2016 Report Liquid Hydrogen

Norwegian future
value chains
for liquid hydrogen
maritimecleantech.no
Norwegian future value chains for liquid hydrogen NCE MARITIME CLEANTECH
Table of content
1. Summary........................................................................................................................................................ 4
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Hydrogen today ............................................................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Future demand .............................................................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Liquid hydrogen ........................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Properties of hydrogen and other fuels ....................................................................................................... 10
3.4 Green hydrogen .......................................................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Current and future price of hydrogen ......................................................................................................... 13
4. Value chain liquid hydrogen (LH2) ............................................................................................................. 16
4.1 Production processes .................................................................................................................................. 17
4.2 Liquefaction................................................................................................................................................ 21
4.3 Storage ........................................................................................................................................................ 26
4.4 Distribution................................................................................................................................................. 27
4.5 Bunkering ................................................................................................................................................... 29
4.6 End users .................................................................................................................................................... 32
4.7 Energy efficiency throughout the value chain ............................................................................................ 35
5. Regulations, standards and codes for liquid hydrogen................................................................................. 38
6. Marine bunkering today ............................................................................................................................... 42
6.1 Alternative zero-emission fuels to LH2 ...................................................................................................... 46
6.2 Price comparison between fuels ................................................................................................................. 49
6.3 Price development for liquid hydrogen ...................................................................................................... 50
7. Future demand for liquid hydrogen ............................................................................................................. 53
7.1 Car ferries ................................................................................................................................................... 54
7.2 High speed crafts ........................................................................................................................................ 54
7.3 Platform Supply Vessels............................................................................................................................. 56
7.4 Summary – Demand of LH2 ...................................................................................................................... 58
7.5 Energy need – natural gas and electricity ................................................................................................... 64
8. Case studies ................................................................................................................................................. 66
8.1 Car ferry Halhjem-Sandvikvåg ................................................................................................................... 66
8.2 High-speed craft Bergen-Nordfjord ............................................................................................................ 69
8.3 PSV from Mongstad to Statfjord ................................................................................................................ 72
9. Summary: Barriers for a liquid hydrogen value chain ................................................................................. 75
10. Literature and references .......................................................................................................................... 77
11. Appendix .................................................................................................................................................. 87
1
2
Acronyms and abbreviations

onyms and Abbreviation
abbreviations
Acronyms and abbreviations Meaning
onyms
reviation and Acronyms
abbreviations
Abbreviation
