Hydrogen Import Terminal

Abstract

The world population is growing and therewith facing a lot of problems, such as a growing energy demand and climate change. These problems force society to make a transition, from a system driven by fossil raw materials to a sustainability-based system. Hydrogen can play a part in shifting from fossil fuels to more sustainable energy flows, as a renewable energy carrier, to decrease the CO2 emissions. However, the major obstacle of hydrogen use is the low volumetric energy density at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. Therefore, hydrogen must be compressed, liquefied or attached to a carrier to use it for storage or transportation purposes. The most cost-effective method to import hydrogen is yet unknown, and therefore a better understanding of the costs of the hydrogen supply chains are essential. The objective of this research is to: (1) understand the different costs for each individual element of the supply chain, (2) design a hydrogen supply chain that integrates the individual elements into a single framework to be able to compare the different carriers to each other and (3) create a more profound perspective on the investment decisions for a hydrogen import terminal. A case study for the port of Rotterdam is performed to validate the operation of the general supply chain for a specific case, resulting in a more in-depth understanding of the import terminal. This research covers four hydrogen carriers: ammonia, MCH, liquid- and gaseous hydrogen. The answer for objective one, is that for ammonia and MCH the import terminal costs are the highest, for liquid hydrogen the conversion plant costs and for gaseous hydrogen the transport costs. The hydrogen costs for ammonia, MCH and liquid hydrogen decreases as long as the demand increases, up until an amount of 500,000 t/y, whereby for gaseous hydrogen this decline holds for values beyond this amount as well. In general, for distances up to 3,500 nm gaseous hydrogen is preferred and for intermediate to long distance ammonia. The discrepancy in costs between ammonia, MCH and liquid hydrogen is almost negligible. Regarding the second objective, it can be stated that it makes no difference when choosing one carrier, or the other at ammonia, MCH and liquid hydrogen for intermediate to long distances. To conclude, the optimal hydrogen import supply chain for the estimated demand of Rotterdam is obtained from gaseous hydrogen exported from Tunisia with a cost price of 2.3 €/kg.