Search

Low-carbon hydrogen is considered as one of the key measures to decarbonise continental Europe and Japan. Northern Norway has abundant renewable energy and natural gas resources which can be converted to low-carbon hydrogen. However, Norway is located relatively far away from these markets and finding efficient ways to transport this hydrogen to the end-user is critical. In this study, liquefied hydrogen (LH 2) and ammonia (NH 3), as H 2 -based energy carriers, are analysed and compared with respect to energy efficiency, CO 2 footprint and cost. It is shown that the LH 2 chain is more energy efficient and has a smaller CO 2 footprint (20 and 23 kg-CO 2 /MWh th for Europe and Japan, respectively) than the NH 3 chain (76 and 122 kg-CO 2 /MWh th). Furthermore, the study finds the levelized cost of hydrogen delivered to Rotterdam to be lower for LH 2 (5.0 EUR/kg-H 2) compared to NH 3 (5.9 EUR/kg-H 2), while the hydrogen costs of the two chains for transport to Japan are in a similar range (about 7 EUR/kg-H 2). It is also shown that under optimistic assumptions, the costs associated with the LH 2 chain (3.2 EUR/kg-H 2) are close to meeting the 2030 hydrogen cost target of Japan (2.5 EUR/kg-H 2). • LH 2 and NH 3 are analysed and compared regarding efficiency, CO 2 footprint and cost. • The LH 2 chain is associated with less CO 2 emissions than the NH 3 chain. • The hydrogen cost delivered to Rotterdam is lower for LH 2 compared to NH 3. • Two chains have similar costs delivered to Japan under conservative assumptions. • The LH 2 chain costs almost meet the target of Japan under optimistic assumptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]