ADR and abbreviations
Meaning Meaning Agreement concerning the International
European
reviation Abbreviation
ADR Meaning
European AgreementMeaning
concerning
European
Carriage the International
ofAgreement
Dangerous concerning
Goods by theRoadInternational
ADR
ATR European Agreement
Carriage of Dangerous European
concerning
Goods
Carriage
Auto Agreement
the International
ofbyDangerous
Thermal Road concerning
Reforming the
Goods by Road International
ATR
CCS Carriage of Dangerous
Auto Thermal Carriage
ReformingGoods
Auto
Carbon ofbyDangerous
Thermal
CaptureRoadStorageGoods by Road
Reforming
ATR
CCS
C Auto Thermal Reforming
Carbon Capture StorageAuto
CarbonThermal Reforming
PropaneCapture Storage
3 H8
CCS
C3H3OH
CH 8
Carbon
PropaneCapture StorageCarbon
PropaneCapture Storage
Methanol
OH C3H38OH
CH Propane
Methanol Propane
Methanol
Methane
4
OH CH
CH324OH
CO Methanol
Methane Methanol
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
CH42
CO Methane
Carbon Dioxide Methane
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
2eq
q
CO
CO22eq
FCH-JU Carbon
Carbon Dioxide Carbon
Dioxide Equivalent
Carbon
Fuel Dioxide
Dioxide
Cell Equivalent
and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking
-JU
q CO2eq
FCH-JU
GHG Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
Fuel Cell and HydrogenCarbon
Fuel 2 Dioxide
Joint
Cell and Equivalent
Undertaking
Hydrogen
Green House Gas Emissions 2 Joint Undertaking
G-JU FCH-JU
GHG
GoO Fuel Cell and Hydrogen
Fuel
Green House Gas Emissions 2Cell
Joint
Green House
Guarantee andUndertaking
Hydrogen 2
Gas Emissions
of Origin Joint Undertaking
G GHG
GoO
HSC Green House Gas Emissions
Green
Guarantee of Origin High-SpeedHouse Gas
Guarantee ofCraft
OriginEmissions
GoO
HSC
HVO Guarantee of Origin
High-Speed Craft HydroGuarantee
High-Speed of
Treated Origin
Craft
Vegetable Oils
O HSC
HVO
IEA High-Speed
Hydro Craft
Treated High-Speed
Vegetable Oils Craft
Hydro TreatedEnergy
International Vegetable
AgencyOils
O HVO
IEA
IEAGHG Hydro TreatedEnergy
Hydro
AgencyOils
TreatedEnergy
AgencyOilsGreenhouse Gas
GHG IEA
IEAGHG
IRaS International Energy
International EnergyInternational
Agency Greenhouse
Agency
International
Integrated Energy
Energy Agency
Gasand Storage
Agency
Refrigeration Greenhouse Gas
GHG IEAGHG
IRaS
IRENA International Energy International
Agency
Integrated Refrigeration
The and
Integrated Greenhouse
Energy
Storage Agency
Gasand Storage
Refrigeration
International Renewable Greenhouse
Energy AgencyGas
NA IRaS
IRENA
ISO Integrated
The Refrigeration
International Integrated
The and
Renewable Storage
Refrigeration
Energy
International
International Agency andforStorage
Renewable
Organization Energy Agency
Standardization
NA IRENA
ISO
K The International Renewable
The
International Organization International
forEnergy
International
Kelvin Agency
Renewable
Standardization
Organization for Energy Agency
Standardization
ISO
K
LH2 International
Kelvin Organization
International
Kelvinfor Hydrogen
Liquefied Standardization
Organization for Standardization
K
LH2
LNG Kelvin Kelvin
Liquefied HydrogenLiquid
Liquefied Hydrogen
Natural Gas
LH2
LNG
LPG Liquefied Hydrogen Liquefied
Liquid Natural Gas Liquefied Hydrogen
Liquid Natural Gas Gas
Petroleum
LNG
LPG
MGO Liquid Natural
Liquefied Gas Liquid
Petroleum Gas
LiquefiedNatural Gas
Petroleum
Marine Gas Oil Gas
O LPG
MGO
NASA Liquefied Petroleum
Marine Gas Oil Liquefied
Gas
Marine
The Petroleum
Gas Oil
National Gas
Aeronautics and Space Administration
OA MGO
NASA
NCE Marine Gas Oil Marine
The National Aeronautics Gas Oil
and Space
The National
Norwegian Administration
Aeronautics
Centres and Space Administration
of Expertise
A NASA
NCE
NH The National
Norwegian Aeronautics
Centres The
of National
and Space
Expertise
Norwegian
Ammonia Aeronautics
Administration
Centres and Space Administration
of Expertise
3
NCE
NH33
Nm Norwegian
Ammonia Centres of Norwegian
Expertise
Ammonia
Normal Centres
cubic meterof Expertise
NH3
Nm Ammonia Ammonia
Normal cubic meter Normal cubic meter
PCU3
Nm Personalcubic
Normal cubic meter Normal Car Unit
meter
PCU
PEM Personal Car Unit Proton
Personal Car UnitMembrane
Exchange
PCU
PEM
PSV Personal Car UnitMembrane
Proton Exchange Personal
Proton
Platform Car UnitVessel
Exchange
Supply Membrane
PEM
PSV
SMR Proton Exchange Membrane
Platform Supply VesselProton
Platform
Steam Exchange Membrane
SupplyReforming
Methane Vessel
PSV
SMR
SOFC Platform SupplyReforming
Steam Methane Vessel
Platform
Steam Supply
Methane Vessel
Reforming
Solide Oxide Fuel Cells
C SMR
SOFC
USD Steam
Solide Methane
Oxide FuelReforming
Steam
Solide Methane
Cells
United Oxide Reforming
States Fuel Cells
Dollar
C SOFC
USD
VAT Solide Oxide Fuel Cells
Solide
United States DollarValue Oxide
UnitedAdded Fuel
States Tax Cells
Dollar
USD
VAT United States Tax
Value Added DollarUnited States Tax
Value Added Dollar
VAT Value Added Tax Value Added Tax
Units
= 1 EJ = 278 TWh = 278 TWh 278 TWh
= 1 MJ = 3,6 kWh = 3,6 kWh 3,6 kWh 2
= 1 MPa = 10 bar = 10 bar 2 10 bar 2
2 2
= 1 Ton = 1000 kg = 1000 kg 1000 kg
= 1 TWh = 1000 GWh = 1000 GWh 1000 GWh
3
1. Summary
The purpose of the report has been to investigate barriers for a future Norwegian value chain
on liquid hydrogen for maritime use, with a special focus on the volumes of LH2 for car
ferries, high-speed crafts and platform supply vessels in the region from Rogaland to
Trøndelag.
