Thermochemical energy storage (TCES) can support decarbonising the building sector by offering high storage density and the potential for long-duration retention with low standing losses; it can be charged using low-grade solar or waste heat and discharged on demand for peak shaving and renewable integration, though realised benefits depend on material stability and system design. Because units are installed close to occupied buildings, occupant and worker safety is a primary criterion; material selection must therefore look beyond energy metrics to evaluate safety and sustainability. The Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework provides a structured lens for such assessment. This study evaluates the applicability of SSbD to reaction-based TCES materials for buildings. A review of reviews in Scopus identifies 11 reviews and compiles 50 materials. Safety and hazard data are gathered from regulatory sources (ECHA, PubChem) and supplier safety data sheets. Life cycle inventories are screened via the Global Life Cycle Assessment Data Access network and supplemented by literature-based datasets and transparently documented proxies. Cost data are derived from supplier catalogues, market quotations, and literature. Readiness for SSbD assessment spans: 8/50 very high (e.g., CaCl2·6H2O, MgSO4·7H2O), 5/50 high (e.g., LiCl·H2O, MgCl2·6H2O), 10/50 medium (e.g., Na2S·5H2O, SrBr2·6H2O), 3/50 low (MgSO4·6H2O, FeCl2·2H2O, CuCl2·H2O), and 24/50 not ready yet (mainly minor hydrates and all ammonia adducts). Cross-cutting gaps include PMT/vPvM indicators, selected chronic aquatic and endocrine endpoints, and basic occupational safety and health descriptors. The results provide an actionable evidence base for prioritising safer, sustainability-aligned TCES materials to support energy-efficient and climate-resilient buildings.
扫码关注我们
求助内容:
应助结果提醒方式:
