Next Article in Journal
Exhaust Emissions from Euro 6 Vehicles in WLTC and RDE—Part 1: Methodology and Similarity Conditions Studies
Previous Article in Journal
Environmental-Economic Analysis for Decarbonising Ferries Fleets
Previous Article in Special Issue
New Perspectives on Catalytic Hydrogen Production by the Reforming, Partial Oxidation and Decomposition of Methane and Biogas
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Alternatives for Transport, Storage in Port and Bunkering Systems for Offshore Energy to Green Hydrogen

by
Enrique Saborit
1,
Eduardo García-Rosales Vazquez
2,
M. Dolores Storch de Gracia Calvo
2,3,
Gema María Rodado Nieto
1,
Pablo Martínez Fondón
2 and
Alberto Abánades
3,*
1
Centro Nacional del Hidrógeno, 13500 Puertollano, Spain
2
Redexis, 50002 Zaragoza, Spain
3
Department of Energy Engineering, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2023, 16(22), 7467; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16227467
Submission received: 5 October 2023 / Revised: 30 October 2023 / Accepted: 3 November 2023 / Published: 7 November 2023

Abstract

:
Offshore electricity production, mainly by wind turbines, and, eventually, floating PV, is expected to increase renewable energy generation and their dispatchability. In this sense, a significant part of this offshore electricity would be directly used for hydrogen generation. The integration of offshore energy production into the hydrogen economy is of paramount importance for both the techno-economic viability of offshore energy generation and the hydrogen economy. An analysis of this integration is presented. The analysis includes a discussion about the current state of the art of hydrogen pipelines and subsea cables, as well as the storage and bunkering system that is needed on shore to deliver hydrogen and derivatives. This analysis extends the scope of most of the previous works that consider port-to-port transport, while we report offshore to port. Such storage and bunkering will allow access to local and continental energy networks, as well as to integrate offshore facilities for the delivery of decarbonized fuel for the maritime sector. The results of such state of the art suggest that the main options for the transport of offshore energy for the production of hydrogen and hydrogenated vectors are through direct electricity transport by subsea cables to produce hydrogen onshore, or hydrogen transport by subsea pipeline. A parametric analysis of both alternatives, focused on cost estimates of each infrastructure (cable/pipeline) and shipping has been carried out versus the total amount of energy to transport and distance to shore. For low capacity (100 GWh/y), an electric subsea cable is the best option. For high-capacity renewable offshore plants (TWh/y), pipelines start to be competitive for distances above approx. 750 km. Cost is highly dependent on the distance to land, ranging from 35 to 200 USD/MWh.

1. Introduction

There is an urgent need for decarbonization of the energy system to tackle dramatic climate changes as a result of anthropogenic activity. The development of hydrogen-related technologies is expected to have a key role in such energy system transition towards a deep reduction of greenhouse gas emissions [1]. The integration of hydrogen into society requires improvements from the technological side, as well as the development of a market to reduce costs. Apart from the efficiency and specific cost of equipment, such as electrolyzers, fuel cells, or storage tanks, a rational analysis of the integration of renewable sources and hydrogen generation is needed. The levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) currently depends on, and is expected to do more in the future with, electricity costs due to the huge efforts to reduce capital costs. The cost of the hydrogen to deliver to off-takers depends on the generation costs, as well as the distribution costs. Such hydrogen delivery costs to the off-takers will be key to enabling renewable-based hydrogen to substitute fossil-based hydrogen generation. For the case of renewable electricity production far from hydrogen delivery and consumption, energy transport in the form of electricity or hydrogen between both sites has to be carefully optimized.
In recent years, the public and private support for the development of hydrogen technologies has been enormous, being a pillar of the R&D and innovation programs around the world, and, in particular, at the Green Deal of the European Union [2,3]. One of the targets is the combination of hydrogen production technologies with renewable energy generation as a net-zero emission energy solution. Such a combination decoupled renewable intermittent electricity production from the demand, reducing curtailment of wind and PV production [4] by the accumulation of their production in excess into the hydrogen vector [5]. One of the most important issues affecting the techno-economic viability of offshore electricity production is its transport to the energy networks, which is highly dependent on the distance to shore [6]. Such networks may be electric, or molecular, which has brought attention to the production of offshore hydrogen [7,8]. Some authors reported that hydrogen transport by ship or pipeline may be competitive with subsea cables for long distances, high power and low electricity price [9].
Such an addition of offshore energy generation will support the decarbonization of hard-to-abate sectors such as aviation and shipping [10,11]. There are a number of future alternatives [12] for hydrogen carriers, including ammonia, synthetic natural gas, or other organic compounds, that would play a role as multipurpose vectors for transportation and use. Such alternatives are directly affecting the sustainability of ports and global economic growth [13].
Most of the research reported on offshore electricity production [6], including the use of hydrogen as an energy vector [9], mainly considers offshore hydrogen production and its transport to ports, or hydrogen transport port to port [14]. We will focus on the transport of electricity production offshore to a multi-sectorial energy hub on shore, providing a levelized cost of energy transport (LCOET) as a key performance indicator for the comparison, to take apart other costs depending on the specific generation technology that should be added for the evaluation of the full energy value chain, as the LCOE (levelized cost of energy generation) or the LCOS (levelized cost of storage).
In this paper, different alternatives for the integration of offshore plants for the delivery of hydrogen on shore are evaluated to assess their cost depending on distance and energy transport capacity. It comprises the transport from offshore generation sites to a connecting node on shore and the alternatives for its delivery from the port to the off-takers. This analysis is based on the current cost of the technology. It is expected to reduce the cost of some hydrogen-related equipment [15] as electrolyzers, affecting the global levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH). Nevertheless, for the case of the LCOET, such cost is based on mature technologies, such as subsea cables, that have lower uncertainties and lower potential for cost reduction in the short term. For the case of hydrogen transport, compressed H2 and liquid H2 and pipeline are considered. Such transport means are based on existing mature technologies such as cryogenics, high-pressure equipment and dedicated ships, with costs that are not expected to evolve. Section 2 introduces the steps that will be considered for the analysis of offshore-to-port energy transport and its integration into hydrogen networks. There are some differences with respect to the port-to-port hydrogen transport that is considered in previous works [16] or hydrogen transport on land [16,17]. Section 3 and Section 4 describe the framework for energy transport by subsea cable, pipeline and ship, a brief description of the storage requirements, and the fuel bunkering at ports. Section 5 develops the cost analysis of the selected alternatives. Finally, Section 6 discusses the conclusions of this work.

2. Materials and Methods

The delivery of hydrogen production offshore to the land transport and distribution networks includes the implementation of the following infrastructures: the transport to the shore, likely to a port or similar, the bunkering and the hydrogen storage. Such infrastructure should be compatible with the needs of the off-takers, such as ships or a distribution network for local consumers, as well as an inland transport pipeline. Moreover, hydrogen production and conditioning for transport should be included in the full scope of the techno-economic viability evaluation.

2.1. Transport to Shore

There are multiple options for the delivery of energy production offshore to the demand at the coast. Such options may be the transport of hydrogen or a hydrogenated compound, either by a pipeline, a vessel or electricity, for its optional conversion into hydrogen onshore [18]. There are a few reported analyses with a direct comparison between offshore cables and offshore hydrogen pipelines [16]. Cost structures in both cases depend on several items of different nature. In particular, transmission efficiency in terms of energy is higher in pipelines, but O&M (Operation and Maintenance) costs are much lower for cables. In the particular case of hydrogen pipelines, materials must be chosen carefully, both to minimize diffusion leakage and to improve resistance to hydrogen embrittlement (HE). The current number of specific hydrogen pipes have been made on low-grade steels [19] operating at relatively low pressure, less than 10 MPa. Nevertheless, high-capacity hydrogen pipelines require high strength and high pressure, which is a challenge in current demo projects worldwide. The matter still requires some R&D [20], including the consideration and tests of high-density polyethylene pipes.
For the case of hydrogen transportation by ship, some authors have analyzed alternatives based on the use of compressed hydrogen (cH2), liquid hydrogen (LH2), ammonia (NH3), and light organic compounds (LOHC) [21]. Those analyses are mainly devoted to long-distance transport, mainly for hydrogen logistics from port to port.

2.2. Hydrogen Bunkering and Distribution

Ports are one of the critical infrastructures in the energy transition as transportation hubs for international commerce. They are energy hubs [22] of their pivotal role related to the import/export of energy products, such as LNG (liquified natural gas), coal or oil. In the energy product list, hydrogen and its derivatives are called to be another asset, not only as fuel to feed transportation vessels into a decarbonized marine sector [23], but also as a link of continental energy transport networks with offshore energy generation facilities. Moreover, harbor infrastructures must be ready to operate in an uncertain context regarding the type of energy vector that will be used in a net-zero scheme by the international shipping fleet, or even to adapt to a multiple-fuel fleet [24] demanding ammonia, hydrogen and methanol.
Hydrogen bunkering at ports is also facing regulation issues. The maritime sector is regulated by the international safety code for ships using gases or other low-flashpoint fuels (IGF Code). This code contains mandatory standards for the disposal, installation, control and monitoring of equipment and systems using low-flash point fuels, as is the case of hydrogen with a flash point below 60 °C. The code is mandatory under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), but it has been elaborated focused on LNG [25]. On the other hand, SAE J2601 standards establish safety limits and performance requirements for gaseous hydrogen fuel dispensers. Criteria include maximum fuel temperature at the dispenser nozzle, maximum fuel flow rate, maximum pressure rise rate, and other performance criteria, but limited to heavy and light-duty road vehicles. For ships, consolidated standards are not available and a new regulation should be issued in view of the efforts for maritime transport decarbonization. Currently, one of the options for hydrogen bunkering is in the form of ammonia, but it might depend on the choice of maritime fuel (or combinations of fuels) finally adopted.
Another important issue is the connection with onshore networks, currently under development and implementation by several H2 clusters and valleys. Such networks are mostly relying on the capacity of the existing natural gas networks for the transport of blended natural gas/hydrogen admixtures [26]. In that case, hydrogen produced offshore may be directly injected into the existing gas backbone.

2.3. Hydrogen Storage

There are plenty of options for hydrogen storage already available or under development, such as compressed and liquid hydrogen, hydrates, metal hydrides, adsorption and chemical formation of hydrogenated molecules [27]. Hydrogen storage at ports should be aligned with their role as fuel exchange hub connecting fuel bunkering for ships, clean energy delivery from offshore production and clean fuel distribution on land. Liquid hydrogen and ammonia are the two main options that have been proposed to store hydrogen at ports, as well as for decarbonizing shipping. Some works have been reported with techno-economical comparisons between liquid hydrogen, ammonia and LNG taking into account their environmental and economic impact [12]. One of the main key performance parameters is the fuel boil-off during transportation and storage, which is several times higher in the case of liquid hydrogen than ammonia as a consequence of a much lower boiling temperature (−253 °C vs. −33 °C at standard pressure).
Regarding the alternatives for decarbonizing maritime transport, it is an open issue that will be the most suitable fuel [28] in the future. Either hydrogen, ammonia or other vectors such as dimethyl ether (DME), or methanol, have their own pros and cons. Ammonia is a very interesting option due to the existence of plenty of infrastructures and a consolidated market worldwide. The hydrogen storage at ports in the form of ammonia will depend on the practical utilization of such substances as marine fuel.

3. Hydrogen Transport

3.1. Hydrogen Transport by Pipelines

The design of subsea gas pipelines is influenced by multiple factors, some of the most important being performance, pressure rating, pressure drop and depth [29]. In the case of transporting hydrogen through pipes, materials must be chosen carefully, both to minimize diffusion leakage and to improve resistance to hydrogen embrittlement (HE). Hydrogen embrittlement is a deterioration mechanism of the mechanical properties of materials (mainly in steel pipes). In this mechanism, the atomic hydrogen diffuses into the material, and it is deposited in the reticular structure of the metal, being able to create cracks and cause fractures [30]. The implementation of dedicated hydrogen pipelines, especially at subsea levels, requires a reliable verification of HE avoidance and a deep understanding of such phenomena in high-pressure pipelines. The severity of hydrogen embrittlement depends on the amount of hydrogen diffused in the structural material, the mechanical stress and the microstructural defects of the material. Hydrogen diffusion and penetration will depend on hydrogen partial pressure and cyclic stress by static loads during operation. Blended hydrogen mixtures with natural gas or carbon dioxide inhibited hydrogen embrittlement [31], but such mixtures are hardly likely for the transportation of hydrogen produced offshore, as natural gas or CO2 will likely not be available. Such circumstances make it difficult to reuse existing subsea pipelines for gas transport to carry offshore hydrogen to land, as it should be needed a lot of pending research and understanding about the degradation of current gas steel pipes for hydrogen transportation [32].
In existing hydrogen infrastructures, low-alloy steel tubes are preferred for hydrogen pipes, such as X42 and X52 steel pipes recommended by ASME B31.12 standards. Some recent scenario analyses for hydrogen logistics follow this recommendation [33]. The use of higher-grade steels, X65, X70 and higher, for hydrogen transport is being investigated [34,35], which may imply a review of ASME standards, as the main reference for gas transmission and distribution piping systems. Non-metallic flexible pipes undergo a considerable reduction in installation and maintenance costs. Due to the current limitations of diameters and admissible pressures for flexible hydrogen pipes, as is the case of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes, their use would be mostly applicable to low-pressure, low-transmission capacity. Plastic lines with higher diameters and operating pressures are expected to be developed in the following years. Currently, they are applied for low-pressure and short distances [34].
In respect of cost estimates for hydrogen pipelines, according to a report provided by the transmission system operators (TSOs) for the European Hydrogen Backbone [36], it is reported between 0.17 and 0.32 EUR/kg/1000 km for new pipes with a diameter between 500 and 1200 mm.

