 6 H2 Water electrolysis H2 Water electrolysis H2 Coal without CCUS H2 Water electrolysis 83 Overall, the rankings and compromised solutions suggested by the MCDM model varied by region. However, regions with similar life cycle impacts and energy profiles exhibited similar trends. For example, Alberta and Saskatchewan, where non-renewable energy sources dominate, showed similar ranking results. In contrast, provinces with a higher share of renewable energy sources, such as British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, had different rankings when considering environmental priorities. 4.5 Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Tool The tool was structured in six different worksheets. In this chapter, Figure 4-15 to Figure 4-19 present a visual demonstration of the tool that the user can interact with. It shows the specific case of British Columbia when considering an equal-importance scenario. However, it is important to mention that the tool’s outputs can vary depending on the inputs the user defines. The first worksheet defines the tool instructions and provides an overview of its structure. Furthermore, some of the variables and specific data were defined, in addition to the alternatives the user can change according to the desired conditions to be analyzed. As illustrated in Figure 4-15, the second worksheet presents the main inputs to be defined by the user. These inputs include the region under study, the locomotive’s lifespan, discount rate, average speed, travelling trend, days of operation, regular maintenance cost and the criteria of importance. The region under study is a displayed list with the seven Canadian regions analyzed in this thesis. The locomotive’s lifespan varies depending on the locomotive’s application. Hence, this is a variable that the user can define according to the specific application or utilize the default value, as previously defined in this thesis, as 20 years. Similarly, the discount rate can be adjusted to the current financial conditions when the tool is used since the default-defined value considers the historical interest rates and inflation rates of the previous 10 years (2014-2023). However, these rates can change drastically over time and adjusting the real conditions can increase the accuracy of the LCC results. Additional data specific to the rail line to be studied can be defined in the variables average speed, travelling trend, days of operation and regular maintenance costs since these variables are highly dependent on the type of rail line operation and can potentially create a high impact on the outcomes of the model. Lastly, the criteria importance defines the weights that the user wants to reflect on the ranking alternatives of the MCDM analsysis. Based on the user's 84 perspective, these weights can be defined from the previously defined scenarios: equal priority, economic priority, environmental priority and social priority. Hence, the outcomes in the following LCC, ELCA, SCLA, and MCDM sheets will be based on the inputs defined in this worksheet. Figure 4-15. Inputs worksheet - MCDM tool The tool's following worksheet corresponds to the LCC analysis, Figure 4-16. In this space, the costing results are automatically shown in the tables located in the above section, followed by a graphic illustration of the cost comparison of the six locomotives' fuel alternatives. The LCC model is based on the inputs selected in the second worksheet and additional data cells in the LCC worksheet. Some data cells can be edited according to the case-specific data that the user may access and, therefore, adjust the results to improve the accuracy of the outputs. These variables that can be adjusted are presented in green and include data such as efficiencies, fuel costs, component costs, and the locomotive's configuration design (power output, lifespan, storage capacity, and consumption rate). If the user decides to adjust the variables, the results in the tables and figures adjust accordingly, and the final LCC outcomes can be evaluated. The life cycle emissions are estimated in the following worksheet, illustrated in Figure 4-17. The structure is similar to the LCC worksheet, providing the life cycle emissions for the six fuel alternatives in the above section and a figure demonstrating the comparison of the results. Region under studyLocomotive's lifespan 20 yearsDiscount rate 4.1%Average speed 75 km/hrKm travelled 300 km/dayNo. days of operation 7 days/weekRegular maintenance cost 35,100$ /yearCriteria importance (weights)LOCOMOTIVE CHARACTERISTICSBritish ColumbiaEqual priority (LCC=ELCA=SLCA)85 Figure 4-16. LCC worksheet - MCDM tool The ELCA model is based on the life cycle emissions obtained from the refurbishing, use and end-of-life phases. These emissions can be adjusted for the variables shown in green, where the refurbishing components' emission rates per unit of mass can be adjusted. Other variables that can be edited include data such as emissions per km driven based on the fuel utilized in the locomotive. Finally, the tables and figures of the results will be updated according to the edited variables. Investment cost -$ Investment cost 2,017,450.50$ Investment cost 2,017,450.50$ NPV Oper cost 9,449,269.64$ NPV Oper cost 8,805,457$ NPV Oper cost 8,069,659$ NPV Maintenance cost 472,824.17$ NPV Maintenance cost 472,824$ NPV Maintenance cost 472,824$ NPV End-of-life cost (-) -$ NPV End-of-life cost (-) (343,953)$ NPV End-of-life cost (-) (343,953)$ TOTAL LCC 9,922,093.81$ TOTAL LCC 10,951,779$ TOTAL LCC 10,215,981$ LCC/KM DRIVEN 4.54$ LCC/KM DRIVEN 5.01$ LCC/KM DRIVEN 4.68$ Investment cost 2,017,450.50$ Investment cost 2,017,450.50$ Investment cost 2,017,450.50$ NPV Oper cost 15,379,394$ NPV Oper cost 8,805,457$ NPV Oper cost 8,069,659$ NPV Maintenance cost 472,824$ NPV Maintenance cost 472,824$ NPV Maintenance cost 472,824$ NPV End-of-life cost (-) (343,953)$ NPV End-of-life cost (-) (343,953)$ NPV End-of-life cost (-) (343,953)$ TOTAL LCC 17,525,716$ TOTAL LCC 10,951,779$ TOTAL LCC 10,215,981$ LCC/KM DRIVEN 8.02$ LCC/KM DRIVEN 5.01$ LCC/KM DRIVEN 4.68$ Diesel Water electrolysisSMR with CCUS Coal with CCUS SMR without CCUSCoal without CCUSInvestment cost -$ ####### 2,017,450.50$ 2,017,450.50$ ###### 2,017,450.50$ NPV Oper cost 9,449,269.64$ ####### 8,805,457.05$ 8,805,457.05$ ###### 8,069,658.58$ NPV Maintenance cost 472,824.17$ ####### 472,824.17$ 472,824.17$ ###### 472,824.17$ NPV End-of-life cost (-) -$ ####### (343,952.66)$ (343,952.66)$ ###### (343,952.66)$ TOTAL LCC 9,922,093.81$ ####### 10,951,779.06$ 10,951,779.06$ ###### 10,215,980.59$ LCC/KM DRIVEN 4.54$ 8.02$ 5.01$ 5.01$ 4.68$ 4.68$ Water electrolysisCONVENTIONAL LOCOMOTIVE COSTSLIFE CYCLE COST ASSESSMENTHYDROGEN LOCOMOTIVE COSTSCoal with CCUSHYDROGEN LOCOMOTIVE COSTSCoal without CCUSHYDROGEN LOCOMOTIVE COSTSHYDROGEN LOCOMOTIVE COSTSSMR with CCUSHYDROGEN LOCOMOTIVE COSTSSMR without CCUSDiesel $(5) $- $5 $10 $15 $20Diesel Water electrolysis SMR with CCUS Coal with CCUS SMR without CCUS Coal without CCUSMillions (CAD)Life Cycle CostInvestment cost NPV Oper cost NPV Maintenance cost NPV End-of-life cost (-)86 Figure 4-17. ELCA worksheet - MCDM tool The last analysis from the TBL assessment is the SLCA, presented in Figure 4-18. In this worksheet, the scale of the social impact scores is shown in the above section, followed by the table that estimates the multiple category scores of the social analysis for the six fuel alternatives. The bottom section compares the potential social impacts expected for each fuel alternative. The SLCA scores are based on six categories: economic, environmental, human health, practicability, safety and scalability. The first three categories are estimated based on the previous worksheets since their evaluation is proportional to the estimated costs and emissions. Therefore, the variables allowed to be edited are the practicability, safety and scalability scores that can change depending on the stakeholder's perspective and the technological advancements the H2 production pathway has in the specific region under study. Refurbishing - Refurbishing 868,151 Refurbishing 868,151 Operation 16,215,453 Operation 10,482,151 Operation 24,486,515 End-of-Life - End-of-Life (8,621) End-of-Life (8,621) Total Life Cycle Emisisons 16,215,453 Total Life Cycle Emisisons 11,341,681 Total Life Cycle Emisisons 25,346,045 CO2-eq/km driven 7.42 CO2-eq/km driven 5.19 CO2-eq/km driven 11.61 Refurbishing 868,151 Refurbishing 868,151 Refurbishing 868,151 Operation 9,045,201 Operation 12,933,093 Operation 39,999,473 End-of-Life (8,621) End-of-Life (8,621) End-of-Life (8,621) Total Life Cycle Emisisons 9,904,731 Total Life Cycle Emisisons 13,792,623 Total Life Cycle Emisisons 40,859,003 CO2-eq/km driven 4.54 