The most obvious barrier is the lack of access to liquid hydrogen produced in Norway. In
addition to transportation costs, the current liquefaction capacity in Europe of 20 tons per day
is far from the volumes needed. If just 25 percent of the energy consumption from the three
vessel types is converted to hydrogen it would require 72 tons per day, and several crossings
would require a daily transportation of volumes up to four tons, making the value chain prone
for logistical problems.
A complete transformation from fossil fuels to LH2 for car ferries, high-speed crafts and PSVs
would have a daily demand of about 275 tons of hydrogen. This is a volume that Norway has
the energy resources to produce both through electrolysis using renewable energy and gas
reformation using natural gas. Hydrogen production from natural gas needs CCS to achieve a
CO2e/kg LH2-level low enough to be labelled as blue hydrogen.
In terms of storage and distribution by truck several suppliers have extensive experience with
cryogenic tanks, making this the most mature component of the value chain. Today trailers
can transport about 4000 kg of liquid hydrogen, while the largest on-site storage tanks
developed for space industry has a volume of 3800 m3. However, for an effective distribution
of larger volumes, bunkering vessels and/or tankers must be developed for operation along the
coastline.
For bunkering two different solutions, pressure-fill utilizing different pressure between the
offloading and receiving tank, or assisted by a LH2-pump, can be used. Studies show that a
flow rate of 1000 kg per 20-40 minutes is achievable by pressure-fill, while submerged LH2
pumps can increase the flowrate up to 600 m3/hour. However, there are no commercially
available bunkering station available for maritime use.
Throughout the value chain, further work on regulations, standards and codes developed
specifically for the maritime use of liquid hydrogen is needed.
From a price perspective LH2 today is not competitive with other fuels. Liquid hydrogen
transported from Europe to Southern Norway has a retail price of about 15 Euro/kg, making
the cost of delivered kWh to the propeller more than eight times higher than for marine gas
oil. But through technology development and establishment of large production and
liquefaction facilities in Norway a cost in the range of 3,5-7,5 Euro/kg, making the cost per
kWh competitive with bio-diesel is realistic.
4
4
2. Introduction
Through the ratification of the Paris Agreement, Norway has agreed to reduce CO2-emissions
with 40 percent in 2030 – compared to 1990-levels1, with an increased commitment to 45
percent in the recent governmental platform. In addition, the International Maritime
Organization has an ambition to reduce CO2-emissions from the shipping sector by 50 percent
– compared to 2008-levels by 20502.
In 2017, inland sea transport (and fisheries) were responsible for the emission of 3,0 million
tons of CO2-equivalents, or 5,6 percent of the total Norwegian emissions (including the oil
and gas sector)3. To reduce emissions, new renewable energy carriers and powertrains must
be introduced to the maritime sector.
In this study, we focus on a future Norwegian value chain for liquid hydrogen, from
production of hydrogen to bunkering of three types of vessels: car ferry, high speed craft and
a platform supply vessel. With the first car ferry using hydrogen to be put into traffic in 2021
and several other projects and developments involving other types of vessels, it is important
to identify future market potential, technology and regulation gaps and the infrastructure
necessary to support the development of such value chains.