3.2. Hydrogen Transport by Ship

The alternatives for hydrogen transport by ship depends on the storage options that would be available, namely compressed hydrogen (cH2), liquified hydrogen (LH2), ammonia (NH3), other hydrogenated compound as light organic hydrocarbons (LOHC) or methanol. Such facilities are expected to be available onshore, and, in particular, in the vicinity of ports, and they might play a role as energy hubs [22]. The available reports about long-distance hydrogen transport show how shipping is a sensible alternative between ports [9,23] with suitable infrastructures.
In the case of the production of any energy vector rather than electricity offshore, it is important to consider the feasibility of the transformation processes from electricity to hydrogen and any other chemical vector. In most of the cases, it is considered the offshore production of hydrogen by electrolysis. The addition of a hydrogen liquefaction plant or an ammonia synthesis facility for its loading in transportation ships makes much more complex the structure and equipment to be installed and operated in an aggressive environment, as is the case of the deep sea. In that sense, the liquefaction of hydrogen or its conversion offshore into a vector as ammonia or any other synthetic seems to be handicapped with respect to the transport of compressed hydrogen.

3.3. Hydrogen Transport by Truck

The most mature transportation means for hydrogen is trucks, which are the preferred option for short distances within the delivery capacity of such vehicles. In the case of compressed hydrogen in tube trailers, their capacity is relatively small, around 300 kg/truck [37]. Liquid hydrogen trucks are able to transport on the order of 5000 kg of hydrogen per vehicle. In this report, this option is not going to be considered, except as one of the pathways to distribute hydrogen stored directly at ports to local consumers.

4. Hydrogen Storage, Bunkering and Distribution

The alternatives for hydrogen storage at ports depend on the type of hydrogenated vectors that would be finally adopted for sustainable maritime transport. The compatibility between low-carbon fuel bunkering, storage at port, and the hydrogenated compound to transport offshore production to port should be granted, either by an easy physical exchange or by an efficient transformation between energy vectors (electricity–hydrogen, hydrogen–ammonia, gasification, liquefaction). There are already a lot of uncertainties about which will be the preferred onboard fuel for shipping. Liquid hydrogen is one of the options [38], as well as ammonia [10]. In particular, both seem more suitable for long-range transport with respect to compressed hydrogen due to the higher energy density onboard [39].
Hydrogen stored onshore will be distributed for its consumption in a variety of applications that may include industrial off-takers, refueling stations, injection into local transport networks, ship bunkering or any other delivery option. For such distribution, there are two main options: by existing or new pipelines, or by truck. The choice will depend on the transport capacity required, the distance and other regulated aspects. For high capacity, pipes are the most cost-effective option, either by a new brand pipe for distribution (>10 tons/day) or by using hydrogen admixtures in existing natural gas pipelines (>100 t/day) [40]. On the contrary, urban and local hydrogen distribution, with capacities lower than 10 t/day, will be more cost-effective with compressed gaseous hydrogen at a cost of around 0.65–1.63 EUR/kgH2. The vessel bunkering system will depend on the infrastructure that will be needed to fuel the maritime fleet.