CO2-eq/km driven 6.32 CO2-eq/km driven 18.71 Diesel Water electrolysisSMR with CCUS Coal with CCUSSMR without CCUSCoal without CCUSRefurbishing - 868,151 868,151 # 868,151 Operation 16,215,453.22 10,482,151 12,933,093 # 39,999,473 End-of-Life - (8,621) (8,621) # (8,621) Total Life Cycle Emisisons 16,215,453.22 11,341,681 13,792,623 # 40,859,003 CO2-eq/km driven 7.42 5 6 # 19 Water electrolysisHYDROGEN LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS (kgCO2eq)SMR with CCUSHYDROGEN LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS (kgCO2eq)SMR without CCUSHYDROGEN LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS (kgCO2eq)Coal with CCUSHYDROGEN LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS (kgCO2eq)Coal without CCUSENVIRONMENTAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTHYDROGEN LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS (kgCO2eq)CONVENTIONAL LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS (kgCO2eq)Diesel (5,000) - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000Diesel Water electrolysis SMR with CCUS Coal with CCUS SMR without CCUS Coal without CCUSTonnes of CO2eq Life Cycle EmissionsRefurbishing Operation End-of-Life87 Figure 4-18. SLCA worksheet - MCDM tool The last worksheet presented on the tool is the MCDM analysis, illustrated in Figure 4-19. In this space, the above section shows the estimated ranking of the fuel alternatives using the VIKOR method. Additionally, this table is followed by the criteria to be considered when analysing the ranking results. This section describes the characteristics required to validate the ranking results, defines where the best S and R values are located, and evaluates if the second-sixth rank has an acceptable advantage against rank one to demonstrate the number of compromised solutions in the model. 1 Positive rating2 Moderate rating3 Poor ratingEconomic EnvironmentalHuman health Practicality Safety Scalability AverageDiesel 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1Water electrolysis 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.2SMR with CCUS 1.3 1.1 1.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6SMR without CCUS 1.1 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5Coal with CCUS 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6Coal without CCUS 1.1 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.8Category scoreSOCIAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTScale (1-3)Fuel02468101214Diesel Water electrolysis SMR with CCUS SMR without CCUS Coal with CCUS Coal without CCUSSocial impact scoreEconomic Environmental Human health Practicality Safety Scalability88 Figure 4-19. MCDM worksheet - MCDM tool In this MCDM worksheet, the user can only adjust the weighting criteria assigned for the priority perspective evaluation. This allows the user to reflect the stakeholders' perspectives when a different decision-making scenario must be evaluated, assigning a higher or lower weight to a specific category in the model, such as the life cycle emissions, costs, or potential social impacts. This tool estimates the life cycle costs, emissions and potential social impacts required for a TBL analysis. Additionally, it provides an MCDM ranking of the H2 fuel alternatives to diesel for locomotives under multiple scenarios based on the stakeholders' perspectives, their regions, and numerous technical specifications to provide more decision-makers with the necessary information for evaluating a sustainable alternative in the railway sector. RANK FUEL LCC (CAD)ELCA (kgCO2-eq)SLCA score C1 C21 Diesel 9,922,094$ 16,215,453 1.14 Best S Best R2 SMR with CCUS 10,951,779$ 11,341,681 1.58 Acceptable advantage against rank 13 Coal with CCUS 10,951,779$ 13,792,623 1.63 Acceptable advantage against rank 14 SMR without CCUS 10,215,981$ 25,346,045 1.51 Acceptable advantage against rank 15 Coal without CCUS 10,215,981$ 40,859,003 1.85 Acceptable advantage against rank 16 Water electrolysis 17,525,716$ 9,904,731 2.17 Acceptable advantage against rank 1MULTICRITERIA DECISION MAKING 0.000.501.001.502.002.50051015202530354045Diesel SMR with CCUS Coal with CCUS SMR without CCUS Coal without CCUS Water electrolysisSLCA scoreLCC (CAD)ELCA (kgCO2-eq) MillionsTriple Bottom LineLCC (CAD) ELCA (kgCO2-eq) SLCA score89 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations This thesis considered an application of the LCA methodology to evaluate the economic impacts of a retrofitted locomotive as a potential alternative to decarbonize the railway sector in Canada. This evaluation was performed considering the economic implications from the raw materials to the end-of-life phase of the locomotive to provide a comprehensive cost analysis of the main components required to retrofit a hydrogen-powered locomotive throughout its entire lifespan. Additionally, various travelling trends were analyzed to evaluate the contribution of the locomotive's lifecycle phases to the total life cycle impacts and identify potential hotspots within the life cycle. Further analysis of the operational phase was provided for its comparison with multiple H2 production methods and diesel fuel. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate cost-reduction strategies using H2 fuel cell technology. This TBL evaluation demonstrated the application of life cycle thinking to assess the sustainability of hydrogen-powered locomotives based on H2 production pathways and to consider the various energy profiles in Canadian regions. Based on this framework, this chapter briefly describes this thesis's primary outcomes, conclusions, and findings. Based on these findings, recommendations and design guidelines are provided, along with future research prospects and the study's limitations. 5.1 Summary and Conclusions The primary findings of the economic evaluation are as follows:  The travelling trend of the locomotive significantly influences the LCC of the locomotive. When considering short travelling distances, the operation and refurbishing phases of the lifecycle highly impact the LCC by 62 and 24%, respectively. In contrast, for relatively longer travelling distances, the operation phase is the main contributor to the total LCC, with almost 90% of the share.  The maintenance costs of hydrogen-powered locomotives are still a variable under study. Once the technology is globally commercialized, more accurate cost data is expected to be available.  Clean H2 requires cost optimization to be considered a cost-competitive alternative to diesel. To make it cost-competitive and reduce GHG emissions in hydrogen-powered 90 locomotives, the market cost of clean H2 needs to be reduced by approximately $5/kg. However, achieving this reduction will require significant effort.  Minimizing the cost of H2 fuel due to its mass utilization in the operational phase is estimated to have a more substantial impact on the overall LCC. When achieving the long-term cost reduction expectations for H2, the LCC is estimated to be reduced by nearly 70% by 2050. These findings align with the LCC projections made by Scott et al. [71], who anticipated that advancements in H2 technology would eventually enable hydrogen-powered locomotives to reach cost parity with diesel locomotives. However, in the analysis presented in this thesis, cost parity is achieved only when H2 is produced with non-clean energy sources. Further technological advancements are necessary to achieve cost parity with diesel locomotives using clean H2. The main findings of the environmental and social evaluations are as follows:  Among the different components of H2 locomotives, the storage tanks stand out as the most environmentally impactful during the refurbishing and end-of-life phases, contributing by 95% to the emissions from the refurbishing phase. This contribution is primarily attributed to the carbon fibre content of the storage tanks. Advances in recycling processes are required to mitigate its carbon footprint.  The emissions produced during fuel production are the leading cause of the locomotive’s operational phase and the overall life cycle emissions. Provinces where more than 87% of the electricity is generated from hydro sources, such as Manitoba, Quebec and B.C., resulted in the lowest environmental impacts when considering the locomotive powered with H2 produced from water electrolysis. In contrast, provinces where more than 81% of electricity is produced using fossil fuels, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, resulted in higher environmental impacts when considering the same water electrolysis pathway for its operation.  The locomotive powered by H2 produced from the thermo-nuclear cracking method, emerged as the cleanest alternative compared to other H2 production pathways and diesel. It achieved a reduction of nearly 84% in the life cycle emissions compared to diesel. 