Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 69 references

Green Ammonia: A Techno-Economic Supply Chain Optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that gaseous hydrogen is Europe's cheapest green import at the border in both 2030 and 2040, and that ammonia's cost advantage over liquid hydrogen narrows from 16% to 10%.

desk verdict A solid, open-source techno-economic model whose main ranking is an honest but untested conditional on international pipeline cost assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02412 v1 pith:SZ7PCCB3 submitted 2025-07-03 econ.GN cs.SYeess.SYq-fin.EC

Lucien Genge , Felix Müsgens This is my paper
classification econ.GNcs.SYeess.SYq-fin.EC
keywords greenammoniahydrogencarrierssupplychainoptimizationtechno-economicanalysisimportpricesmeritorderinlanddistributionenergytransition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to settle whether green ammonia is the right import vector for Europe's green-energy transition, or whether importing hydrogen directly is cheaper. Using two linked optimisation models run for 2030 and 2040, it finds that gaseous hydrogen is the cheapest carrier at the European border (99 €/MWh in 2030, 84 €/MWh in 2040), that ammonia beats liquid hydrogen (141 vs 167 €/MWh in 2030, 123 vs 137 €/MWh in 2040), and that ammonia's cost edge over liquid hydrogen narrows from 16% to 10%. Inland, no single mode wins: trucks suit low demand, rail medium ranges, and pipelines high demand and long distances. By 2040 ammonia's role as a hydrogen carrier shrinks, so the paper argues that policymakers should build hydrogen pipelines first and treat long-lived ammonia-cracking investments as risky.

What carries the argument

Two linked cost-minimisation models carry the argument. The Well-to-Border model is a linear program that chooses renewable capacities, electrolyser and conversion capacities, storage, and international transport for ten exporting countries, and reads the import price off the shadow price of the European demand constraint — the cost of supplying one extra unit. The Border-to-Consumer model is a mixed-integer program that chooses, for each consumer site, the cheapest valid combination of imported commodity (ammonia, liquid hydrogen, or gaseous hydrogen) and inland mode (truck, rail, or pipeline), with integer numbers of trucks and trains. The core object is therefore a cost-ranked merit order of suppliers feeding a mode-choice map over demand and distance, which together produce the border prices and the inland distribution rules.

What would settle it

Compare realised border prices: if any contracted ammonia import in 2030 lands below the model's 99 €/MWh gaseous hydrogen price, or a pipeline hydrogen import lands above 141 €/MWh, the central ranking is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a full well-to-consumer cost ranking: for European imports in 2030 and 2040, gaseous hydrogen is the least-cost option at the border, ammonia is more expensive than gaseous hydrogen but cheaper than liquid hydrogen, and the ammonia–liquid hydrogen gap closes over time as liquefaction costs fall. The same analysis shows that final consumption dictates the optimal import vector: ammonia consumers should import ammonia directly even though gaseous hydrogen is cheaper at the border, while hydrogen consumers should import hydrogen directly when scale allows. For inland distribution the cost-optimum transport mode depends on demand and distance, with trucks, rail, and pipelines each winning in a distinct region of the demand–distance plane. The paper concludes that ammonia's usefulness as a hydrogen carrier is temporary, so investments in ammonia cracking infrastructure carry stranded-asset risk.

Load-bearing premise

The cheapest-import result rests on large-scale international hydrogen pipelines being built at the assumed cost and capacity; if those pipelines are delayed, more expensive, or unavailable, ammonia could become the cheapest import vector.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If gaseous hydrogen is the cheapest border import in both 2030 and 2040, then building international and domestic hydrogen pipelines becomes the highest-leverage infrastructure priority for Europe.
  • Ammonia remains cheaper than liquid hydrogen for long-distance seaborne import in 2030, so ammonia is a sensible near- and medium-term import vector, especially where pipelines are absent.
  • The demand–distance mode map implies that truck and rail fleets, not just pipelines, are essential: trucks for low-demand sites and rail for medium-distance, moderate-demand consumers.
  • By 2040, hydrogen consumers shift toward direct hydrogen or liquid hydrogen supplies, so large-scale ammonia cracking facilities commissioned for hydrogen reconversion may become stranded assets.
  • For ammonia consumers, direct ammonia import dominates despite gaseous hydrogen's lower border price, so ammonia's dual-role value is real for direct-use sectors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If international hydrogen pipelines are delayed or cost more than the assumed capex, the ranking could flip toward ammonia; the paper itself flags this dependency, so the policy hedge would be to keep ammonia import capacity available.
  • The same two-model framework could be rerun with methanol or LOHC as additional carriers; the mode-choice map and stranded-asset logic should transfer, though cost parameters would differ.
  • Because real market prices (e.g., the H2Global ammonia auction at 192 €/MWh) sit above cost-based estimates, the model's border prices are best read as lower bounds for planning, not expected market prices.
  • The 2030–2040 shift suggests a phased infrastructure strategy: build ammonia-ready terminals now but design them for conversion to direct hydrogen use later, rather than committing to ammonia crackers with long lifetimes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage techno-economic optimization framework for green hydrogen carriers: a Well-to-Border linear program that minimizes the cost of supplying ammonia, liquid hydrogen, and gaseous hydrogen from ten exporting countries to the European border in 2030 and 2040, and a Border-to-Consumer mixed-integer program that optimizes inland transport, storage, and conversion for 100 generic and 14 empirical German consumer sites. The central results are that gaseous hydrogen is the cheapest import vector at the European border (99 and 84 EUR/MWh in 2030 and 2040), ammonia is cheaper than liquid hydrogen (141 and 123 EUR/MWh vs. 167 and 137 EUR/MWh), and that optimal inland modes split by demand and distance: trucks for low demand, rail for medium demand and distances, pipelines for high demand and large distances. The paper concludes with policy recommendations favoring pipeline infrastructure for hydrogen and cautioning against long-term reliance on ammonia cracking capacity.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful, transparent, and reproducible contribution to the green-commodity supply-chain literature: it explicitly links border import prices to inland distribution costs, considers ammonia both as a direct commodity and as a hydrogen carrier, and makes both models and data openly available on GitHub. The merit-order approach with shadow prices is a clear improvement over levelized-cost comparisons. However, the headline ranking is a point estimate that rests on a small number of decisive infrastructure assumptions, and the absence of sensitivity analysis or uncertainty propagation means the policy conclusions are more conditional than the manuscript's abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1.3 and Table 3] The finding that gaseous hydrogen is the cheapest import vector (99 EUR/MWh in 2030 and 84 EUR/MWh in 2040) depends on the availability of large international hydrogen pipelines at the techno-economic parameters in Table 3: capex of 6,982,749 EUR/km, a capacity factor of 0.90, and zero hydrogen loss. Because Morocco alone can cover the entire modeled European demand, the marginal price is effectively set by Moroccan pipeline supply. The paper itself concedes in Section 5.1.3 that this cost leadership "relies on new pipeline infrastructure," yet no sensitivity analysis is performed on pipeline capex, capacity factor, or availability. This is load-bearing: if real subsea pipeline costs are higher (for example, H2Med-type estimates) or capacity factors are lower, the gaseous hydrogen border price could rise above the ammonia price. I request a targeted one-way sensitivity analysis on international pipeline capex (for example, +/- 50 percent), capacity factor (for example, 0.70-0.95), and hydrogen loss, reported as the resulting shadow prices for all three commodities.
  2. [Section 5.2.3 and Tables 1-2] The model is parameterized with literature mean values and no uncertainty ranges are propagated into the results. Section 5.2.3 acknowledges "inherent uncertainties" in techno-economic developments, infrastructure implementation, and final hydrogen demand, but the abstract and introduction state the results as firm price rankings and policy prescriptions. Since the central ranking between gaseous hydrogen, ammonia, and liquid hydrogen is close enough that plausible parameter variation could change it, the absence of any sensitivity analysis or Monte Carlo propagation (of the kind used in Collis and Schomäcker [43]) is a major gap. A minimal fix would be a one-way sensitivity analysis on the largest cost components--electrolyser capex, renewable capex, WACC, and liquefaction capex--showing how the border prices and the derived consumer-mode choices change.
  3. [Section 4.1.3] The model applies the same hydrogen demand benchmark (306 TWh in 2030 and 861 TWh in 2040) to ammonia, liquid hydrogen, and gaseous hydrogen. The justification that these commodities compete for the same renewable hydrogen resource is reasonable, but it means the three border prices are shadow prices at different points on their respective supply curves only if the final energy services are perfectly substitutable, which the Border-to-Consumer model does not assume (ammonia and hydrogen consumers have separate demand constraints). This inconsistency should be discussed explicitly, or the demand normalization should be varied in a sensitivity scenario to show that the ranking is robust to the demand level.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1.1] The text cites "recommendations by Genge et al. [19]", but reference [19] is Agyekum et al.; the intended citation appears to be Genge et al. [32]. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Table 7] The demand entry for Salzgitter Flachstahl GmbH is listed as "9,75"; this appears to be a typo for either 9.75 GWh or 975 GWh, and it should be corrected since it feeds into the Border-to-Consumer optimization.
  3. [Section 3.2.3] The text says the model performs "six linear optimizations", but the Border-to-Consumer model is formulated as a mixed-integer problem (Eq. 15 and the integer variable I in Eqs. 16-17). Please clarify that the Well-to-Border model is an LP and the Border-to-Consumer model is a MILP.
  4. [Section 5.1] The sentence "gaseous hydrogen's cost leadership relays on new pipeline infrastructure" contains a typo: "relays" should be "relies".
  5. [Table 5] The truck parameter "fuel_econ 0.0023 km/L" appears implausible as written; please verify whether the intended unit is L/km or whether the value should be an order of magnitude different.
  6. [Section 4.1.1] The sentence "Morocco, Norway and Oman, and lend themselves to pipeline or short-range shipping" contains a grammatical error; it should likely read "Morocco, Norway, and Oman lend themselves to pipeline or short-range shipping".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: border prices are LP shadow prices from exogenous techno-economic parameters; the two self-citations are motivational and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Well-to-Border prices (Table 8) are shadow prices of the demand constraint in the linear program (Eqs. 1-4): the objective minimizes annualized capital and operating costs built from exogenously parameterized technology costs (Tables 1-3) and solves for capacities and flows; nothing is fitted to the reported prices. The Border-to-Consumer model takes those prices as exogenous inputs (Eq. 15 describes the border price as "the result of the first model and thus exogenous here") and optimizes transport modes via Eqs. 16-20, so the mode-split results are outputs of a separate optimization rather than restatements of inputs. The only self-citations appear in the research-gap motivation (Section 2.1, Genge et al. [32]) and in a methodological recommendation in Section 4.1.1 ("Consistent with recommendations by Genge et al. [19]", where reference [19] actually lists Agyekum et al.); neither supplies a parameter value used to compute the headline cost ranking, so they are not load-bearing. The gaseous-hydrogen cost leadership is conditional on international pipeline capex and capacity assumptions taken from external sources Sens et al. and Galimova et al. (Table 3), and the paper itself concedes this in Section 5.1.3 ("relies on new pipeline infrastructure"); that is a sensitivity or robustness limitation, not a circular step. No equation defines a predicted quantity in terms of the target result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The model's only novel constructs are modeling artifacts (two-stage decomposition, valid mode matrix, integer transport units), which are not invented entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Country-specific WACC = not stated in text, see Figure 12
    Annualizes capital costs for renewables and conversion; Appendix A shows it is a major driver of exporter competitiveness, e.g., Tunisia and Algeria versus Chile and UAE despite similar solar resources.
  • Renewable availability factor = not specified numerically in text
    Applied to technical potentials following Sens et al. [27] to reflect socio-economic constraints (Section 4.1.1); scales the resource potential available to the optimizer.
  • Battery energy-to-storage ratio = 6 hours
    Eq. (13) bounds state of charge at 6 times battery capacity; this choice shapes renewable curtailment, electrolyzer operation, and thus production cost.
  • Hydrogen pipeline capacity factor = 0.90
    Tables 3 and 6 use 0.90 for international and domestic H2 pipelines, setting annual capacity and directly determining pipeline unit costs for the gaseous hydrogen price.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Shadow price of the demand constraint equals import price
    Section 3.2.1 uses LP duality to define the border price as the marginal cost of one extra unit; this assumes the rest of the system is at optimum.
  • domain assumption Competitive market with no margins or market power
    Border prices are levelized production and transport costs, not transaction prices; Section 5.2.3 implies model prices are cost-based, and Section 2.1 notes real auction prices (H2Global) can be higher.
  • domain assumption Germany is the representative European import border
    Footnote 8 in Section 4.1.2, following Lux et al. [49], uses Germany as the central European location for all import price calculations.
  • domain assumption Identical hydrogen-equivalent EU demand for all three commodities
    Section 4.1.3 sets 306 TWh (2030) and 861 TWh (2040) hydrogen demand as the benchmark for ammonia, liquid hydrogen, and gaseous hydrogen separately; each commodity must satisfy the full demand in its own optimization.
  • domain assumption 2018 weather year is representative
    Section 4.1.1 uses 2018 meteorological data for renewable capacity factors and profiles; no multi-year variability is modeled.
  • domain assumption No domestic European production competes with imports
    Section 5.2.3 lists this as a limitation; the model only optimizes production in the ten export countries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Green Ammonia: A Techno-Economic Supply Chain Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZ7PCCB3

@misc{pith2026250702412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Green Ammonia: A Techno-Economic Supply Chain Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZ7PCCB3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02412}
}
read the original abstract

Green ammonia is emerging as a strategic intermediary within green energy supply chains, serving effectively as both an industrial commodity and hydrogen carrier. This study provides a techno-economic analysis of green ammonia supply chains, comparing cost-effective pathways from global production to European consumers, and evaluates ammonia alongside alternative hydrogen carriers. Gaseous hydrogen consistently remains the most economical import option for Europe, though ammonia holds a narrowing cost advantage over liquid hydrogen (from 16 % in 2030 to 10 % by 2040). Competitive ammonia suppliers, notably Morocco, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates, benefit from low renewable energy costs, with significant price reductions expected by 2040, driven by falling costs for electricity, electrolysers, and conversion technologies. Optimal transport modes vary by consumer demand and distance: trucks are ideal for low demands at all distances, rail for medium ranges, and pipelines for high-demand scenarios. By 2040, ammonia will primarily serve direct-use applications, as hydrogen consumers increasingly shift to direct hydrogen supplies. Policymakers should prioritize pipeline infrastructure for hydrogen distribution, cautiously invest in ammonia's short- to medium-term infrastructure advantages, and limit long-term reliance on ammonia as a hydrogen carrier to mitigate stranded asset risks.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Supply costs of green chemical energy carriers at the European border: A meta -analysis,

    L. Genge, F. Scheller, and F. Müsgens, “Supply costs of green chemical energy carriers at the European border: A meta -analysis,” Int J Hydrogen Energy , Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2023.06.180

    doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.06.180 2023

  2. [19]

    E. B. Agyekum, J. D. Ampah, S. E. Uhunamure, K. Shale, I. P. Onyenegecha, and V. I. Velkin, “Can Africa Serve Europe with Hydrogen Energy from Its Renewables? —Assessing the Economics of Shipping Hydrogen and Hydrogen Carriers to Europe from Different Parts of the Continent,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 6509, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15086509

    work page doi:10.3390/su15086509 2023

  3. [65]

    roundbreaking agreement for energy revolution signed – Green light for Lusatia reference power plant,

    Energiequelle GmbH, “roundbreaking agreement for energy revolution signed – Green light for Lusatia reference power plant,” 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [43]

    Determining the Production and Transport Cost for H2 on a Global Scale,

    J. Collis and R. Schomäcker, “Determining the Production and Transport Cost for H2 on a Global Scale,” Front Energy Res, vol. 10, May 2022, doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2022.909298

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [1]

    Global Carbon Budget 2022,

    P. Friedlingstein et al., “Global Carbon Budget 2022,” Earth Syst Sci Data, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 4811–4900, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022

    work page doi:10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022 2022

  6. [2]

    Baseload electricity and hydrogen supply based on hybrid PV -wind power plants,

    M. Fasihi and C. Breyer, “Baseload electricity and hydrogen supply based on hybrid PV -wind power plants,” J Clean Prod, vol. 243, p. 118466, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118466

    work page arXiv 2020

  7. [3]

    On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research,

    C. Breyer et al., “On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 78176–78218, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3193402

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [4]

    Offshore wind competitiveness in mature markets without subsidy,

    M. Jansen et al. , “Offshore wind competitiveness in mature markets without subsidy,” Nat Energy, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 614–622, 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41560-020-0661-2

    doi:10.1038/s41560-020-0661-2 2020

Show all 69 references
  1. [5]

    Is Offshore Already Competitive? Analyzing German Offshore Wind Auctions,

    F. Müsgens and I. Riepin, “Is Offshore Already Competitive? Analyzing German Offshore Wind Auctions,” in 2018 15th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), 2018, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/EEM.2018.8469851

    2018

  2. [6]

    Potential and risks of hydrogen-based e-fuels in climate change mitigation,

    F. Ueckerdt, C. Bauer, A. Dirnaichner, J. Everall, R. Sacchi, and G. Luderer, “Potential and risks of hydrogen-based e-fuels in climate change mitigation,” Nat Clim Chang , vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 384–393, May 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01032-7

    2021 doi

  3. [7]

    Inter -sectoral effects of high renewable energy share in global energy system,

    E. Pursiheimo, H. Holttinen, and T. Koljonen, “Inter -sectoral effects of high renewable energy share in global energy system,” Renew Energy , vol. 136, pp. 1119 –1129, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.082

    2019 doi

  4. [8]

    Ammoniak als Energieträger für die Energiewende WORLD ENERGY COUNCIL,

    Weltenergierat – Deutschland e.V., “Ammoniak als Energieträger für die Energiewende WORLD ENERGY COUNCIL,” 2023. [Online]. Available: www.druckcenter.de

    2023

  5. [9]

    REPowerEU: Joint European Action for more affordable, secure and sustainable energy,

    European Commission, “REPowerEU: Joint European Action for more affordable, secure and sustainable energy,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A108%3AFIN

    2022

  6. [10]

    Fortschreibung der Nationalen Wasserstoffstrategie NWS 2023,

    BMWK, “Fortschreibung der Nationalen Wasserstoffstrategie NWS 2023,” 2023. [Online]. Available: www.bmwk.de

    2023

  7. [11]

    Yara Clean Ammonia: Capital Markets Day,

    Yara International, “Yara Clean Ammonia: Capital Markets Day,” 2022. Accessed: Jun. 29,

    2022

  8. [12]

    Ammonia Technology Roadmap Towards more sustainable nitrogen fertiliser production,

    IEA, “Ammonia Technology Roadmap Towards more sustainable nitrogen fertiliser production,” 2021. [Online]. Available: www.iea.org/t&c/ 35

    2021

  9. [13]

    Global potential of green ammonia based on hybrid PV -wind power plants,

    M. Fasihi, R. Weiss, J. Savolainen, and C. Breyer, “Global potential of green ammonia based on hybrid PV -wind power plants,” Appl Energy , vol. 294, p. 116170, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116170

    2021

  10. [14]

    Techno-economic viability of islanded green ammonia as a carbon-free energy vector and as a substitute for conventional production,

    R. M. Nayak -Luke and R. Bañares -Alcántara, “Techno-economic viability of islanded green ammonia as a carbon-free energy vector and as a substitute for conventional production,” Energy Environ Sci, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 2957–2966, 2020, doi: 10.1039/D0EE01707H

    2020 doi

  11. [15]

    Flexible production of green hydrogen and ammonia from variable solar and wind energy: Case study of Chile and Argentina,

    J. Armijo and C. Philibert, “Flexible production of green hydrogen and ammonia from variable solar and wind energy: Case study of Chile and Argentina,” Int J Hydrogen Energy, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1541–1558, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.11.028

    2020 doi

  12. [16]

    The economics of global green ammonia trade – ‘Shipping Australian wind and sunshine to Germany,’

    J. Egerer, V. Grimm, K. Niazmand, and P. Runge, “The economics of global green ammonia trade – ‘Shipping Australian wind and sunshine to Germany,’” Appl Energy, vol. 334, p. 120662, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120662

    2023

  13. [17]

    Large- scale production and transport of hydrogen from Norway to Europe and Japan: Value chain analysis and comparison of liquid hydrogen and ammonia as energy car riers,

    Y. Ishimoto, M. Voldsund, P. Nekså, S. Roussanaly, D. Berstad, and S. O. Gardarsdottir, “Large- scale production and transport of hydrogen from Norway to Europe and Japan: Value chain analysis and comparison of liquid hydrogen and ammonia as energy car riers,” Int J Hydrogen E...

    2020 doi

  14. [18]

    Import options for chemical energy carriers from renewable sources to Germany,

    J. Hampp, M. Düren, and T. Brown, “Import options for chemical energy carriers from renewable sources to Germany,” PLoS One , vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1 –31, May 2023, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281380

    2023 doi

  15. [20]

    Energy efficiency and economic assessment of imported energy carriers based on renewable electricity,

    C. Hank et al., “Energy efficiency and economic assessment of imported energy carriers based on renewable electricity,” Sustainable Energy Fuels , vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 2256 –2273, 2020, doi: 10.1039/D0SE00067A

    2020 doi

  16. [21]

    Estimating global production and supply costs for green hydrogen and hydrogen -based green energy commodities,

    M. Moritz, M. Schönfisch, and S. Schulte, “Estimating global production and supply costs for green hydrogen and hydrogen -based green energy commodities,” Int J Hydrogen Energy , vol. 48, no. 25, pp. 9139–9154, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2022.12.046

    2023 doi

  17. [22]

    Calculate costs of delivering hydrogen-based products

    T. Brown, J. Hampp, B. Tranberg, E. Labs, and J. Hörsch, “Calculate costs of delivering hydrogen-based products.” Accessed: May 09, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://model.energy/products/

    2023

  18. [23]

    Site -specific, comparative analysis for suitable Power -to-X pathways and products in developing and emerging countries,

    C. Hank et al. , “Site -specific, comparative analysis for suitable Power -to-X pathways and products in developing and emerging countries,” 2023. 36

    2023

  19. [24]

    Shipping sun and wind to Belgium is key in climate neutral economy,

    Hydrogen Import Coalition, “Shipping sun and wind to Belgium is key in climate neutral economy,” 2020, [Online]. Available: https://www.deme -group.com/sites/default/files/2021- 01/Hydrogen Import Coalition Final Report.pdf

    2020

  20. [25]

    OECD, 2019

    IEA, The Future of Hydrogen. OECD, 2019. doi: 10.1787/1e0514c4-en

    2019 doi

  21. [26]

    The cost of production and storage of renewable hydrogen in South Africa and transport to Japan and EU up to 2050 under different scenarios,

    T. H. Roos, “The cost of production and storage of renewable hydrogen in South Africa and transport to Japan and EU up to 2050 under different scenarios,” Int J Hydrogen Energy, vol. 46, no. 72, pp. 35814–35830, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2021.08.193

    2021 doi

  22. [27]

    Conditioned hydrogen for a green hydrogen supply for heavy duty -vehicles in 2030 and 2050 – A techno-economic well-to-tank assessment of various supply chains,

    L. Sens, U. Neuling, K. Wilbrand, and M. Kaltschmitt, “Conditioned hydrogen for a green hydrogen supply for heavy duty -vehicles in 2030 and 2050 – A techno-economic well-to-tank assessment of various supply chains,” Int J Hydrogen Energy , Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2...

    2022 doi

  23. [28]

    Optionen für den Import grünen Wasserstoffs nach Deutschland bis zum Jahr 2030 : Transportwege - Länderbewertungen - Realisierungserfordernisse,

    F. Staiß et al., “Optionen für den Import grünen Wasserstoffs nach Deutschland bis zum Jahr 2030 : Transportwege - Länderbewertungen - Realisierungserfordernisse,” acatech - Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften, München, 2022. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.48669/esys_2022-6

    2022 doi

  24. [29]

    Feasibility of green ammonia trading via pipelines and shipping: Cases of Europe, North Africa, and South America,

    T. Galimova, M. Fasihi, D. Bogdanov, and C. Breyer, “Feasibility of green ammonia trading via pipelines and shipping: Cases of Europe, North Africa, and South America,” J Clean Prod, vol. 427, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139212

    2023

  25. [30]

    Optimization of green ammonia distribution systems for intercontinental energy transport,

    N. Salmon, R. Bañares -Alcántara, and R. Nayak -Luke, “Optimization of green ammonia distribution systems for intercontinental energy transport,” iScience, vol. 24, no. 8, p. 102903, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102903

    2021

  26. [31]

    Global trading of renewable electricity-based fuels and chemicals to enhance the energy transition across all sectors towards sustainability,

    T. Galimova et al., “Global trading of renewable electricity-based fuels and chemicals to enhance the energy transition across all sectors towards sustainability,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 183, p. 113420, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.113420

    2023

  27. [33]

    H2Global Stiftung - Results of the H2Global Pilot auction,

    H2Global, “H2Global Stiftung - Results of the H2Global Pilot auction,” https://www.esmap.org/sites/default/files/2022/H4D/240904_H4D-presentation_H2Global- Pilot-Auction-Results.pdf

    2022

  28. [34]

    Techno -economic analysis of hydrogen storage and transportation from hydrogen plant to terminal refueling station,

    Y. Rong et al. , “Techno -economic analysis of hydrogen storage and transportation from hydrogen plant to terminal refueling station,” Int J Hydrogen Energy, vol. 52, pp. 547–558, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.01.187. 37

    2024 doi

  29. [35]

    Cost assessment and evaluation of various hydrogen delivery scenarios,

    M. E. Demir and I. Dincer, “Cost assessment and evaluation of various hydrogen delivery scenarios,” Int J Hydrogen Energy , vol. 43, no. 22, pp. 10420 –10430, May 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.08.002

    2018 doi

  30. [36]

    Techno-economic feasibility of road transport of hydrogen using liquid organic hydrogen carriers,

    M. Hurskainen and J. Ihonen, “Techno-economic feasibility of road transport of hydrogen using liquid organic hydrogen carriers,” Int J Hydrogen Energy , vol. 45, no. 56, pp. 32098 –32112, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.08.186

    2020 doi

  31. [37]

    Determining the lowest -cost hydrogen delivery mode,

    C. YANG and J. OGDEN, “Determining the lowest -cost hydrogen delivery mode,” Int J Hydrogen Energy, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 268–286, Feb. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.05.009

    2007 doi

  32. [38]

    Cost Optimization of Compressed Hydrogen Gas Transport via Trucks and Pipelines,

    M. D. Solomon, W. Heineken, M. Scheffler, and T. Birth -Reichert, “Cost Optimization of Compressed Hydrogen Gas Transport via Trucks and Pipelines,” Energy Technology, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1002/ente.202300785

    2023 doi

  33. [39]

    Environmental and economic evaluation of ammonia as a fuel for short-sea shipping: A case study,

    B. Zincir, “Environmental and economic evaluation of ammonia as a fuel for short-sea shipping: A case study,” Int J Hydrogen Energy , vol. 47, no. 41, pp. 18148 –18168, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.03.281

    2022 doi

  34. [40]

    A techno-economic analysis of ammonia -fuelled powertrain systems for rail freight,

    Y. Zhang et al., “A techno-economic analysis of ammonia -fuelled powertrain systems for rail freight,” Transp Res D Transp Environ , vol. 119, p. 103739, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2023.103739

    2023

  35. [41]

    Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen transportation infrastructure using ammonia and methanol,

    J. Cui and M. Aziz, “Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen transportation infrastructure using ammonia and methanol,” Int J Hydrogen Energy , Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.01.096

    2023 doi

  36. [42]

    Comparative assessment of methanol and ammonia: Green fuels vs. hydrogen carriers in fuel cell power generation,

    A. Sánchez, E. C. Blanco, and M. Martín, “Comparative assessment of methanol and ammonia: Green fuels vs. hydrogen carriers in fuel cell power generation,” Appl Energy , vol. 374, p. 124009, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124009

    2024

  37. [44]

    Thorough economic and carbon footprint analysis of overall hydrogen supply for different hydrogen carriers from overseas production to inland distribution,

    A. Kim, H. Lee, B. Brigljević , Y. Yoo, S. Kim, and H. Lim, “Thorough economic and carbon footprint analysis of overall hydrogen supply for different hydrogen carriers from overseas production to inland distribution,” J Clean Prod , vol. 316, p. 128326, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016...

    2021

  38. [45]

    Detailed techno-economic assessment of ammonia as green H2 carrier,

    F. Restelli, E. Spatolisano, L. A. Pellegrini, A. R. de Angelis, S. Cattaneo, and E. Roccaro, “Detailed techno-economic assessment of ammonia as green H2 carrier,” Int J Hydrogen Energy, vol. 52, pp. 532–547, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.06.206

    2024 doi

  39. [46]

    Importstrategie für Wasserstoff und Wasserstoffderivate,

    BMWK, “Importstrategie für Wasserstoff und Wasserstoffderivate,” 2024. 38

    2024

  40. [47]

    atlite: A Lightweight Python Package for Calculating Renewable Power Potentials and Time Series,

    F. Hofmann, J. Hampp, F. Neumann, T. Brown, and J. Hörsch, “atlite: A Lightweight Python Package for Calculating Renewable Power Potentials and Time Series,” J Open Source Softw , vol. 6, no. 62, p. 3294, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.21105/joss.03294

    2021 doi

  41. [48]

    Estimating long -term global supply costs for low - carbon hydrogen,

    G. Brändle, M. Schönfisch, and S. Schulte, “Estimating long -term global supply costs for low - carbon hydrogen,” Appl Energy , vol. 302, p. 117481, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.APENERGY.2021.117481

    2021

  42. [49]

    Supply curves of electricity - based gaseous fuels in the MENA region,

    B. Lux, J. Gegenheimer, K. Franke, F. Sensfuß, and B. Pfluger, “Supply curves of electricity - based gaseous fuels in the MENA region,” Comput Ind Eng, vol. 162, p. 107647, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107647

    2021

  43. [50]

    Capital expenditure and levelized cost of electricity of photovoltaic plants and wind turbines – Development by 2050,

    L. Sens, U. Neuling, and M. Kaltschmitt, “Capital expenditure and levelized cost of electricity of photovoltaic plants and wind turbines – Development by 2050,” Renew Energy, vol. 185, pp. 525–537, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.12.042

    2022 doi

  44. [51]

    Energy Transition Outlook 2022: A global and regional forecast to 2050. Technical Report.,

    DNV GL, “Energy Transition Outlook 2022: A global and regional forecast to 2050. Technical Report.,” 2022

    2022

  45. [52]

    Technology Data for Renewable Fuels ,

    Danish Energy Agency and Energinet, “Technology Data for Renewable Fuels ,” https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Analyser/technology_data_for_renewable_fuels.pdf

  46. [53]

    IRENA, GLOBAL HYDROGEN TRADE TO MEET THE 1.5°C CLIMATE GOAL PART II TECHNOLOGY REVIEW OF HYDROGEN CARRIERS . 2022. [Online]. Available: www.irena.org/publications

    2022

  47. [54]

    Dry, Technical & Cost Comparison of Laterite Treatment Processes Part 3

    M. Dry, Technical & Cost Comparison of Laterite Treatment Processes Part 3. 2015. [Online]. Available: www.altamet.com.au

    2015

  48. [55]

    Low carbon energy and feedstock for the European chemical industry,

    A. Bazzanella and F. Ausfelder, “Low carbon energy and feedstock for the European chemical industry,” 2017

    2017

  49. [56]

    Annex to the IEA G20 Hydrogen report: Assumptions,

    IEA, “Annex to the IEA G20 Hydrogen report: Assumptions,” 2019

    2019

  50. [57]

    Evaluation of Concepts and Systems for Marine Transportation of Hydrogen,

    Ø. Sekkesaeter, “Evaluation of Concepts and Systems for Marine Transportation of Hydrogen,” 2019

    2019

  51. [58]

    Riemer, L

    M. Riemer, L. Zheng, J. Eckstein, M. Wietschel, and R. Kunze, “Global Atlas of H2 Potential Sustainable locations in the world for the green hydrogen economy of tomorrow: technical, economic and social analyses of the development of a sustainable glob al hydrogen atlas Future ...

    2022

  52. [59]

    Point -to-point transportation: The economics of hydrogen export,

    T. Borsboom -Hanson, S. R. Patlolla, O. E. Herrera, and W. Mérida, “Point -to-point transportation: The economics of hydrogen export,” Int J Hydrogen Energy, vol. 47, no. 74, pp. 31541–31550, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.07.093

    2022 doi

  53. [60]

    Techno-economic analysis of freight railway electrification by overhead line, hydrogen and batteries: Case studies in Norway and USA,

    F. Zenith, R. Isaac, A. Hoffrichter, M. S. Thomassen, and S. Møller -Holst, “Techno-economic analysis of freight railway electrification by overhead line, hydrogen and batteries: Case studies in Norway and USA,” Proc Inst Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit, vol. 234, no. 7, pp. 7...

    2020 doi

  54. [61]

    The future potential hydrogen demand in energy-intensive industries - a site -specific approach applied to Germany,

    M. Neuwirth, T. Fleiter, P. Manz, and R. Hofmann, “The future potential hydrogen demand in energy-intensive industries - a site -specific approach applied to Germany,” Energy Convers Manag, vol. 252, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115052

    2022

  55. [62]

    Route to zero emission shipping: Hydrogen, ammonia or methanol?,

    C. J. McKinlay, S. R. Turnock, and D. A. Hudson, “Route to zero emission shipping: Hydrogen, ammonia or methanol?,” Int J Hydrogen Energy, vol. 46, no. 55, pp. 28282–28297, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.06.066

    2021 doi

  56. [63]

    Investigation on the decarbonization of shipping: An approach to hydrogen and ammonia,

    O. B. Inal, B. Zincir, and C. Deniz, “Investigation on the decarbonization of shipping: An approach to hydrogen and ammonia,” Int J Hydrogen Energy, vol. 47, no. 45, pp. 19888–19900, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.01.189

    2022 doi

  57. [64]

    Das neue Heizkraftwerk Leipzig Süd,

    Stadtwerke Leipzig GmbH, “Das neue Heizkraftwerk Leipzig Süd,” 2024, Leipzig

    2024

  58. [66]

    Präsentation zur Bürgerinformationsveranstaltung in Altbach: Projekt Fuel Switch Altbach-Deizisau ,

    EnBW, “Präsentation zur Bürgerinformationsveranstaltung in Altbach: Projekt Fuel Switch Altbach-Deizisau ,” 2021, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG

    2021

  59. [67]

    Enertile Explorer: Stromsystem Deutschland Erzeugung, TN -Scenarios,

    Fraunhofer ISI, “ Enertile Explorer: Stromsystem Deutschland Erzeugung, TN -Scenarios,” https://enertile-explorer.isi.fraunhofer.de:8443/open- view/28116/f8912161f1cdcd6d178e52526c44b620

  60. [68]

    A hydrogen supply chain with spatial resolution: Comparative analysis of infrastructure technologies in Germany,

    M. Reuß, T. Grube, M. Robinius, and D. Stolten, “A hydrogen supply chain with spatial resolution: Comparative analysis of infrastructure technologies in Germany,” Appl Energy, vol. 247, pp. 438–453, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.064. 40 APPENDIX Appendix A. Insigh...

    2019 doi

  61. [2025]

    Available: https://www.yara.com/siteassets/investors/057 -reports-and- presentations/other/2022/yca-capital-markets-day-full-length.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://www.yara.com/siteassets/investors/057 -reports-and- presentations/other/2022/yca-capital-markets-day-full-length.pdf

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.