5. Cost Analysis

There are perspectives of cost reduction on every level of the hydrogen value chain as a consequence of the huge investment effort into development and innovation. The current cost analysis may be conducted according to the current state of the art, including cost reduction for the near future. Nevertheless, the economic viability and competitiveness of each alternative may be obviously affected by the expected lifetime and retrofitting cost of infrastructures, especially when CAPEX (capital expenditure) cost is dominant.
The realistic alternatives for the delivery of energy produced offshore and its integration into a hydrogen system onshore are the direct transport of electricity by subsea cables, hydrogen subsea pipelines or liquid/compressed hydrogen vessels. Figure 1 shows the different pathways to transport offshore energy generation to a port on land. The more viable alternatives are linked by the red paths and arrows. Ammonia synthesis is discarded in this analysis of the levelized cost of energy transport from the offshore platform to the port due to the additional complexity and cost of the ammonia synthesis plant. The electrolysis facility for the production of hydrogen might be installed either at the offshore platform or onshore. If the storage and bunkering are carried out in the form of ammonia or LOHC, additional transformation costs should be added. Hydrogen compression or gasification facilities have been excluded from the analysis for their additional cost. The scenarios with direct bunkering of the transported energy vector (LH2, cH2 or NH3) are considered.
The levelized cost of the energy transport (LCOET) from an offshore location to shore has been evaluated from the classical definition, considering CAPEX, operational expenditure (OPEX) of each transport technology, a 25-year lifetime (N), and an annual capacity factor of 60% to account for the total amount of energy to be transported from the offshore plant and an average interest rate of 2% (r). The main input data is shown in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 for the cases that we have considered. The output is provided by the equation:
LCOET   [ USD MWh ] = CAPEX + n N OPEX ( 1 + r ) n n N Energy   transported     Energy   losses ( 1 + r ) n
Being the CAPEX linearly dependent on the distance and capacity, and the yearly OPEX is a fraction of the capital cost according to the references on the input data tables. Energy losses are neglected for the case of pipes, as pumping is included in the OPEX, and compressed hydrogen.
Regarding electric subsea cables, the infrastructure cost has three different components: the branch cost which represents the cost associated with the cable between both end stations, the onshore station cost, and the offshore station cost. The annual O&M (OPEX) is estimated at 0.67% of the installation cost. The CAPEX for the cost evaluation of a dedicated hydrogen pipeline is divided into costs of materials, costs of construction (survey, pipe laying and other labor costs) and costs associated with engineering, project management, inspection, repair, etc. The total O&M costs, excluding electricity, are estimated around 0.8% of the total costs of the pipeline. In the case of liquid H2 ships, the CAPEX includes the infrastructure cost of the liquefaction plant, the costs of the storage tanks and the costs associated with the operation of the ships. In this model, it has been considered the option of time charter, because it seems to be the most appropriate charter type for this context. The OPEX is estimated around 3% of the cost of the liquefaction plant and 3% of the storage tanks [9]. For the case of the compressed H2 ship, the CAPEX includes the costs of the compression plant, the storage tanks and the ship charter. Like in the LH2, the considered option is time charter. The annual O&M will be estimated as 6% of the cost of the compression plant [9] and the O&M cost of 2000 USD/year per storage module in the compression plant.
The sizing and unitary costs of each hydrogen transport system depend on the amount of energy to deliver and the distance, which depends on the power capacity of the offshore plant. Two scenarios have been evaluated: a low-scale scenario as a typical case for a small 21-MW offshore wind farm, and a high-scale scenario with a 1-GW wind park. Those evaluations are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Both scenarios, with an annual capacity factor of 60%, transport, respectively, 108 and 5160 GWh/year.
The cost of the alternatives for offshore hydrogen transport to shore is highly dependent on the scale. This is similar to onshore, where the main alternative for short distances and capacity is compressed hydrogen by truck. In the case of an offshore facility, this option is not available. From the cost analysis, there is a dramatic impact on the amount of yearly energy to transport, especially for hydrogen transportation.
Liquid hydrogen has the lowest sensitivity to the transport distance, as the costs of the liquefaction plant and offshore storage tank are the main expenditures. The capacity of liquid H2 vessels is also much higher. Direct electric transport to the coast by a subsea cable is the more viable option for a wide range of distances and transmission capacities, with LCOET below 10 USD/MWh.
For distances below approx. 1500 km, liquid hydrogen is less competitive for the low-scale scenario, but it is more competitive than compressed hydrogen when a high transport capacity is demanded, being comparable with subsea cables and pipeline transport for long distances (1500 km and above). For the high capacity scenario, hydrogen transport by pipeline is estimated to be competitive above 900 km, with a levelized cost of transport between 10 and 20 USD/MWh.