91 However, this method requires further development before it can be commercially implemented.  When comparing the well-established H2 pathways to diesel, water electrolysis showed the most significant reduction in life cycle emissions for B.C., Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. At the same time, the SMR with CCUS method yielded the most significant reduction for Atlantic Canada. Surprisingly, none of the H2 pathways reduced emissions for Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the energy has a significant environmental impact due to its current reliance on fossil fuels.  The life cycle social assessment underscores the importance of considering various aspects—economic, environmental, human health, and technical—when evaluating H2 technology. This comprehensive approach is essential for a thorough analysis. Interestingly, diesel emerged as the least affected pathway in the assessment. This result is attributed to the high reliability that diesel has demonstrated in the rail sector over time. The primary findings of the MCDM analysis are:  The region-specific differences significantly influence the scoring used to determine each province's best H2 alternative for locomotives. Regions with similar energy profiles yield similar results. In provinces with a high percentage of fossil fuel utilization in their energy mix, such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Atlantic Canada, diesel ranks as the best option. This is because H2 production in these regions would increase GHG emissions, resulting in economic and potential social impacts that outweigh the environmental benefits.  When analyzing a specific region and considering the various perspectives that decision-makers may adopt, the top-ranked alternative varied. In the cost-priority scenario, H2 pathways without CCUS were ranked higher. In contrast, when prioritizing environmental factors, pathways with CCUS were ranked higher. The social priority ranking is closely aligned with the cost priority ranking.  H2 produced from SMR with CCUS was identified as the top-ranked alternative to diesel locomotives across all Canadian regions under the environmental priority scenario. While H2 from water electrolysis presents a more environmentally favourable option in provinces like British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, it is associated with higher 92 economic and potential social impacts. Consequently, water electrolysis is not considered the most desirable alternative unless its economic and potential social impacts are adequately addressed. Integrating environmental, economic, and social life cycle analyses achieves a more thorough assessment. The relationship between these three aspects underscores the significance of exploring alternatives that offer environmental benefits and the importance of identifying economically viable alternatives that provide society with the most benefits. 5.2 Recommendations and Design Guidelines Based on the outcomes of this thesis, the following recommendations and design guidelines are concluded: 1. To truly advance H2 technology in rail, it is essential to conduct thorough testing and collect specific data related to railway operations. This approach could improve the accuracy of results and broaden the application of H2 technology to suit the varied conditions encountered by different rail lines 2. The findings are contingent upon the characteristics of the analyzed region, as the choice of electricity source for H2 production significantly impacts all costs, emissions, and potential social impacts. This thesis, which encompasses various Canadian regions, underscores the substantial impact that the variation in electricity sources from one province to another can have on the results. It demonstrates the importance of assessing regional characteristics to evaluate each rail line's suitability for H2 locomotive implementation. 3. The MCDM analysis can assist the stakeholders in the decision-making process. To better assist decision-makers, the weighting scheme must be adjusted accordingly to accommodate these varying priorities and reflect the most accurate ranking. The MCDM tool can also be adjusted to illustrate the selected weighting schemes and facilitate the MCDM process. 4. The implementation of H2 technology in the railway sector also needs to be analyzed in the context of regional incentives and penalties provided by policies. It is imperative that these policies support the adoption of clean technologies, considering that green H2 is currently and will continue to be more expensive in the near future. Therefore, multiple scenarios 93 can be explored to identify potential solutions to the high cost of green H2 while still obtaining the benefits of life cycle emissions reduction. 5.3 Limitations Lack of/ limited data availability: H2 technology still needs to be developed; consequently, comprehensive data for its application in the railway sector is not widely available. Several assumptions must be made considering the data published from the passenger vehicle applications. As most studies have primarily focused on road transport, the data used to assess the H2 technology in the railway sector has often been assumed and extrapolated to fit the rail context. Moreover, in the railway sector, passenger and freight rail transportation exhibit distinct characteristics that require further study to gather reliable data, which could enhance the accuracy of results. Region-specific conditions: When assessing the life cycle impacts of H2 locomotives, it is crucial to analyze region-specific conditions. The energy source varies significantly from region to region, leading to different emissions levels during H2 production. These variations affect not only the environmental impacts but also the social evaluation of the H2 alternative. These results underscore the importance of using clean electricity to produce H2, thereby enabling the development of a net-zero transportation sector. Technology advancements: When evaluating the potential social impacts in the TBL analysis, all the H2 pathways resulted in a higher social impact score when compared to diesel. This is due to the technical and safety aspects currently changing in the industry, which are important concerns that H2 locomotives possess. Therefore, their future social evaluation can be overcome for the scenarios where the outcomes reveal environmental benefits and the economic impacts are acceptable for the market conditions. 94 References [1] World Meteorological Organization (WMO), State of the Global Climate 2022. Geneva: United Nations, 2023. [2] Environment Canada, “Greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada: executive summary 2022.” Jul. 22, 2022. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-emissions/sources-sinks-executive-summary-2022.html [3] UNEP, “Transport,” UNEP - UN Environment Programme. Accessed: Mar. 07, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://www.unep.org/explore-topics/energy/what-we-do/transport [4] IEA, “Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2023,” Paris, 2023. Accessed: Mar. 07, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/tracking-clean-energy-progress-2023 [5] IEA, “CO2 Emissionsins in 2023,” Paris, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023 [6] IEA, “World Energy Outlook 2023,” Paris, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023 [7] IEA, “ETP Clean Energy Technology Guide,” Paris, 2016. Accessed: Mar. 07, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/etp-clean-energy-technology-guide [8] IEA, The Future of Rail: Opportunities for energy and the environment. OECD, 2019. doi: 10.1787/9789264312821-en. [9] IEA, “Global Hydrogen Review 2022,” Paris, License: CC BY 4.0, 2022. Accessed: Aug. 23, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2022 [10] N. Metzger and X. Li, “Technical and Economic Analysis of Fuel Cells for Forklift Applications,” ACS Omega, vol. 7, no. 22, pp. 18267–18275, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1021/acsomega.1c07344. [11] Briginshaw D., “SNCF aims for zero emissions by 2035,” Jun. 26, 2019. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.railjournal.com/news/sncf-aims-for-zero-emissions-by-2035/ [12] Geerts E, “Hydrogen trains will replace diesel units in Groningen,” Jan. 10, 2020. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: www.railtech.com/rolling-st 95 [13] Steffen AD, “Britain’s strategy to decarbonize 15 140 km of train lines,” Sep. 10, 2020. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.intelligentliving.co/britains-decarbonize-train-lines/. [14] Zasiadko M, “Deutsche Bahn to become carbon neutral by 2050,” Jan. 10, 2020. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: www.railtech.com/policy/2020/09/07/deutsche-bahn-to-become-carbonneutral-by-2050 [15] C. Palmer, “Hydrogen-Powered Trains Start to Roll,” Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 9–11, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2022.02.003. [16] AFP, “Whistle blows in Germany for world’s first hydrogen train fleet,” France 24. Accessed: Aug. 29, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220824-whistle-blows-in-germany-for-world-s-first-hydrogen-train-fleet [17] Ballard Power Systems, Inc., “World’s first commercial fuel cell-powered tram line,” Burnaby, BC, May 2023. Accessed: Aug. 28, 2023. [Online]. Available: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ballard.com/docs/default-source/motive-modules-documents/rail_foshan_case-study_may_2023.pdf?sfvrsn=b39cde80_2 [18] Toyota Motor, “JR East, Hitachi and Toyota to Develop Hybrid (Fuel Cell) Railway Vehicles Powered by Hydrogen | Corporate | Global Newsroom,” Toyota Motor Corporation Official Global Website. Accessed: Aug. 29, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/33954855.html [19] Railway Association of Canada, “Locomotive emissions monitoring report 2021,” Ottawa, Ontario, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.railcan.ca/resources/locomotive-emissions-monitoring/ [20] Alstom, “First in the Americas: Alstom’s hydrogen train enters revenue service in Charlevoix in Quebec,” Alstom. Accessed: Aug. 29, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2023/6/first-americas-alstoms-hydrogen-train-enters-revenue-service-charlevoix-quebec [21] F. Razi and I. Dincer, “Challenges, opportunities and future directions in hydrogen sector development in Canada,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 47, no. 15, pp. 9083–9102, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.01.014. 96 [22] K. V. Vilbergsson, K. Dillman, N. Emami, E. J. Ásbjörnsson, J. Heinonen, and D. C. Finger, “Can remote green hydrogen production play a key role in decarbonizing Europe in the future? A cradle-to-gate LCA of hydrogen production in Austria, Belgium, and Iceland,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, p. S0360319923000824, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.01.081. [23] S. Atilhan, S. Park, M. M. El-Halwagi, M. Atilhan, M. Moore, and R. B. Nielsen, “Green hydrogen as an alternative fuel for the shipping industry,” Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, vol. 31, p. 100668, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.coche.2020.100668. [24] T. M. Gulotta, R. Salomone, F. Lanuzza, G. Saija, G. Mondello, and G. Ioppolo, “Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing of unitized regenerative fuel cell: A systematic review,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 92, p. 106698, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106698. [25] D. I. Rinawati, A. R. Keeley, S. Takeda, and S. Managi, “A systematic review of life cycle assessment of hydrogen for road transport use,” Prog. Energy, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 012001, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1088/2516-1083/ac34e9. [26] J. C. G. Trillos, D. Wilken, U. Brand, and T. Vogt, “Life Cycle Assessment of a Hydrogen and Fuel Cell RoPax Ferry Prototype,” in Progress in Life Cycle Assessment 2019, S. Albrecht, M. Fischer, P. Leistner, and L. Schebek, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 5–23. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-50519-6_2. [27] A. M. Jokela, I. G. Polden, O. S. Tanum, and V. Seim, “Livsløpsanalyse av hydrogen-elektrisk ferje,” Høgskulen på Vestlandet, Norway, 2018. [28] P. Gilbert, C. Walsh, M. Traut, U. Kesieme, K. Pazouki, and A. Murphy, “Assessment of full life-cycle air emissions of alternative shipping fuels,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 172, pp. 855–866, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.165. [29] Y. Bicer and I. Dincer, “Clean fuel options with hydrogen for sea transportation: A life cycle approach,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 1179–1193, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.10.157. [30] A. Fernández-Ríos et al., “Environmental sustainability of alternative marine propulsion technologies powered by hydrogen - a life cycle assessment approach,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 820, p. 153189, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153189. 97 [31] O. Siddiqui and I. Dincer, “A comparative life cycle assessment of clean aviation fuels,” Energy, vol. 234, p. 121126, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.121126. [32] Y. Bicer and I. Dincer, “A comparative life cycle assessment of alternative aviation fuels,” Int J Sustain Aviat, vol. 2, pp. 181–202, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSA.2016.080240. [33] S. R. Pereira, T. Fontes, and M. C. Coelho, “Can hydrogen or natural gas be alternatives for aviation? – A life cycle assessment,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 39, no. 25, pp. 13266–13275, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.06.146. [34] C. Koroneos, A. Dompros, G. Roumbas, and N. Moussiopoulos, “Advantages of the use of hydrogen fuel as compared to kerosene,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 99–113, May 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.09.004. [35] IEA, “The Future of Hydrogen,” Paris, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen [36] M. V. Chester and A. Horvath, “Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 4, no. 2, p. 024008, Apr. 2009, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008. [37] IPCC, “IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)],” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647. [38] J. F. B. Mitchell, “The ‘Greenhouse’ effect and climate change,” Reviews of Geophysics, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 115–139, Feb. 1989, doi: 10.1029/RG027i001p00115. [39] Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: Greenhouse gas emissions. Gatineau QC: Environment and Climate Change Canada = Environnement et changement climatique Canada, 2023. [Online]. Available: www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gasemissions.html. [40] IEA, “World Energy Balances: Overview.” 2021. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-overview 98 [41] P. Ahmadi and E. Kjeang, “Realistic simulation of fuel economy and life cycle metrics for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: Realistic simulation of fuel economy and life cycle metrics for FCVs,” Int. J. Energy Res., vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 714–727, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1002/er.3672. [42] R. K. Pachauri et al., Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ipcc, 2014. [43] N. Ahsan, K. Hewage, F. Razi, S. A. Hussain, and R. Sadiq, “A critical review of sustainable rail technologies based on environmental, economic, social, and technical perspectives to achieve net zero emissions,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 185, p. 113621, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.113621. [44] S. Chan, L. Miranda-Moreno, and Z. Patterson, “Analysis of GHG Emissions for City Passenger Trains: Is Electricity an Obvious Option for Montreal Commuter Trains?,” JTTs, vol. 03, no. 02, pp. 17–29, 2013, doi: 10.4236/jtts.2013.32A003. [45] Y. Sun, M. Anwar, N. M. S. Hassan, M. Spiryagin, and C. Cole, “A review of hydrogen technologies and engineering solutions for railway vehicle design and operations,” Rail. Eng. Science, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 212–232, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40534-021-00257-8. [46] A. Stadler Rail, “GTW DMU 2/6 low-floor for Denton county transportation authority (DCTA), Texas, USA,” Bussnang: Author, 2012. [47] A. Stadler Rail, “DTW DMU 2/6 low-floor: light-weight diesel rail vehicle for capital metro, Austin, Texas, USA,” Bussnang: Author, 2008. [48] A. Hoffrichter, S. Hillmansen, and C. Roberts, “Conceptual propulsion system design for a hydrogen‐powered regional train,” IET Electrical Systems in Transportation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 56–66, 2016. [49] F. C. Barbosa, “Fuel cell rail technology review: a tool for an autonomous rail electrifying strategy,” presented at the ASME/IEEE Joint Rail Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2019, p. V001T07A001. [50] IEA, “Global Hydrogen Review 2023,” Paris, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2023 [51] A. I. Osman et al., “Hydrogen production, storage, utilisation and environmental impacts: a review,” Environ Chem Lett, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 153–188, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10311-021-01322-8. 