We have included two production methods of hydrogen in our scope: gas reformation using
natural gas and electrolysis using electricity and water. While there are other ways to produce
hydrogen, these two are the most likely methods from a Norwegian perspective. It is also a
prerequisite that hydrogen from natural gas is combined with carbon capture & storage to
avoid CO2-emissions. From production of hydrogen and subsequent liquefaction, we move
our attention to storage, distribution and users.
Our geographical focus has been the Western coast of Norway from Trondheim to Egersund,
covering a substantial amount of the traffic to the Norwegian oil fields in The North Sea and
the Norwegian Sea, as well as car ferries and high-speed crafts.
The project has been supported financially by the Hordaland County Council and led by NCE
Maritime Cleantech – a cluster organization focusing on establishing sustainable innovation
projects with commercial potential and working together for new clean maritime solutions.
Research and analysis are done by cluster members Greensight and Norled, with support from
project partners Equinor and Gasnor.
Table 1: Project participants
Organization/company Name Position

NCE Maritime Cleantech Pål G. Eide and Paul Helland Project Manager
Greensight Martin L. Hirth (lead author), Karoline U. Energy analyst / Energy economist
Hove and Daniel Janzen
Norled Ivan Østvik Project Manager Hydrogen
Equinor Thomas Ryberg Principal Engineer Platform Technology Ship
Technology
Gasnor Johnny Ødegård Prosjektleder
1
Regjeringen, 2016
2
IMO, 2018
3
SSB, 2018b
5
5
3. Hydrogen today
Today, over 50 percent of the global production of hydrogen is used to produce ammonia for
urea and other fertilizers. Of the remaining half, around 30 percent is used for various
processes related to refineries and about ten percent is used for methanol production.
Hydrogen for transporting purposes is merely a marginal market as of today.
In total the current demand for hydrogen is about 8 EJ of energy per year, equivalent to about
67 million tons of hydrogen4 or 2224 TWh of electricity5. As we see from the figure below,
around 1 percent of the global hydrogen demand today is in liquid form.
Figure 1: Global hydrogen demand by subsector
1%
1%
5%
10%
31%
51%
Refining Ammonia Methanol Other chemicals Processing Liquid hydrogen
In Norway, about 225 000 tons of hydrogen is produced in industry processes. Most of this
hydrogen is used to produce methanol at Tjeldbergodden at Aure in Møre og Romsdal County
(Equinor) and ammonia at Herøya in Porsgrunn in Telemark county (Yara).
At Tjeldbergodden, Equinor uses about 112 500 tons of gaseous hydrogen are used per year,
with an additional 5 500 tons of hydrogen being recirculated and used for heating together
with natural gas. They also have an excess production capacity of about 15 tons per day6. At
Herøya the yearly demand is about 70 000 tons of hydrogen7. Both facilities produce
hydrogen locally by reforming natural gas, currently without CCS8.
4
Using the lower heating value of 33,3 kWh/kg H2
5
Hydrogen Council (2017) and IRENA (2018)
6
Teknisk Ukeblad (2019b)
7
Based on a combined yearly demand of 180 000 tons between Tjeldbergodden and Herøya in (DNV-GL 2019)
8
DNV-GL (2019)
6
6
3.1 Future demand
The future global hydrogen market is dependent on both technological and political
development. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimate an additional
market demand of 8 EJ in 2050 – in addition to the current demand in feedstock9. The growth
will come in the transportation sector.
In their Sky Scenario, Shell argues that hydrogen will emerge from 2040 and onwards,
primarily for industry and transport, with a growth of about 8 EJ until 2050 and a steep
increase onwards. In 2070 they estimate a growth of 35 EJ of hydrogen from today’s level.
In a more optimistic scenario, the Hydrogen Council (figure 2) argue that the hydrogen
market could increase tenfold to 78 EJ in 2050. While all sectors grow, transportation makes
the largest leap, from next to nothing in 2019 to approximately 22 EJ or 6116 TWh of
electricity.