6. Conclusions

The introduction of hydrogen is key for the decarbonization of multiple sectors of the economy. It has been shown an analysis of the alternatives for the particular case of producing offshore renewable electricity and its transformation into hydrogen for shore distribution, including their implementation for maritime transport and port decarbonization. Among the different options analyzed for producing hydrogen from offshore renewable energy, the most technically and economically viable option is transporting the renewable electricity generated offshore by subsea cable to land where the hydrogen production plant is located. The generation and transport of renewable electricity is a mature and well-known technology, as well as a lower cost and higher maturity than the facilities to produce hydrogen on shore. The analysis is based on the concept of LCOET (levelized cost of energy transport) to take apart the costs associated with energy generation (LCOE) dependent on the generation technology and the LCOS (levelized cost of storage). The LCOET depends mainly on the type of transport system and energy. In this case, electricity and hydrogen are the energy vectors that have been considered. The types of transport are adapted to the energy vector. The results have been presented to show the impact of the two main parameters affecting LCOET: distance between the energy generation site and the coast, and the energy capacity to transport (power/production) defining low and high-scale scenarios.
In the case of direct hydrogen generation offshore, an alternative option for the transport of green hydrogen produced to land is compressed gaseous hydrogen using subsea pipelines. The use of low alloy steels is preferred for hydrogen transport by pipelines. The ASME B31.12-2019 standard recommends the use of X42 and X52 steel pipes. However, some experts consider that higher-grade steels such as X70 steel could be used in the future. Steel pipes, although valid for the transport and distribution of hydrogen blended with natural gas, require a more detailed study for working with 100% hydrogen, mainly caused by the embrittlement effect on the material. Flexible (HDPE) pipes undergo a considerable reduction in installation and maintenance costs; they have not been considered in the analysis, as it was intended for a sensitivity analysis based on ASME materials as reference technical standard, and high capacity, long transport range, but its consideration should be carried out if confirmed they are suitable for subsea H2 transportation tubes. In any case, regulations and standards are much less developed than for other cases, such as electric subsea cables.
Hydrogen transport by ship is intended for long distances, mainly port-to-port. The transport by means of compressed hydrogen is easier, but it is limited by the small amount of energy that can be transported. Ammonia and LOHC offshore facilities are not recommended due to their complexity and extra costs derived from construction and O&M. This analysis sheds some light and novelty on the comparative viability estimation offshore to port, being critical the cost and viability of the hydrogen synthesis offshore, more complex than at ports.
Regarding the LCOET comparison between hydrogen transportation by pipeline and by ship, the cost of compressed hydrogen transported by ship is lower than liquid hydrogen for the same capacity scenario. According to the LCOET, pipelines are the best solution for distances above 450 km for a high-scale scenario delivering the order of TWh/year. In opposition to the low-scale scenario, liquid hydrogen by ships is more competitive than compressed hydrogen when the energy transport to port is on the order of TWh/year, as the scale of liquid hydrogen transportation vessels is much higher.
Regarding hydrogen bunkering at ports, currently, the most viable option is through compressed gaseous hydrogen. Other options such as ammonia or methanol are still under development. In the short term, direct hydrogen application in maritime applications seems to be suitable for low and medium size vessels where energy consumption is moderate and weight is not a very important factor, as well as on short journeys in which stops in ports are made daily or with a similar frequency. They may also be applicable for ships for navigation in inland or port waters. Liquid hydrogen might be considered when hydrogen consumption grows to transport and deliver hydrogen for high-capacity vessels.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.S. and A.A.; methodology, E.S. and E.G.-R.V.; formal analysis, G.M.R.N.; investigation, P.M.F., E.S. and G.M.R.N.; resources, M.D.S.d.G.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.; writing—review and editing, E.S.; funding acquisition, M.D.S.d.G.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the CDTI (Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology Ministry of Science and Innovation) of Spain, grant number MIG-20201001, project “Generación, almacenamiento y distribución de hidrógeno verde offshore”.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Abánades, A. Perspectives on Hydrogen. Energies 2023, 16, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Seck, G.S.; Hache, E.; Sabathier, J.; Guedes, F.; Reigstad, G.A.; Straus, J.; Wolfgang, O.; Ouassou, J.A.; Askeland, M.; Hjorth, I.; et al. Hydrogen and the decarbonization of the energy system in Europe in 2050: A detailed model-based analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 167, 112779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. European Commision. The European Green Deal. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 30 October 2023).