99 [52] Natural Resources Canada, Hydrogen strategy for Canada: seizing the opportunities for hydrogen : a call to action. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, 2020. [53] F. Dawood, M. Anda, and G. M. Shafiullah, “Hydrogen production for energy: An overview,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 3847–3869, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.059. [54] N. Saithong, S. Authayanun, Y. Patcharavorachot, and A. Arpornwichanop, “Thermodynamic analysis of the novel chemical looping process for two-grade hydrogen production with CO2 capture,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 180, pp. 325–337, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.11.003. [55] A. I. Osman, N. C. Skillen, P. K. J. Robertson, D. W. Rooney, and K. Morgan, “Exploring the photocatalytic hydrogen production potential of titania doped with alumina derived from foil waste,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 45, no. 59, pp. 34494–34502, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.02.065. [56] K. Bareiß, C. De La Rua, M. Möckl, and T. Hamacher, “Life cycle assessment of hydrogen from proton exchange membrane water electrolysis in future energy systems,” Applied Energy, vol. 237, pp. 862–872, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.001. [57] C. Zhu et al., “Construction of CDs/CdS photocatalysts for stable and efficient hydrogen production in water and seawater,” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, vol. 242, pp. 178–185, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2018.09.096. [58] A. S. Aricò, S. Siracusano, N. Briguglio, V. Baglio, A. Di Blasi, and V. Antonucci, “Polymer electrolyte membrane water electrolysis: status of technologies and potential applications in combination with renewable power sources,” J Appl Electrochem, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 107–118, Feb. 2013, doi: 10.1007/s10800-012-0490-5. [59] IRENA, “Hydrogen,” International RenewableEnergy Agency. Accessed: Jun. 08, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.irena.org/Energy-Transition/Technology/Hydrogen [60] Y. Haseli, G. Naterer, and I. Dincer, “Comparative assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation of hydrogen passenger trains,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 1788–1796, Apr. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.02.005. [61] B. Olateju, A. Kumar, and M. Secanell, “A techno-economic assessment of large scale wind-hydrogen production with energy storage in Western Canada,” International Journal of 100 Hydrogen Energy, vol. 41, no. 21, pp. 8755–8776, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.03.177. [62] S. Sarkar and A. Kumar, “Biohydrogen production from forest and agricultural residues for upgrading of bitumen from oil sands,” Energy, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 582–591, Feb. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2009.10.029. [63] V. Utgikar and T. Thiesen, “Life cycle assessment of high temperature electrolysis for hydrogen production via nuclear energy,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 939–944, Jun. 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.07.001. [64] C. Koroneos, “Life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel production processes,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 1443–1450, Nov. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2004.01.016. [65] J. Dufour, D. Serrano, J. Galvez, J. Moreno, and C. Garcia, “Life cycle assessment of processes for hydrogen production. Environmental feasibility and reduction of greenhouse gases emissions,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1370–1376, Feb. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.11.053. [66] D. Milani, A. Kiani, and R. McNaughton, “Renewable-powered hydrogen economy from Australia’s perspective,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 45, no. 46, pp. 24125–24145, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.06.041. [67] D. Candelaresi, A. Valente, D. Iribarren, J. Dufour, and G. Spazzafumo, “Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen-fuelled passenger cars,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 46, no. 72, pp. 35961–35973, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.01.034. [68] Q. Lu, B. Zhang, S. Yang, and Z. Peng, “Life cycle assessment on energy efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in China,” Energy, vol. 257, p. 124731, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.124731. [69] J. Ally and T. Pryor, “Life-cycle assessment of diesel, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell bus transportation systems,” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 170, no. 2, pp. 401–411, Jul. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.04.036. [70] Y. Bicer and I. Dincer, “Life cycle evaluation of hydrogen and other potential fuels for aircrafts,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 42, no. 16, pp. 10722–10738, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.12.119. 101 [71] D. S. Scott, H.-H. Rogner, and M. B. Scott, “Fuel cell locomotives in Canada,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 253–263, 1993. [72] H. Jun and J. Kim, “Life cycle cost modeling for railway vehicle,” presented at the 2007 International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), IEEE, 2007, pp. 1989–1994. [73] A. Butor and K. Labisz, “Reduction of Life-cycle Costs of Locomotives by Leaning Maintenance Process,” Problemy Kolejnictwa - Railway Reports, vol. 64, no. 188, pp. 103–113, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.36137/1882E. [74] J. Olmos, I. Gandiaga, D. Lopez, X. Larrea, T. Nieva, and I. Aizpuru, “In-depth Life Cycle Cost Analysis of a Li-ion Battery-based Hybrid Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit,” in 2020 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Gijon, Spain: IEEE, Nov. 2020, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/VPPC49601.2020.9330908. [75] F. Stodolsky, L. Gaines, R. Cuenca, and J. J. Eberhardt, “Lifecycle Analysis for Freight Transport,” SAE transactions, pp. 2166–2181, 1998. [76] M. Chester and A. Horvath, “High-speed rail with emerging automobiles and aircraft can reduce environmental impacts in California’s future,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 7, no. 3, p. 034012, Sep. 2012, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034012. [77] M. Chester, S. Pincetl, Z. Elizabeth, W. Eisenstein, and J. Matute, “Infrastructure and automobile shifts: positioning transit to reduce life-cycle environmental impacts for urban sustainability goals,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 015041, Mar. 2013, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015041. [78] K. G. Logan, J. D. Nelson, B. C. McLellan, and A. Hastings, “Electric and hydrogen rail: Potential contribution to net zero in the UK,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 87, p. 102523, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102523. [79] R. Adami Mattioda, P. Teixeira Fernandes, J. Luiz Casela, and O. Canciglieri Junior, “Social Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Energy Technologies,” in Hydrogen Economy, Elsevier, 2017, pp. 171–188. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-811132-1.00007-9. [80] A. Valente, D. Iribarren, and J. Dufour, “Comparative life cycle sustainability assessment of renewable and conventional hydrogen,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 756, p. 144132, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144132. 102 [81] B. D. Ehrhart, L. E. Klebanoff, E. Hecht, A. Headley, M. Ng, and C. Markt, “Impact of Hydrogen for Rail Applications.,” Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States); Sandia National Lab.(SNL-CA), Livermore, CA (United States), 2019. [82] L. Gaines and F. Stodolsky, “Lifecycle analysis: uses and pitfalls,” Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL (United States), 1997. [83] H. Safaei Mohamadabadi, G. Tichkowsky, and A. Kumar, “Development of a multi-criteria assessment model for ranking of renewable and non-renewable transportation fuel vehicles,” Energy, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 112–125, Jan. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2008.09.004. [84] T. Myllyviita, A. Holma, R. Antikainen, K. Lähtinen, and P. Leskinen, “Assessing environmental impacts of biomass production chains – application of life cycle assessment (LCA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA),” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 29–30, pp. 238–245, Jul. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.019. [85] D. Narayanan, Y. Zhang, and M. S. Mannan, “Engineering for Sustainable Development (ESD) in Bio-Diesel Production,” Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 349–359, 2007, doi: 10.1205/psep07016. [86] J. Geldermann and O. Rentz, “Multi‐criteria Analysis for Technique Assessment:Case Study from Industrial Coating,” J of Industrial Ecology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 127–142, Jul. 2005, doi: 10.1162/1088198054821591. [87] V. Prado-Lopez, T. P. Seager, M. Chester, L. Laurin, M. Bernardo, and S. Tylock, “Stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) as an interpretation method for comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA),” Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 405–416, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0641-x. [88] B. G. Hermann, C. Kroeze, and W. Jawjit, “Assessing environmental performance by combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental performance indicators,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 15, no. 18, pp. 1787–1796, Dec. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.04.004. [89] J. Seppälä, S. Koskela, M. Melanen, and M. Palperi, “The Finnish metals industry and the environment,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 35, no. 1–2, pp. 61–76, Apr. 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00122-7. [90] X. Zhou and J. M. Schoenung, “An integrated impact assessment and weighting methodology: Evaluation of the environmental consequences of computer display technology 103 substitution,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 1–24, Apr. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.01.006. [91] R. R. Tan, A. B. Culaba, and M. R. I. Purvis, “POLCAGE 1.0—a possibilistic life-cycle assessment model for evaluating alternative transportation fuels,” Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 907–918, Oct. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.10.004. [92] K. Rogers and T. P. Seager, “Environmental Decision-Making Using Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Stochastic Multiattribute Decision Analysis: A Case Study on Alternative Transportation Fuels,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1718–1723, Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1021/es801123h. [93] G. Aiello, S. Quaranta, R. Inguanta, A. Certa, and M. Venticinque, “A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for Zero Emission Vehicle Fleet Renewal Considering Lifecycle and Scenario Uncertainty,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 6, p. 1371, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.3390/en17061371. [94] M. E. Bouwman and H. C. Moll, “Environmental analyses of land transportation systems in The Netherlands,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 331–345, Sep. 2002, doi: 10.1016/S1361-9209(02)00002-0. [95] W. Zhang et al., “Comparison study on life-cycle costs of different trams powered by fuel cell systems and others,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 41, no. 38, pp. 16577–16591, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.03.032. [96] ISO, “ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines.” 2006. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html [97] ISO, “ISO14040:2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework.” 2006. [98] D. G. Woodward, “Life cycle costing—Theory, information acquisition and application,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 335–344, Dec. 1997, doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00089-0. [99] L. Rose, M. Hussain, S. Ahmed, K. Malek, R. Costanzo, and E. Kjeang, “A comparative life cycle assessment of diesel and compressed natural gas powered refuse collection vehicles in a Canadian city,” Energy Policy, vol. 52, pp. 453–461, 2013. 104 [100] Y. Ruf et al., “Study on the use of fuel cells and hydrogen in the railway environment,” vol. Report 2, 2019. [101] British Columbia Utilities Commission, “Home Page - Gas Prices BC,” Gas Prices BC. Accessed: Dec. 07, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.gaspricesbc.ca/ [102] HTEC, “FAQs,” HTEC. Accessed: Jul. 07, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.htec.ca/faqs/ [103] B. Olateju and A. Kumar, “Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production from underground coal gasification (UCG) in Western Canada with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for upgrading bitumen from oil sands,” Applied Energy, vol. 111, pp. 428–440, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.05.014. [104] B. Olateju and A. Kumar, “Hydrogen production from wind energy in Western Canada for upgrading bitumen from oil sands,” Energy, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 6326–6339, Nov. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2011.09.045. [105] I. Dincer and C. Zamfirescu, “Sustainable hydrogen production options and the role of IAHE,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 37, no. 21, pp. 16266–16286, Nov. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.02.133. [106] Deloitte China, “Fueling the Future of Mobility,” Hydrogen and fuel cell solutions for transportation, vol. 1, 2020. [107] European Commission, Joint Research Centre, M. Steen, F. Di Persio, L. Boon-Brett, and N. Lebedeva, EU competitiveness in advanced li-ion batteries for e-mobility and stationary storage applications : opportunities and actions. Publications Office, 2018. doi: 10.2760/75757. [108] Hexagon Purus, “Hydrogen high-pressure Type 4 cylinders,” Hexagon Purus. Accessed: Aug. 15, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://hexagonpurus.com/our-solutions/hydrogen-systems/hydrogen-type-4-cylinders [109] CNG United, “CNG Tank 4. 21″ x 60″ ( 22gge). Super CNG Tank Special! – Natural Gas Conversion Systems – CNG Training School | CNG Kits, Tanks.” Accessed: Aug. 15, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.cngunited.com/cng-tank-4-21-x-60-22gge-super-cng-tank-special/ 105 [110] Railway Association of Canada, “Rail Trends 2022,” Ottawa, Ontario, 978-1-927520-17–8, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.railcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RAC-Rail-Trends-2022-EN.pdf [111] S. D. Gleave, “GO Transit Lakeshore express rail benefits case interim report,” 2009. [112] P. C. Ghosh, “High platinum cost: obstacle or blessing for commercialization of low-temperature fuel cell technologies,” Clean Techn Environ Policy, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 595–601, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10098-016-1254-4. [113] Ballard, “Recycling PEM Fuel Cells,” Burnaby, BC, Technical note. Accessed: May 15, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://info.ballard.com/technical-note-recycling-fuel-cells [114] J. Sauer, “Great Canadian Battery Drive,” Canadian Energy. Accessed: Aug. 21, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.cdnrg.com/products/recycling/great-canadian-battery-drive [115] T. Mearig, N. Coffee, and M. Morgan, “Life Cycle Cost Analysis Handbook, State of Alaska, Department of Education & Early Development Education Support Services,” Facilities, 1999. [116] Bank of Canada, “Inflation-control target.” Accessed: Feb. 03, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/indicators/key-variables/inflation-control-target/ [117] Bank of Canada, “Canadian interest rates and monetary policy variables: 10-year lookup.” Accessed: Feb. 04, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/interest-rates/canadian-interest-rates/ [118] M. Miotti, J. Hofer, and C. Bauer, “Integrated environmental and economic assessment of current and future fuel cell vehicles,” Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 94–110, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0986-4. [119] PRé Sustainability, “SimaProTutorial,” 6.0, Apr. 2023. Accessed: Jan. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://support.simapro.com/s/article/SimaPro-Tutorial? [120] (S&T) Squared Consultants Inc., “Hydrogen Pathways, Greehouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use,” Delta, Canada, Dec. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.ghgenius.ca/index.php/all-reports/10-hydrogen-pathways-greehouse-gas-emissions-and-energy-use [121] C. Benoît Norris, M. Traverzo, S. Neugebauer, E. Ekener, T. Schaubroeck, and S. Russo Garrido, “Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations 2020,” 2020. 106 [122] U. Farooq, M. Tasnim, M. H. Abbas, and J. Victor, “Challenges and opportunities in scaling Canada’s clean hydrogen economy,” 2022. [123] PRé Sustainability, “SimaPro database manual.” Accessed: Jan. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://support.simapro.com/s/article/SimaPro-Methods-manual [124] O. İ. Kolak, D. Akın, Ş. İ. Birbil, O. Feyzioğlu, and N. Noyan, “Multicriteria sustainability evaluation of transport networks for selected European countries,” Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 2190, no. 1, pp. 117–122, 2011. [125] J. R. San Cristóbal, “Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in spain: The Vikor method,” Renewable energy, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 498–502, 2011. [126] T. Trzaskalik, “Multi-criteria decision support. Review of methods and applications,” Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej. Seria Organizacja i Zarządzanie, no. 74, pp. 239–263, 2014. [127] S. Opricovic and G.-H. Tzeng, “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS,” European journal of operational research, vol. 156, no. 2, pp. 445–455, 2004. [128] A. Kobryń, Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji w gospodarowaniu przestrzenią. Difin SA, 2014. [129] E. Pośpiech and A. Mastalerz-Kodzis, “Multi-criteria method choice to investment decision making,” Zesz. Naukowe Politech. Śląskiej, vol. 86, pp. 379–388, 2015. [130] S. Butterworth, N. Hill, and S. Kallamthodi, “Feasibility study into the use of hydrogen fuel,” Rail Safety & Standards Board, 2005. [131] G. D. Marin, G. F. Naterer, and K. Gabriel, “Rail transportation by hydrogen vs. electrification – Case study for Ontario Canada, I: Propulsion and storage,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 6084–6096, Jun. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.03.098. [132] Nolte, R., “Evaluation of Energy Efficiency Technologies for Rolling Stock and Train Operation of Railways,” Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003. [133] Canada Energy Regulator, “CER – Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles – Canada.” Accessed: Dec. 17, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html#wb-tphp 107 [134] A. Benitez et al., “Ecological assessment of fuel cell electric vehicles with special focus on type IV carbon fiber hydrogen tank,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 278, p. 123277, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123277. [135] L. Correa, F. Razi, R. Sadiq, and K. Hewage, “Life cycle costing analysis of a retrofitted hydrogen-powered locomotive: Canadian context,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 133, p. 104295, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2024.104295. 108 Appendix Table A. 1 - Life cycle inventory data Part Subassembly Material Qty Unit Ecoinvent Inventory PEMFC Stack Catalyst Platinum 0.29 kg Platinum {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Carbon particles 0.09 kg Carbon black {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Polytetrafluoroethylene (PRFE) 0.03 kg Tetrafluoroethylene {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Solvent 2.54 kg Solvent, organic {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Coating 72.39 m2 Selective coat, copper sheet, black chrome {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Plant electricity 361.99 kWh Electricity, low voltage {CA}| market group for | APOS, U Membrane Tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) 13.02 kg Tetrafluoroethylene {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Sulfuric Trioxide 0.33 kg Sulfur trioxide {RoW}| market for sulfur trioxide | APOS, U Expanded PTFE 0.70 kg Tetrafluoroethylene {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Production regular membrane 5.87 kg Fleece, polyethylene {RoW}| production | APOS, U Gas diffusion layer Macroporous layer (MPL) 25.34 kg Carbon fibre reinforced plastic, injection moulded {GLO}| market for carbon fibre reinforced plastic, injection moulded | APOS, U PTFE (for MPL) 2.11 kg Tetrafluoroethylene {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Microporous layer (MiPL) 4.85 kg Carbon black {GLO}| market for | APOS, U PTFE (for MiPL) 1.52 kg Tetrafluoroethylene {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Solvent 0.48 kg Solvent, organic {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Weaving cloth 20.27 kg Finishing, textile, woven cotton {GLO}| market for finishing, textile, woven cotton | APOS, U Production 21.96 kg Extrusion, plastic film {CA-QC}| extrusion, plastic film | APOS, U Coating 72.39 m2 Selective coat, copper sheet, black chrome {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Membrane electrode assembly Assembly MEA 42.22 kg Thermoforming, with calendering {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Gaskets 45.51 kg Polysulfide, sealing compound {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Injection molding of gaskets 29.13 kg Injection moulding {CA-QC}| injection moulding | APOS, U 109 Part Subassembly Material Qty Unit Ecoinvent Inventory PEMFC Stack Bipolar plates Graphite 369.31 kg Graphite {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Thermoset plastic 158.28 kg Phenolic resin {RoW}| market for phenolic resin | APOS, U Injection molded gasket 9.44 kg Polysulfide, sealing compound {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Injection molding 510.17 kg Injection moulding {GLO}| market for | APOS, U End plate Glass fiber 7.00 kg Glass fibre {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Epoxy 7.00 kg Epoxy resin, liquid {RoW}| market for epoxy resin, liquid | APOS, U Copper 12.99 kg Copper-rich materials {GLO}| market for copper-rich materials | APOS, U Current collector Stainless steel 8.21 kg Chromium {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Polypropylene 35.17 kg Polypropylene, granulate {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Compression bands Production Endplate 13.44 kg Injection moulding {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Casing Production collector 12.34 kg Metal working, average for copper product manufacturing {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Production Casing 33.41 kg Thermoforming of plastic sheets {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Stack Transport Rail 435.27 tkm Transport, freight train {US}| market for | APOS, U Transport Lorry 72.55 tkm Transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, euro5 {RoW}| market for transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO5 | APOS, U PEMFC BoP Air management Mass flow sensor 2.55 kg Electronics, for control units {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Water management TFE for Nafion tubes 10.28 kg Tetrafluoroethylene {GLO}| market for | APOS, U ePTFE for Nafion tubes 0.26 kg Sulfur trioxide {RoW}| market for sulfur trioxide | APOS, U Sulfuric Trioxide for Nafion tubes 0.55 kg Tetrafluoroethylene {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Production Nafion tubes 5.07 kg Extrusion, plastic film {CA-QC}| extrusion, plastic film | APOS, U Heat management Antifreeze liquid 59.50 kg Ethylene glycol {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Control (1 P) Hydrogen and oxygen sensors 2.55 kg Electronics, for control units {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Control (1 P) Other sensors 3.40 kg Electronics, for control units {GLO}| market for | APOS, U 110 Part Subassembly Material Qty Unit Ecoinvent Inventory PEMFC BoP Control (1 P) Control electronics 17.00 kg Electronics, for control units {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Other (1 P) Wiring 136.00 m Cable, unspecified {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Hydrogen storage tank Carbon fiber 9605.67 kg Carbon fibre reinforced plastic, injection moulded {GLO}| market for carbon fibre reinforced plastic, injection moulded | APOS, U Foam 618.28 kg Urea formaldehyde foam slab, hard {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Fglass Fiber 618.28 kg Glass fibre {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Liner 1078.51 kg Aluminium alloy, metal matrix composite {GLO}| market for | APOS, U Electricity for production 2732.14 kWh Electricity, low voltage {CA}| market group for | APOS, U Transport Rail 9125.36 tkm Transport, freight train {US}| market for | APOS, U Transport Lorry 1516.34 tkm Transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, euro5 {RoW}| market for transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO5 | APOS, U Battery pack Battery cell 740.48 kg Battery cell, Li-ion, NMC811 {GLO}| market for battery cell, Li-ion, NMC811 | APOS, U Table A. 2 - Decision matrix for British Columbia Alternative Fuel Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor 1 Diesel $ 9,922,094 16,215,453 1.14 2 