Figure 2 – Global hydrogen market in 2050 (EJ)10
10
22
9
11
9
16
Transportation Power Generation Industrial Energy

Building Heat and Power New feedstock Existing feedstock users
For the European Union alone Hydrogen Europe, as part of the EU-project Fuel Cell and
Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (FCH-JU) looks at two scenarios presented in figure 3 for
future growth: «business as usual» and «ambitious». In the two scenarios hydrogen make up 8
(780 TWh) and 24 percent (2 251 TWh) of the final energy demand11 in 2050, up from 2
percent today (325 TWh). Most of the forecasted increased market demand comes from
heating and power for buildings and transportation12.
9
Irena (2018b)
10
Hydrogen Council (2017)
11
Final energy demand has removed losses from energy transmission and distribution. Thus, it represents the
final amount of energy left at the disposal of households or other customers.
12
FCH-JU (2019)
7
7
Figure 3 – European final energy demand from hydrogen in 2050 (TWh)
2500
112
2000
675
1500
TWh
579
1000
43 237
85
500 207 257
53
1
391 391
0
Business as usual Ambitious
Existing industry New industry feedstock Industry energy
Heating and power buildings Transportation Power generation, buffering
For a future Norwegian hydrogen demand, DNV-GL has estimated an annual demand of 225
000 tons per year. Note that while the same amount of hydrogen is produced today, a portion
of the current production is a result of hydrogen being a bi-product from industrial processes
without an end user. In their 2030-estimate DNV-GL are referring to a market demand.
Based on dialogue with the owners of facilities at Tjeldbergodden and Herøya they assume
that their demand of hydrogen will remain stable in the coming years, thus making up about
75 percent of the annual demand in 2030.
Figure 4 – Demand of hydrogen in Norway 2030 – tons per year
2000 8000
18000
7000
70000
29000
112000
Ammonia Methanol Heavy FCEV Bus Train Maritime New Industry
The remaining 25 percent is divided between heavy duty vehicles, buses, maritime, trains and
new industrial users. Demand from the maritime sector is estimated to be 18 000 tons of
8
8
hydrogen per year, calculated from a list of 186 vessels that hails from the five largest ports in
terms of marine refuelling today13.
While there seems to be an agreement in different scenarios on the expansion of hydrogen,
especially in the transportation sector, the literature study also shows a great variety in the
estimated demand, with a high degree of uncertainty.
Table 2 – Summary of scenarios for future demand – TWh and EJ14
Source Geography Year TWh EJ

DNV-GL (2019) Norway 2030 8,34 0,03
FCH-JU (2019)15 Europe (final energy demand) 2030 481/665 1,7/2,4
FCH-JU (2019) Europe (final energy demand) 2050 780/2251 2,8/8,1
Shell Sky (2018) Global 2050 4 726 17
Irena (2018) Global 2050 4 448 16
Hydrogen Council (2017) Global 2050 21 684 78
3.2 Liquid hydrogen
While there is no lack of hydrogen production worldwide, the global liquefaction capacity is
about 350 tons/day. Current large-scale consumers of liquefied hydrogen are aerospace
industry, chemical industries, electronic/semiconductor industry and metallurgical industries.
Figure 5 – Tons of liquid hydrogen produced per day
Most of the current production takes place on the American continent, with a roughly
estimated production capacity of 215 tons/day in the USA and 81 tons/day in Canada. The
13
Stavanger, Bergen, Ålesund, Kristiansund and Tromsø
14
For the IRENA and Shell scenarios the estimated growth is added to the existing demand of 8 EJ
15
For FCH-JU the «business as usual» and «ambitious» scenarios are both listed
9
9
production capacity is expected to increase, as Air Liquide16, Air Products17 and Praxair18
have announced plans to build plants with a combined production of an additional 90 tons/day
in the US. Behind the US and Canada, Japan is the third largest producer of liquefied
hydrogen, with an estimated production capacity of 30 tons/day.
As shown in the table below – there are currently three production plants for liquid hydrogen
currently in operation in Europe, with a daily production of about 20 tons per day. In October
2018 Linde announced plans to double the production capacity at their facility in Leuna,
Germany to 10 tons per day from 2021, increasing the total European production to 25 tons
per day19. All three production plants in Europe produce liquid hydrogen from natural gas by
steam methane reforming, currently without CCS.
Table 3 – Current capacity of liquid hydrogen in Europe
Producer City Country Process Capacity Capacity Year

(Nm3/day) ton/day Opened
Air Liquide Waziers France SMR 4 864 10 1987
Air Products Rotterdam/Rosenberg Netherlands SMR 2 502 5 1990
Linde Leuna Germany SMR 2 038 5 2007
Currently without liquefaction plants in Norway, any demand for LH2 must be imported from
Europe. From Air Products in Rotterdam liquid hydrogen can either be distributed by truck on
road only with a cryogenic tank or as a cryogenic tank container at top-deck on a ro-ro vessel
with road transport to and from quay. The plant in Leuna does not have excess capacity until
the production is increased20 and it has not been possible to get an estimation on the available
capacity at the Air Liquide facility in France.
For a future liquefaction plant in Norway, Equinor holds 2023 as a best-case scenario for
production at Tjeldbergodden, with 2025 as more realistic21. From a market perspective
Equinor holds demand of 5 tons/day as a minimum, with a preferred market of 10-15
tons/day. In January 2019 a new initiative from Gasnor (gas supplier), Sunnhordland Kraftlag
(hydropower) and the municipality of Kvinnherad was launched. They look towards building
a liquefaction plant in Kvinnherad (approx. 2 hours south-east of Bergen) with a production
capacity of 10-20 tons/day but are at a very early stage of project development.
3.3 Properties of hydrogen and other fuels
Hydrogen has a high specific energy in joule or kWh/kg, but a low energy density compared
to other fuels for maritime transport. At lower heating value it contains 120 MJ/kg or 33,3
kWh per kilo and has a density of 0,08 kg/m3 in gaseous form at a pressure of 1 bar and 70,8
kg/m3 in liquid form.
By reducing the temperature of the hydrogen to – 252,9 degrees Celcius it converts to liquid
form, which is a more suitable for distribution of large quantities. LH2 at 0,1 MPa (1 bar)
16
Air Liquide (2018)
17
Air Products (2018)
18
Praxair (2018)
19
Linde (2018)
20
Correspondance with Linde
21
Øystese, Kirsten (2019)
10
10
contains about four times the energy per volume unit than does compressed hydrogen at 25
MPa’s (250 bar) and almost three times as much than for 35 MPa’s (350 bar)22.
Table 4 – Properties of hydrogen and other energy carriers 23
Boiling Density Specific Specific Energy Storage Chemical

point (°C (kg/m3) energy LHV energy LHV density temp/pressure comp.
1 bar) (MJ/kg) (kWh/kg) (MJ/m3)
Hydrogen -253 0,089 120 33,3 10,8 H2
Hydrogen 23 (350 bar) 120 33,3 5 040 Ambient 200-
compressed 1000 bar
Hydrogen 71 120 33,3 8 500 Cryogenic
liquid Atm./Low
pressure
MGO 175-650 890 42,7 11,97 38 000 Ambient Hydro-
atmospheric carbon
LNG -162 440 50 12,50 22 000 Cryogenic Mainly
Atm./Low CH4
pressure
LPG -42 490 46,4 12,90 22 740 Amb. or C3H8
Cryogenic/ Atm.
Liquid -33,3 653,1 18,6 5,17 14 100 Ambient NH3
ammonia High/Atm.
pressure
Methanol 65 780 20 5,56 36 700 Ambient Atm. CH3OH
Biodiesel >130 875 37,27 11,80 32 375 Ambient Atm.
22
Berstad et.al, 2009
23
Berstad, 2018a, Air Products, 2014 and Baykara, 2018
11
11
3.4 Green hydrogen
Through the CertifHY-project, the EU are currently developing a guarantee of origin scheme
for green hydrogen. The scheme is built up somewhat along the same principles as the market
for guarantees of origin for electricity, where producers of hydrogen can purchase certificates
to certify their product.
Using benchmarks for CO2-emissions the scheme is presented in the figure below, creating
categories of grey, blue and green hydrogen24. A pilot with 75 000 + guarantees of origins and
four hydrogen producers are currently underway with feedback and a final design of the
scheme. By early March 2019, 10 organisations were registered as account holders with the
first commercial transactions having been publicly announced.
