Liquefied blue hydrogen offers the cheapest low-carbon option for shipping hydrogen to Japan, Europe and the US, according to analysis from consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

There are five main shipping options for hydrogen: ammonia, liquid hydrogen, methanol, compressed hydrogen and liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs). LOHCs are similar in form to oil products and can be carried on product tankers.

Although Wood Mackenzie intends to look into the cost-effectiveness of LOHCs later this year, its current analysis looks only at ammonia, liquid hydrogen and methanol—comparing their cost-effectiveness when transporting blue and green hydrogen on various trade routes.

“Liquid hydrogen has highest purity of hydrogen along value chain” De la Cruz, Wood Mackenzie

As well as being the cheapest option, liquid hydrogen has other advantages, according to Wood Mackenzie senior research analyst Flor de la Cruz, speaking at the firm’s hydrogen conference.

“Liquid hydrogen has highest purity of hydrogen along value chain—this is good if you want hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles or other industry that require high purity,” she says. “But the capex for vessels is more than three times ammonia and they are not at commercial scale yet.”

Another issue with liquid hydrogen is a high boil-off rate leading to losses during voyages.

Currently the Susio Frontier is the only liquefied hydrogen carrier in the world and has completed one journey.

Ammonia

Most hydrogen shipped internationally is first converted into ammonia—and this existing infrastructure is one of the chief advantages of the technology.

Ammonia offers the second-lowest delivered cost for internationally shipped hydrogen, the Wood Mackenzie analysis found. Vessels, trade routes and reconversion facilities already exist for ammonia and some of the largest projects in the world—such as Saudi Arabia’s Neom project—are looking to use this network.

But ammonia infrastructure would need to scale up dramatically if it is to handle the volumes of hydrogen foreseen in national hydrogen strategies.

“If ammonia were to become the carrier of choice tomorrow we would still need to develop additional infrastructure,” says de la Cruz.

Vessels, trade routes and reconversion facilities already exist for ammonia

One of the chief drivers for shipping cost is the size of the vessel, de la Cruz adds. “The larger the size the cheaper it is to transport—we have learned that from the LNG market.”

As well as needing to scale up, ammonia infrastructure has high reconversion costs. And some technical issues remain in attaining hydrogen pure enough for use in proton-exchange-membrane fuel cells.

Methanol

Like ammonia, methanol offers an existing infrastructure and global market. Shipping costs are on a par with ammonia, and vessel capex is low. Vessels are also higher capacity than most ammonia vessels. But methanol reforming requires carbon capture and storage to be low carbon, which means reconversion is expensive and geographically limited.

Methanol is more expensive than ammonia and liquid hydrogen for all trade routes evaluated by Wood Mackenzie. Methanol also has low purity after reconversion.

LOHC

LOHC shipping also offers low vessel capex and large capacity vessels. Although some major firms are looking at the technology, not many projects have announced its use.

“We have not seen enough momentum with announced projects,” said de la Cruz.

Dutch firm Vopak and technology firm Hydrogenious are evaluating the possibility of transporting hydrogen stored in LOHCs from a plant under construction in Germany to Rotterdam.

---

Author: Tom Young