H2 Water electrolysis $ 17,525,716 9,904,731 2.17 3 H2 SMR with CCUS $ 10,951,779 11,341,681 1.58 4 H2 SMR without CCUS $ 10,215,981 25,346,045 1.51 5 H2 Coal with CCUS $ 10,951,779 13,792,623 1.63 6 H2 Coal without CCUS $ 10,215,981 40,859,003 1.85 Table A. 3 - Decision matrix for Alberta Alternative Fuel Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor 1 Diesel $ 9,922,094 16,723,258 1.00 2 H2 Water electrolysis $ 17,525,716 67,081,417 2.83 3 H2 SMR with CCUS $ 10,951,779 16,516,676 1.55 4 H2 SMR without CCUS $ 10,215,981 28,733,028 1.34 5 H2 Coal with CCUS $ 10,951,779 20,506,907 1.60 6 H2 Coal without CCUS $ 10,215,981 44,449,957 1.55 111 Table A. 4 - Decision matrix for Saskatchewan Alternative Fuel Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor 1 Diesel $ 9,922,094 16,722,830 1.00 2 H2 Water electrolysis $ 17,525,716 72,341,914 2.83 3 H2 SMR with CCUS $ 10,951,779 16,892,384 1.55 4 H2 SMR without CCUS $ 10,215,981 28,951,394 1.33 5 H2 Coal with CCUS $ 10,951,779 21,121,836 1.60 6 H2 Coal without CCUS $ 10,215,981 44,777,390 1.52 Table A. 5 - Decision matrix for Manitoba Alternative Fuel Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor 1 Diesel $ 9,922,094 16,435,104 1.16 2 H2 Water electrolysis $ 17,525,716 8,660,927 2.17 3 H2 SMR with CCUS $ 10,951,779 11,358,571 1.60 4 H2 SMR without CCUS $ 10,215,981 25,393,060 1.53 5 H2 Coal with CCUS $ 10,951,779 13,652,865 1.65 6 H2 Coal without CCUS $ 10,215,981 40,787,883 1.85 Table A. 6 - Decision matrix for Ontario Alternative Fuel Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor 1 Diesel $ 9,922,094 15,809,103 1.06 2 H2 Water electrolysis $ 17,525,716 13,176,219 2.17 3 H2 SMR with CCUS $ 10,951,779 13,567,429 1.55 4 H2 SMR without CCUS $ 10,215,981 27,333,004 1.50 5 H2 Coal with CCUS $ 10,951,779 15,954,078 1.61 6 H2 Coal without CCUS $ 10,215,981 42,471,134 1.85 112 Table A. 7 - Decision matrix for Quebec Table A. 8 - Decision matrix for Atlantic Canada Alternative Fuel Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor 1 Diesel $ 9,922,094 16,004,541 1.07 2 H2 Water electrolysis $ 17,525,716 25,741,765 2.44 3 H2 SMR with CCUS $ 10,951,779 12,315,224 1.55 4 H2 SMR without CCUS $ 10,215,981 25,855,030 1.45 5 H2 Coal with CCUS $ 10,951,779 19,995,496 1.70 6 H2 Coal without CCUS $ 10,215,981 45,246,558 1.85 Alternative Fuel Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor 1 Diesel $ 9,922,094 15,812,066 1.14 2 H2 Water electrolysis $ 17,525,716 8,637,647 2.17 3 H2 SMR with CCUS $ 10,951,779 13,384,768 1.64 4 H2 SMR without CCUS $ 10,215,981 27,277,421 1.55 5 H2 Coal with CCUS $ 10,951,779 15,434,314 1.68 6 H2 Coal without CCUS $ 10,215,981 42,200,795 1.85 113 Table A. 9 – Normalized decision matrix for British Columbia Fuel Equal priority Cost priority Environmental priority Social priority Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Diesel 0.0000 0.0680 0.0000 0.0000 0.0204 0.0000 0.0000 0.1631 0.0000 0.0000 0.0204 0.0000 H2 Water electrolysis 0.3333 0.0000 0.3333 0.8000 0.0000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 0.8000 H2 SMR with CCUS 0.0451 0.0155 0.1423 0.1083 0.0046 0.0427 0.0135 0.0371 0.0427 0.0135 0.0046 0.3416 H2 SMR without CCUS 0.0129 0.1663 0.1217 0.0309 0.0499 0.0365 0.0039 0.3991 0.0365 0.0039 0.0499 0.2920 H2 Coal with CCUS 0.0451 0.0419 0.1594 0.1083 0.0126 0.0478 0.0135 0.1005 0.0478 0.0135 0.0126 0.3826 H2 Coal without CCUS 0.0129 0.3333 0.2297 0.0309 0.1000 0.0689 0.0039 0.8000 0.0689 0.0039 0.1000 0.5513 Table A. 10 – Normalized decision matrix for Alberta Fuel Equal priority Economic priority Environmental priority Social priority Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Diesel 0.0000 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0033 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 H2 Water electrolysis 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.8000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.8000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.8000 H2 SMR with CCUS 0.0451 0.0000 0.0988 0.1083 0.0000 0.0296 0.0135 0.0000 0.0296 0.0135 0.0000 0.2370 H2 SMR without CCUS 0.0129 0.0805 0.0615 0.0309 0.0242 0.0185 0.0039 0.1933 0.0185 0.0039 0.0242 0.1477 H2 Coal with CCUS 0.0451 0.0263 0.1083 0.1083 0.0079 0.0325 0.0135 0.0631 0.0325 0.0135 0.0079 0.2600 H2 Coal without CCUS 0.0129 0.1841 0.0993 0.0309 0.0552 0.0298 0.0039 0.4419 0.0298 0.0039 0.0552 0.2382 114 Table A. 11 – Normalized decision matrix for Saskatchewan Fuel Equal priority Economic priority Environmental priority Social priority Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Diesel 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 H2 Water electrolysis 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.8000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.8000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.8000 H2 SMR with CCUS 0.0451 0.0010 0.0995 0.1083 0.0003 0.0298 0.0135 0.0024 0.0298 0.0135 0.0003 0.2388 H2 SMR without CCUS 0.0129 0.0733 0.0593 0.0309 0.0220 0.0178 0.0039 0.1759 0.0178 0.0039 0.0220 0.1423 H2 Coal with CCUS 0.0451 0.0264 0.1087 0.1083 0.0079 0.0326 0.0135 0.0633 0.0326 0.0135 0.0079 0.2609 H2 Coal without CCUS 0.0129 0.1681 0.0938 0.0309 0.0504 0.0281 0.0039 0.4035 0.0281 0.0039 0.0504 0.2251 Table A. 12 – Normalized decision matrix for Manitoba Fuel Equal priority Economic priority Environmental priority Social priority Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Diesel 0.0000 0.0807 0.0000 0.0000 0.0242 0.0000 0.0000 0.1936 0.0000 0.0000 0.0242 0.0000 H2 Water electrolysis 0.3333 0.0000 0.3333 0.8000 0.0000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 0.8000 H2 SMR with CCUS 0.0451 0.0280 0.1458 0.1083 0.0084 0.0437 0.0135 0.0672 0.0437 0.0135 0.0084 0.3500 H2 SMR without CCUS 0.0129 0.1736 0.1212 0.0309 0.0521 0.0363 0.0039 0.4167 0.0363 0.0039 0.0521 0.2908 H2 Coal with CCUS 0.0451 0.0518 0.1616 0.1083 0.0155 0.0485 0.0135 0.1243 0.0485 0.0135 0.0155 0.3879 H2 Coal without CCUS 0.0129 0.3333 0.2271 0.0309 0.1000 0.0681 0.0039 0.8000 0.0681 0.0039 0.1000 0.5450 115 Table A. 13 – Normalized decision matrix for Ontario Fuel Equal priority Economic priority Environmental priority Social priority Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Diesel 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0090 0.0000 0.0000 0.0719 0.0000 0.0000 0.0090 0.0000 H2 Water electrolysis 0.3333 0.0000 0.3333 0.8000 0.0000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 0.8000 H2 SMR with CCUS 0.0451 0.0045 0.1488 0.1083 0.0013 0.0446 0.0135 0.0107 0.0446 0.0135 0.0013 0.3572 H2 SMR without CCUS 0.0129 0.1611 0.1331 0.0309 0.0483 0.0399 0.0039 0.3866 0.0399 0.0039 0.0483 0.3193 H2 Coal with CCUS 0.0451 0.0316 0.1652 0.1083 0.0095 0.0496 0.0135 0.0759 0.0496 0.0135 0.0095 0.3964 H2 Coal without CCUS 0.0129 0.3333 0.2368 0.0309 0.1000 0.0710 0.0039 0.8000 0.0710 0.0039 0.1000 0.5684 Table A. 14 – Normalized decision matrix for Quebec Fuel Equal priority Economic priority Environmental priority Social priority Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Diesel 0.0000 0.0713 0.0000 0.0000 0.0214 0.0000 0.0000 0.1710 0.0000 0.0000 0.0214 0.0000 H2 Water electrolysis 0.3333 0.0000 0.3333 0.8000 0.0000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 0.8000 H2 SMR with CCUS 0.0451 0.0471 0.1617 0.1083 0.0141 0.0485 0.0135 0.1132 0.0485 0.0135 0.0141 0.3882 H2 SMR without CCUS 0.0129 0.1851 0.1326 0.0309 0.0555 0.0398 0.0039 0.4443 0.0398 0.0039 0.0555 0.3181 H2 Coal with CCUS 0.0451 0.0675 0.1750 0.1083 0.0203 0.0525 0.0135 0.1620 0.0525 0.0135 0.0203 0.4200 H2 Coal without CCUS 0.0129 0.3333 0.2290 0.0309 0.1000 0.0687 0.0039 0.8000 0.0687 0.0039 0.1000 0.5497 116 Table A. 15 – Normalized decision matrix for Atlantic Canada Fuel Equal priority Economic priority Environmental priority Social priority Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Life cycle costs Life cycle emissions Social impact factor Diesel 0.0000 0.0373 0.0000 0.0000 0.0112 0.0000 0.0000 0.0896 0.0000 0.0000 0.0112 0.0000 H2 Water electrolysis 0.3333 0.1359 0.3333 0.8000 0.0408 0.1000 0.1000 0.3262 0.1000 0.1000 0.0408 0.8000 H2 SMR with CCUS 0.0451 0.0000 0.1150 0.1083 0.0000 0.0345 0.0135 0.0000 0.0345 0.0135 0.0000 0.2760 H2 SMR without CCUS 0.0129 0.1371 0.0926 0.0309 0.0411 0.0278 0.0039 0.3289 0.0278 0.0039 0.0411 0.2223 H2 Coal with CCUS 0.0451 0.0777 0.1530 0.1083 0.0233 0.0459 0.0135 0.1866 0.0459 0.0135 0.0233 0.3672 H2 Coal without CCUS 0.0129 0.3333 0.1886 0.0309 0.1000 0.0566 0.0039 0.8000 0.0566 0.0039 0.1000 0.4526
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Civil Engineering
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Hewage, Kasun
Sadiq, Rehan
Life cycle thinking evaluation of hydrogen-powered locomotives : a Canadian context
Text