  4. Limpens, G.; Jeanmart, H. Electricity storage needs for the energy transition: An EROI based analysis illustrated by the case of Belgium. Energy 2018, 152, 960–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ehteshami, S.M.M.; Chan, S.H. The role of hydrogen and fuel cells to store renewable energy in the future energy network—Potentials and challenges. Energy Policy 2014, 73, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Martinez, A.; Iglesias, G. Mapping of the levelised cost of energy for floating offshore wind in the European Atlantic. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 154, 111889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cheng, C.; Hughes, L. The role for offshore wind power in renewable hydrogen production in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 391, 136223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ibrahim, O.S.; Singlitico, A.; Proskovics, R.; McDonagh, S.; Desmond, C.; Murphy, J.D. Dedicated large-scale floating offshore wind to hydrogen: Assessing design variables in proposed typologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 160, 112310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. d’Amore-Domenech, R.; Leo, T.J.; Pollet, B.G. Bulk power transmission at sea: Life cycle cost comparison of electricity and hydrogen as energy vectors. Appl. Energy 2021, 288, 116625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Otto, M.; Chagoya, K.L.; Blair, R.G.; Hick, S.M.; Kapat, J.S. Optimal hydrogen carrier: Holistic evaluation of hydrogen storage and transportation concepts for power generation, aviation, and transportation. J. Energy Storage 2022, 55, 105714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stadler, P. Cost Evaluation of Large Scale Hydrogen Production for the Aviation Industry. Master’s Thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  12. Al-Enazi, A.; Bicer, Y.; Okonkwo, E.C.; Al-Ansari, T. Evaluating the utilisation of clean fuels in maritime applications: A techno-economic supply chain optimization. Fuel 2022, 322, 124195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Szaruga, E.; Kłos-Adamkiewicz, Z.; Gozdek, A.; Załoga, E. Linkages between Energy Delivery and Economic Growth from the Point of View of Sustainable Development and Seaports. Energies 2021, 14, 4255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. d’Amore-Domenech, R.; Meca, V.L.; Pollet, B.G.; Leo, T.J. On the bulk transport of green hydrogen at sea: Comparison between submarine pipeline and compressed and liquefied transport by ship. Energy 2023, 267, 126621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Guan, D.; Wang, B.; Zhang, J.; Shi, R.; Jiao, K.; Li, L.; Wang, Y.; Xie, B.; Zhang, Q.; Yu, J.; et al. Hydrogen society: From present to future. Energy Environ. Sci. Advance Article 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Miao, B.; Giordano, L.; Chan, S.H. Long-distance renewable hydrogen transmission via cables and pipelines. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 18699–18718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ogden, J.M. Prospects for building a hydrogen energy infrastructure. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1999, 24, 227–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Seo, Y.; Park, H.; Lee, S.; Kim, J.; Han, S. Design concepts of hydrogen supply chain to bring consumers offshore green hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 15126–15142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, H.; Tong, Z.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, C.; Zhou, H.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, W. Research and demonstration on hydrogen compatibility of pipelines: A review of current status and challenges. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 28585–28604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Andrews, R.M.; Gallon, N.; Huising, O.J.C. Assessing damaged pipelines transporting hydrogen. J. Pipeline Sci. Eng. 2022, 2, 100066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Noh, H.; Kang, K.; Seo, Y. Environmental and energy efficiency assessments of offshore hydrogen supply chains utilizing compressed gaseous hydrogen, liquefied hydrogen, liquid organic hydrogen carriers and ammonia. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 7515–7532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Damman, S.; Steen, M. A socio-technical perspective on the scope for ports to enable energy transition. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 91, 102691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, P.S.-L.; Fan, H.; Enshaei, H.; Zhang, W.; Shi, W.; Abdussamie, N.; Miwa, T.; Qu, Z.; Yang, Z. A review on ports’ readiness to facilitate international hydrogen trade. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 17351–17369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Al-Enazi, A.; Okonkwo, E.C.; Bicer, Y.; Al-Ansari, T. A review of cleaner alternative fuels for maritime transportation. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 1962–1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aneziris, O.; Gerbec, M.; Koromila, I.; Nivolianitou, Z.; Pilo, F.; Salzano, E. Safety guidelines and a training framework for LNG storage and bunkering at ports. Saf. Sci. 2021, 138, 105212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cristello, J.B.; Yang, J.M.; Hugo, R.; Lee, Y.; Park, S.S. Feasibility analysis of blending hydrogen into natural gas networks. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 17605–17629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bosu, S.; Rajamohan, N. Recent advancements in hydrogen storage—Comparative review on methods, operating conditions and challenges. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy In press 2023. [CrossRef]
  28. Bilgili, L. A systematic review on the acceptance of alternative marine fuels. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 182, 113367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nogueira, A.C.; Mckeehan, D.S. Chapter 11—Design and Construction of Offshore Pipelines. In Handbook of Offshore Engineering; Chakrabarti, S.K., Ed.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2005; pp. 891–937. ISBN 978-0-08-044381-2. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, H.; Niu, R.; Li, W.; Lu, H.; Cairney, J.; Chen, Y.-S. Hydrogen in pipeline steels: Recent advances in characterization and embrittlement mitigation. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2022, 105, 104709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, C.; Yang, H.; Wang, C.; Zhang, H.; Ding, R.; Ai, L.; Fan, X.; Zhang, R.; Xu, X.; Ning, Y.; et al. Effects of CH4 and CO on hydrogen embrittlement susceptibility of X80 pipeline steel in hydrogen blended natural gas. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 27766–27777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Laureys, A.; Depraetere, R.; Cauwels, M.; Depover, T.; Hertelé, S.; Verbeken, K. Use of existing steel pipeline infrastructure for gaseous hydrogen storage and transport: A review of factors affecting hydrogen induced degradation. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2022, 101, 104534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lee, H.; Lee, S. Economic Analysis on Hydrogen Pipeline Infrastructure Establishment Scenarios: Case Study of South Korea. Energies 2022, 15, 6824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shang, J.; Zheng, J.; Hua, Z.; Li, Y.; Gu, C.; Cui, T.; Meng, B. Effects of stress concentration on the mechanical properties of X70 in high-pressure hydrogen-containing gas mixtures. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 28204–28215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mohtadi-Bonab, M.A.; Szpunar, J.A.; Razavi-Tousi, S.S. A comparative study of hydrogen induced cracking behavior in API 5L X60 and X70 pipeline steels. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 33, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. van Rossum, R.; Jens, J.; La Guardia, G.; Wang, A.; Luis Kühnen, M.O. European Hydrogen Backbone. A European Hydrogen Infrastructure Vision Covering 28 Countries; Guidehouse: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yang, C.; Ogden, J. Determining the lowest-cost hydrogen delivery mode. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2007, 32, 268–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ratnakar, R.R.; Gupta, N.; Zhang, K.; van Doorne, C.; Fesmire, J.; Dindoruk, B.; Balakotaiah, V. Hydrogen supply chain and challenges in large-scale LH2 storage and transportation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 24149–24168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ustolin, F.; Campari, A.; Taccani, R. An Extensive Review of Liquid Hydrogen in Transportation with Focus on the Maritime Sector. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bloomberg. Hydrogen Economy Outlook Key Messages; Bloomberg Finance L.P.: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  41. Purvins, A.; Sereno, L.; Ardelean, M.; Covrig, C.-F.; Efthimiadis, T.; Minnebo, P. Submarine power cable between Europe and North America: A techno-economic analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Härtel, P.; Vrana, T.K.; Hennig, T.; von Bonin, M.; Wiggelinkhuizen, E.J.; Nieuwenhout, F.D.J. Review of investment model cost parameters for VSC HVDC transmission infrastructure. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2017, 151, 419–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. de Nooij, M. Social cost-benefit analysis of electricity interconnector investment: A critical appraisal. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 3096–3105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Alternative routes for offshore green hydrogen production considered in this analysis linked by the red arrows. Ammonia synthesis has been finally discarded.
Figure 1. Alternative routes for offshore green hydrogen production considered in this analysis linked by the red arrows. Ammonia synthesis has been finally discarded.
Energies 16 07467 g001
Figure 2. Transport costs for the low-scale scenario, corresponding to a 21-MW offshore plant producing 108 GWh/year.
Figure 2. Transport costs for the low-scale scenario, corresponding to a 21-MW offshore plant producing 108 GWh/year.
Energies 16 07467 g002
Figure 3. Transport costs for the high-scale scenario, corresponding to a 1-GW offshore plant producing 5160 GWh/year.
Figure 3. Transport costs for the high-scale scenario, corresponding to a 1-GW offshore plant producing 5160 GWh/year.
Energies 16 07467 g003
Table 1. Main data and uncertainties for the evaluation of LCOET for the transport by H2 pipeline.
Table 1. Main data and uncertainties for the evaluation of LCOET for the transport by H2 pipeline.
ParameterValueUncert.UnitRef.
Transmission capacity0.1 kgH2/s
P max35 bar
P min15 bar
Hydrogen losses48310%kg/km/y[9]
CAPEX0.125%MUSD/GW/km[36]
OPEX0.810%%CAPEX/y[36]
Lifetime25 y
Interest rate210%%
Table 2. Main data for the evaluation of LCOET for the transport of compressed H2.
Table 2. Main data for the evaluation of LCOET for the transport of compressed H2.
ParameterValueUncert.UnitRef.
Vessel capacity50 tons[9]
H2 consumed0.0615%kg/s
Vessel life cycle151310%Journeys
CAPEX225%MUSD/GW/km[40]
OPEX0.810%%CAPEX/y[40]
Lifetime25 y
Interest rate210%%
Table 3. Main data for the evaluation of LCOET for the transport of liquid H2.
Table 3. Main data for the evaluation of LCOET for the transport of liquid H2.
ParameterValueUncert.UnitRef.
Vessel capacity12,760 tons[9]
H2 consumed0.0615%kg/s
Vessel velocity0.96 m/s
Vessel life cycle 18610%journeys
Liquefaction plant cost5805%MUSD
Offshore LH2 tank cost119015%MUSD
CAPEX Ship26,2005%MUSD[40]
OPEX310%%CAPEX/y[40]
Lifetime25 y
Interest rate210%%
Table 4. Main data for the evaluation of LCOET by subsea electric cable.
Table 4. Main data for the evaluation of LCOET by subsea electric cable.
ParameterValueUncert.UnitRef.
Transmission capacity (max)2 GW
Nominal trans. capacity200 MW
Energy loss coefficient1.3715%TJ/km/y[41]
CAPEX1.195%MUSD/GW/km[42]
OPEX0.675%%CAPEX/y[43]
Lifetime25 y
Interest rate210%%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Saborit, E.; García-Rosales Vazquez, E.; Storch de Gracia Calvo, M.D.; Rodado Nieto, G.M.; Martínez Fondón, P.; Abánades, A. Alternatives for Transport, Storage in Port and Bunkering Systems for Offshore Energy to Green Hydrogen. Energies 2023, 16, 7467. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16227467

AMA Style

Saborit E, García-Rosales Vazquez E, Storch de Gracia Calvo MD, Rodado Nieto GM, Martínez Fondón P, Abánades A. Alternatives for Transport, Storage in Port and Bunkering Systems for Offshore Energy to Green Hydrogen. Energies. 2023; 16(22):7467. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16227467

Chicago/Turabian Style

Saborit, Enrique, Eduardo García-Rosales Vazquez, M. Dolores Storch de Gracia Calvo, Gema María Rodado Nieto, Pablo Martínez Fondón, and Alberto Abánades. 2023. "Alternatives for Transport, Storage in Port and Bunkering Systems for Offshore Energy to Green Hydrogen" Energies 16, no. 22: 7467. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16227467

APA Style

Saborit, E., García-Rosales Vazquez, E., Storch de Gracia Calvo, M. D., Rodado Nieto, G. M., Martínez Fondón, P., & Abánades, A. (2023). Alternatives for Transport, Storage in Port and Bunkering Systems for Offshore Energy to Green Hydrogen. Energies, 16(22), 7467. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16227467

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop