Global Trade of Hydrogen

Global Trade of Hydrogen

While creating a hydrogen economy is generally viewed as an important step towards comprehensive decarbonization, governments, businesses, and researchers are still largely uncertain about whether the hydrogen economy will become truly global or whether it will remain a largely local or regional phenomenon

At the same time, if geographical and other country-specific factors continue to determine the costs of hydrogen production, delivery of H2 over long distances including those of a transoceanic nature might make sense when the cost of import (i.e., production and delivery) is lower than that of domestic production. In these circumstances, choosing the most appropriate hydrogen carrier will be extremely important, as it will help to make the entire H2 value chain more economical and efficient.

Out of all the long-distance hydrogen delivery options, liquid hydrogen and ammonia, methylcyclohexane, and methanol have gained the most attention in the literature and have already been tried by industries as H2 carriers. Although each of these fuels has its own advantages and offers a special set of benefits, none of them is flawless or possess the characteristics of a perfect hydrogen shipping solution. This paper thus first focused on comparing the approximate thermodynamic and conversion losses that would be associated with each of the four mentioned options. It then focused on juxtaposing the approximate minimum levelized costs for the key stages in the value chains for liquid hydrogen and ammonia, MCH, and methanol.

Finally, it highlighted additional issues that should be taken into consideration when comparing options for the purposes of choosing the optimal hydrogen shipping variant. Having compared boil-off gas and conversion losses along the entire value chain for each of the analysed H2 carriers, the paper identified liquid ammonia to be the most effective substance to deliver hydrogen over transoceanic distances out of the four under consideration.

In fact, if hydrogen is converted to NH3 which is then liquefied, the carrier ship will be able to deliver almost twice as much H2 than if it was shipping liquid hydrogen itself. If the effectiveness of hydrogen delivery is looked at from this perspective only, methanol will then be the second choice, as it is potentially capable of transporting a slightly lesser amount of H2 than liquid ammonia but almost twice as much as MCH, which will ultimately be viewed as the least effective carrier in these conditions. At the same time, when it comes to the comparison of costs, methanol and MCH will most likely represent the cheapest alternatives. This is so primarily because of their relatively low production costs and no need of liquefaction.

Since the ultimate expenses associated with the use of liquid ammonia will be nearing those of the two mentioned options, NH3 could still be viewed as a relatively cost-effective means of delivering H2. Paradoxically, liquid hydrogen itself is likely to be the most expensive hydrogen carrier out of the four. On the other hand, thermodynamic and conversion losses as well as direct costs are not likely to be the only factors that will determine which of the shipping substances will be used in the end (if at all). In fact, stemming from issues of safety that relate to each of the viewed fuels’ toxicity or flammability, the general challenge of public acceptance as well as legal and regulatory constraints may come into play when hydrogen delivery projects focus on a specific H2 carrier.

Another factor that would need to be taken into account is the availability of the industries and infrastructure already developed around any of the studied chemical substances as well as their potential industrial applicability beyond hydrogen. Finally, technological progress in other decarbonization applications and, most importantly, full commercialization of CCUS solutions is likely to dramatically change the approach towards longdistance H2 transportation.