Hydrogen enables renewable energy storage, and hydrogen carriers can allow easier transportation. This research was initiated to get more insight into transporting renewable hydrogen carriers (RHCs) by ship, which is one of the transportation options. The research was conducted in three steps. First, a system description with a literature study was made to select suitable RHCs, based on the production, and the performance as a hydrogen carrier. Secondly, a basic model for three transportation cases was made. Thirdly, a more detailed model was created to evaluate different transportation options. The four most attractive RHCs to be shipped are the synthetically produced: methanol, liquefied natural gas, liquid hydrogen, and liquid ammonia. In the model, short and long term options are evaluated for the same, mild and strict regulations compared to today. The following statements can be made, based on the results of the second model: • Ammonia is best suited in a scenario with strict regulation compared to today. Ammonia has a noncarbon nature; therefore, it is the most promising option in the long term. • Methanol is best suited for small scale transportation in the short and long term, in which the same regulations are active. The storage of methanol on board of the ship is relatively simple and it has a relatively high hydrogen density. • LSNG is best suited for large scale transportation in which the same regulations are active. LSNG has the highest hydrogen density of the discussed RHCs. The advantage of SNG is that during the reconversion to hydrogen, extra hydrogen will be produced because of the added steam, during steam methane reforming (SMR). • Liquid hydrogen is from a shipping point of view not the most suited for the transport of hydrogen, due to its low volumetric density and complex storage. Shipping liquid hydrogen has the advantage that it reduces extra conversion steps in other parts of the supply chain. Shipping RHCs and using the carriers as a fuel is an option which involves higher cost compared to current fossil fuel options. This relatively high share of fuel expenses using RHCs will make efficient powertrains relatively more attractive because it enables higher fuel cost savings. The most attractive engine configurations are a two-stroke internal combustion engine with a mechanical powertrain and a SOFC with a battery in an electric powertrain. The last option is especially promising for the long term, because of the technologic developments and increasing regulations in shipping. Overall the results indicate that shipping NH3 and using the carrier as a fuel is the most promising option for the transport of RHCs by ship. This research and constructed models can be used as a tool to evaluate different transportation options. However, used values are based on various sources and their corresponding assumptions, which can change significantly in the future.

After the earthquake in 2015 that struck Nepal, students of the Delft University of Technology commenced the multidisciplinary project program “Shock Safe Nepal”. This report describes the effort of the sixth group of students who travelled to Nepal. Following conclusions and specific recommendations of Team 5, the present research has one main goal. This research focuses on improving the overall quality of CSEB and making sure that the final strength of the bricks is constant. This is done by predicting the final strength of CSEB during the early curing stage and using this knowledge to develop a testing method, so the Nepali can monitor the CSEB quality easily and accurately on site in an early production stage. The secondary goal was to perform a dynamic seismic analysis of the pilot house in Ratankot and to get a better understanding of earthquake engineering in Nepal.

To predict the final strength of CSEB, a research into the existence of a drying/hardening curve was performed. Different regions in Nepal ask for different CSEB mixtures because of differences in humidity, temperature, altitude and soil consistency. The biggest influence of the change in hardening process is presumably the cement percentage and therefore also the water/cement ratio. In the Nepali practice this percentage is between 5 and 15 percent, depending on local soil type. Therefore, in this research all soil parameters were kept constant except cement percentages, they range from 5 till 15 percent. To develop a hardening curve, bricks were tested after 5, 8, 14, 21 and 28 days. This was done using a (calibrated) compression machine. Results of these tests showed wide spread. The tested bricks were still moist and it was decided to test the CSEB after 38 days as well. This resulted in an even bigger gain in strength such that the bricks after 38 days were twice the strength of the bricks after 28 days.
General conclusion can be drawn that the time period between the curing and testing of the brick makes a significant difference in the results, so this has to be monitored accurately. Furthermore continued curing does not necessarily contribute to the strength of the bricks or might even have a negative effect.

Results from the compression test showed that the general quality, and thus compression strength, of the bricks was lacking. Only bricks with 15% cement surpass the minimum strength of 3.50 MPa after 38 days. This showed that production site was not working properly, therefor Build Up Nepal was informed. This lack of strength is probably caused by a change in variables. The weather in the winter is very different than in summer, but the curing process wasn’t modified. Also the soil composition differs every time new soil is brought to the site, which can change the strength drastically.

While researching the hardening curves for CSEB, an alternative testing method was developed. Multiple ideas have been tested, such as a torque wrench with vice, a drop test and finally a lever arm test. The first two methods were deemed unusable as they broke down or were not able to produce reliable results. The lever arm test was most promising as this method produced constant results. Against expectations, the strength of the bricks tested by the lever arm tested was much higher than the strength of the bricks tested with the compression tester. This indicated that not exactly the same properties were measured. The results cannot be directly compared to each other. Before the method can be implemented there is more research necessary about which property is tested with the lever arm and the converting factor.