Model Development and Implementation of Techno-Economic Assessment of Hydrogen Logistics Value Chain: A Case Study of Selected Regions in the Czech Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The study makes several assumptions regarding costs, infrastructure limitations, and operational constraints. While these are generally well-founded, some assumptions lack empirical. Provide references or sensitivity analyses for key assumptions, especially those related to container handling time, fuel consumption, and transport costs.
• The study highlights the lack of hydrogen demand data but does not discuss how demand might evolve in the Czech Republic over the next decade. Given that future hydrogen logistics depends on increasing demand, a discussion of demand projections or potential industry adoption would strengthen the study. Consider adding a short section on future demand scenarios or referring to existing projections from policy documents.
• The paper touches on hydrogen policy strategies in the Czech Republic, but does not provide in-depth discussion on how evolving regulations and incentives might impact hydrogen logistics costs. Expand the discussion of government incentives, EU hydrogen policies, and regulations that might affect the feasibility of multimodal hydrogen transport.
• The study shows that multimodal transport significantly reduces costs, but real-world implementation challenges (e.g., railway delays, infrastructure investment needs, and seasonal variations) are not discussed in detail. Provide a discussion of logistical barriers (e.g., train scheduling conflicts, infrastructure development costs) that may limit the adoption of rail-based hydrogen transport.
• The study lacks precise cost data for container investment and maintenance, which may impact the accuracy of the techno-economic assessment. Consider incorporating estimates from industry reports or sensitivity analysis on container costs to validate findings.

• Add figure captions that highlight key takeaways for each visual representation.
• Cite more recent studies from high-impact journals to support the modeling choices.
• Briefly contrast the findings with other transportation technologies (e.g., hydrogen pipelines) to position the study within broader logistics solutions.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a comprehensive techno-economic assessment (TEA) model for hydrogen logistics, with a specific focus on comparing road and multimodal transportation in the Czech Republic. The work makes a valuable contribution to the literature by addressing regional hydrogen distribution challenges outside main transmission infrastructure areas - an important but underexplored aspect of the hydrogen economy. The technical modeling approach is robust, particularly in its integration of real-world infrastructure data and detailed energy consumption calculations. The case study effectively demonstrates how multimodal transport can significantly reduce costs for medium-to-long distance hydrogen transportation, providing meaningful insights for regional hydrogen deployment planning. However, several methodological aspects require clarification, and the impact of the research could be strengthened through deeper analysis of certain key factors.

1. The economic analysis would benefit from a more comprehensive treatment of uncertainty. While the model incorporates numerous parameters, the results are presented as deterministic values without sensitivity analysis or uncertainty quantification. Given the early stage of hydrogen transportation technologies and volatile energy prices, this is a significant limitation. I recommend conducting sensitivity analyses on key parameters (e.g., fuel/electricity prices, container costs, wagon costs, hydrogen demand projections) to identify which factors most significantly influence transportation costs. Additionally, incorporating Monte Carlo simulations would provide more reliable insights into the probable range of transportation costs under various scenarios.
2. The manuscript acknowledges limitations in data availability regarding hydrogen demand projections for the study area (p.25, lines 782-785), but this is a critical factor that needs more attention. The model assumes optimal utilization of transportation systems, but in real-world conditions, especially during early market development, utilization rates may be substantially lower. The authors should incorporate sensitivity analyses for different utilization scenarios and discuss their impact on the economic assessment. Additionally, the paper would benefit from including at least approximate hydrogen demand projections based on available literature or government targets for the selected regions.
3. While the paper acknowledges potential delays in rail transport due to timetable constraints and prioritization of passenger transport (p.27, lines 856-870), the model does not adequately incorporate these factors. This may lead to optimistic conclusions regarding multimodal transport benefits. I recommend quantifying these time constraints based on historical freight rail performance data in the Czech Republic and integrating them directly into the model. Additionally, the impact of seasonal variations in rail capacity and potential track maintenance closures should be addressed, as these can significantly affect the reliability of multimodal transport.
4. The manuscript uses a specific container technology (MEGC with 380 bar pressure) for analysis without sufficiently discussing alternative container technologies or ongoing standardization efforts. The chosen technology significantly impacts the economic assessment results. I recommend expanding the discussion to include emerging container technologies (e.g., higher pressure systems, new composite materials) and standardization efforts that might affect future hydrogen transportation costs. The authors should also discuss how their model could be adapted for alternative container technologies and what the potential impact on transportation costs might be.
5. While the paper mentions environmental assessment capabilities of the model (p.17, lines 538-553), this aspect is not considered in the presented case study. Given the importance of environmental considerations in hydrogen logistics, this is a missed opportunity. The authors should either include environmental assessment results in the case study or provide a more detailed explanation of why this aspect was excluded. Additionally, the methodology should be expanded to include life cycle considerations beyond just operational emissions, such as infrastructure manufacturing and end-of-life impacts.
6. The selection of multimodal terminals in the case study appears to be based on simple distance criteria rather than optimization (p.24, lines 752-761). The authors acknowledge this limitation and mention that future research will use optimization tools (p.27, lines 871-875). However, the current selection approach may significantly affect the results. I recommend either conducting a basic sensitivity analysis with alternative terminal locations or applying a simplified optimization approach to strengthen the conclusions. At minimum, the impact of this methodological limitation on the findings should be more thoroughly discussed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

With the growing renewable energy of hydrogen as an alternative fuel, a leading development strategy becomes key, especially for regional and small-scale applications. While most previous studies in the field of transport have been conducted over long distances, insufficient attention has been paid to the existing situation in regions remote from the main employment areas.

This study aims to determine the technical and economic indicators of road transportation. A comprehensive technical and economic assessment includes detailed technical assessments, precise calculations of fuel and energy consumption, and planning under different conditions to achieve the required accuracy.

The results obtained are that multimodal transportation can significantly reduce costs for distances exceeding 90 km. The costs are calculated based on the annual load of the vehicles, with the rest of the cargo being distributed among other tasks during the year. However, the cost efficiency of rail transportation limits the capacity and storage capabilities. In addition, this study suggests a decisive role for regional centers in optimizing transport modes, which further reduces costs and increases efficiency. This study contributes to the development of knowledge about optimal strategies in this direction, especially for regions with limited infrastructure. The results show that the choice between road and multimodal transportation depends on the distance and other factors, such as capacity, availability of roads and regional centers. The obtained results can be used to develop more technologically advanced and economically feasible strategies for the development of hydrogen energy in various regions. In the future, development strategies can be considered that include an analysis of other modes of transport (e.g. pipelines) and the consequences of various phenomena related to the development of hydrogen science. The results of this study can be useful for government agencies, companies and logistics operators.

 

However, there are the following issues that should be clarified:

1. The literature review focuses on the description of various problems arising in pipelines and the rolling stock of road and rail transport. However, insufficient attention is paid to the analysis of modern models of technical and economic assessment of logistics chains. It is necessary to consider possible models in more detail, highlight their advantages and disadvantages, and show how the model proposed in the work differs from the existing ones. Along with this, an analysis of literature sources on the methods of studying regional networks (dedicated transport hubs, road sections, capacity limitations, etc.) should be conducted.
2. The mathematical costs required to calculate transportation costs are not described in sufficient detail. It is necessary to provide formulas, costs for calculating fuel costs, equipment depreciation, personnel wages, etc.
3. Table 1 shows the weight of a container for gaseous hydrogen at 500 bar (25.644 kg) and 380 bar (18.971 kg), but in Table 2 for liquid hydrogen the weight of the container is 19.730 kg. It is necessary to explain why the weight difference between gaseous and liquid hydrogen is insignificant despite fundamentally different storage requirements.
4. Tables 3 and 4 list general categories of transport systems (e.g. "truck", "railcar"), but lack specific technical parameters (load capacity, fuel consumption, service life). This makes it difficult to reproduce the model.
5. Section 3.3.2 (rail transport) describes the calculation of the speed profile, but does not provide formulas for taking into account the driving resistance, track slope and other factors, which makes the methodology incomplete.
6. It is not entirely clear how logistical delays are observed in multimodal transport (e.g. time for reloading containers from rail to road).
7. It is necessary to describe in more detail the assessment of the environmental consequences of different transport options. What methods are used to assess environmental impacts (e.g. emissions of CO2, NOx, organic particles)?
8. The software used to develop the models should be discussed. The use of Python and Excel is mentioned, but implementation details are missing: route calculation algorithms, database integration, handling of infrastructure constraints.
9. The characteristics of the selected regions of the Czech Republic should be described in more detail, including information on the population, distribution of consumers, the presence of transport employment.
10. A more detailed analysis of the obtained results could be carried out, highlighting the factors that have the greatest impact on the economic efficiency of various decision-making options. For example, how do changes in the cost of travel, transmission distance, and capacity of metal roads affect the results?
11. Section 5.2 acknowledges that delays in rail transport due to the schedule and priority of passenger transport are not taken into account. This is a serious omission, since in reality such delays can negate the benefits of multimodal logistics.
12. The results obtained in the work can be used in the construction of linear objects, where it is necessary to effectively manage logistics in order to minimize costs and construction times. The article presents a new model for the technical and economic assessment of logistics chains, which can be adapted to optimize the logistics activities of linear facilities. When constructing linear facilities, it is necessary to take into account various constraints (e.g. road capacity, availability of railway occupancy). In the article, the constraints affecting the choice of optimal delivery routes can be useful when planning the construction of linear facilities (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2025.100625, (https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/952/1/012023).
13. The results on the economic and ecological footprint should be compared with the results presented in other scientific publications (in particular, take into account the extrapolation method on an industrial scale).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the required changes to the article. I recommend the article for publication.