Evaluation of Hydrogen Supply Options for Sustainable Aviation

Abstract

From an environmental perspective, green hydrogen is a promising alternative energy carrier for short-to middle-range flights. Furthermore, hydrogen produced from renewable energy releases no carbon dioxide emissions during production and use. Therefore, hydrogen is a potential solution for reducing aviation-related emissions. Besides, the economic competitiveness of hydrogen against conventional fuels, mainly influenced by the hydrogen supply chain design, will be a key determinant for future hydrogen deployment. The supply chain consists of production, compression, transportation, and liquefaction, but these components’ exact order, sizing, and location are still insecure. Different transport options exist, which are associated with various economic impacts during their purchase and use, as well as various supply chain configurations result in different overall expenses. We analyze demand and distance scenarios using an expense-oriented economic evaluation with CAPEX and OPEX to determine the best transport configuration. The total expenses of hydrogen are highly influenced by the expenses caused by energy and transport volume. Here, pipeline transportation is a promising option, as well as liquid hydrogen truck transportation in cryogenic tanks. It turns out that distance and demand for hydrogen strongly influence the choice of transportation.

Appendix

Appendix A:

Parametrization of the three supply chain configurations

Stage ${\varvec{i}}$	Parameter	Configuration 1	Configuration 2	Configuration 3
Prices	$p^{{{\text{Electricity}}}}$	0.2664 €/kWh
	$p^{{{\text{Nitrogen}}}}$	0.2 – 0.35 €/l
	$p^{{{\text{Fuel}}}}$	2 €/l
	$p^{{{\text{Driver}}}}$	35 €/h
Liquefaction	$c_{Liquefaction}^{{{\text{CAPEX}}}}$	105 million €$\left( {\frac{{b_{Liquefaction} }}{50\,t/day}} \right)^{0.66}$
	$b_{Liquefaction}$	83,000 t/year	82,000 t/year	82,000 t/year
	$\tau_{i}$	20 years
	$c^{{{\text{Maintenance}}}}$$\left( {c_{Liquefaction}^{{{\text{CAPEX}}}} } \right)$	4%
	Losses	1.65%
	$a_{Liquefaction}^{{{\text{Nitrogen}}}}$	100,000 l/year
	$a_{Liquefaction}^{{{\text{Electricity}}}}$	6.78 kWh/kg
Compression	$c_{Compression}^{{{\text{CAPEX}}}}$	15,000 €$\left( {\frac{{b_{compression} }}{1\,kW}} \right)^{0.6089}$
	$b_{Compression}$	-	-	81,000 t/year
	$\tau_{i}$	15 years
	$c^{{{\text{Maintenance}}}}$$\left( {c_{Compression}^{{{\text{CAPEX}}}} } \right)$	4%
	Losses	1.96 kWh/kg
	$a_{Compression}^{{{\text{Electricity}}}}$	0.5%
Transport	$c_{Transport}^{{{\text{CAPEX}}}}$	$p^{{{\text{Tractor}}}} :$ 160,000 € $p^{{{\text{Trailer}}}}$: 860,000 €	$292.152 *$ $e^{{\left( {\frac{{0.0016 \cdot 250\;{\text{mm}}}}{{{\text{mm}}}}} \right)}} \cdot s_{pipeline}$	$p^{Tractor} :$ 160,000 € $p^{Trailer}$: 550,000 €
	$s_{Transport}$	-	100% new: 190 km 50% new: 95 km 0% new: 0 km	-
	$\tau_{i}$	$Tractor:$ 8 years $Trailer$: 12 years	40 years	$Tractor:$ 8 years $Trailer$: 12 years
	$c_{Transport}^{{{\text{Maintenance}}}}$$\left( {c_{Transport}^{{{\text{CAPEX}}}} } \right)$	$Tractor:$ 12% $Trailer$: 2%	5 €/m	$Tractor:$ 12% $Trailer$: 2%
	$a_{Transport}^{{{\text{Energy}}}}$	Fuel: 30 l/100 km	Electricity: 0.82 kWh/kg	Fuel: 30 l/100 km
	Losses	1.65%	0.5%	0%
	$n$	25	1	155
	$a_{Truck}^{{{\text{Driver}}}} \left( {r_{i} } \right)$	8 h/day	-	8 h/day

Appendix B:

Calculation of the case study

Configuration 1:

$$ x_{Liquefaction} = {\text{80,600,000}}\;{\text{kg}} \cdot 1.65 \% \cdot 1.65\% = {\text{83,281,743.4}}\;{\text{kg}} $$

(3)

(4)

(2)

$$ x_{Liquefaction} = {\text {80,600,000}}\;{\text{kg}} \cdot 1.65 \% = {\text{82,125,000}}\;{\text{kg}} $$

$$ n = \frac{{{\text{82,125,000}}\;{\text{kg}}}}{{{\text{4,500}}\;{\text{kg}} \cdot \left( {2\frac{tours}{{day}} \cdot 365\frac{days}{{year}}} \right)}} = 25 $$

(7)

(8)

(2)

(1)