Figure 6: CertifHy scheme for green hydrogen
The threshold for low-carbon hydrogen is set at 36,4 g/CO2eq / MJH2 or about 4,36 kg/CO2eq
per kilo of hydrogen, which is 60 percent below a set benchmark of the best technology
available at 91 g/CO2eq / MJH2 or about 10,9 kg/CO2eq per kilo of hydrogen from gas
reformation.
Certain criteria must be met in order to purchase guarantees of origin25:
a) Only facilities producing H2 with GHG emissions lower than the benchmark value of
91 g/CO2eq / MJH2 – since sign up or over the preceding 12 months are eligible.
24
Barth (2016)
25
CertifHY (2015)
12
12
Under the additional conditions listed below, these facilities will be able to produce:
1) CertifHy Low-GHG H2
2) CertifHy Green H2 in proportion of the share of renewable energy in the non-ancillary
energy used26.
When the renewable source is either on-site or has purchased GoOs, the scheme automatically
sets the CO2-level to 0. If the scheme of origins is implemented as the standard solution, the
threshold set for low carbon H2 demands CCS in order to reduce the emission-levels enough
to qualify for guarantees of origins, see chapter 4.1 for a discussion on CO2-content in
hydrogen production.
A different method to calculate CO2-emissions was used in the tender for the first hydrogen
car ferry in Norway. Here the Norwegian Public Roads Administration set a threshold using
the CO2-intensity of the energy source of which the hydrogen is produced. If an alternative
energy source to the Nordic power grid is used, the CO2-intensity per kWh cannot be higher
than the CO2-intensity of said grid2728.
Using the CO2-intensity in the period from 2013-2017 as an example, we see that there is an
emission-level of about 0,1 kgCO2e/kWh. With 50 kWh needed to produce 1 kg of hydrogen,
it would give an emission level per kg of hydrogen of about 5,15-5,7 kg CO2e/Kg H2.
Table 5 – CO2-intensity of the Nordic Grid 2013-201729
Mix Kg/CO2e / kWH Kg/CO2e / Kg H230

Nordic mix low voltage at grid 0,114 5,7
Nordic mix medium voltage at grid 0,107 5,35
Nordic mix high voltage at grid 0,103 5,15
A third certification standard is used by the German company Tüv Süd. In order to certify
hydrogen as green, the hydrogen must have a GHG-reduction potential of at least 50 percent
(75 percent for electrolysis with renewables) compared to fossil fuels or hydrogen from gas
reformation31. According to DNV-GL the Tüv Süd-standard corresponds to a maximum
carbon footprint of 2.7 kgCOe/kg H2 to be labelled as green hydrogen32.
3.5 Current and future price of hydrogen
There is no global or regional marketplace for hydrogen as a commodity, making it difficult

to give a precise picture of the price level. In addition, production cost is relative to the size of
the production plant, the price of electricity or natural gas and distribution costs. However,
several studies have estimated both a current and future price level that can serve as a
guideline. It is important to note that some predictions use production cost for hydrogen while
others report a retail price for end customers, making the figures difficult to compare directly.
26
Ancillary energy is energy consumed by machinery, which is not one of the essential directly applied energy
inputs for generating hydrogen
27
Excluded transportation of hydrogen
28
Norwegian Public Roads Administration (2018)
29
Asplan Viak (2018)
30
50 kWh/kg H2
31
Tüv Sud (2019)
32
DNV-GL (2019)
13
13
The EU-project Fuel Cells and Hydrogen – Joint Undertaking (FCH-JU) estimates a
production cost of 4-5 Euro/kg in order to achieve profitable solutions for end users in
mobility (land) and industry33. In a literature review of market growth from 2015 Hinicio
finds that three separate studies converge on the conclusion that a retail price of 5-7 Euro/kg
is realistic in 203034.
In 2014 a large study on electrolysers and hydrogen production found the price target from
FCH-JU within range. Taking into an account of estimated price reductions for electrolysers
of 50 (alkaline) and 60 (PEM) percent and increased efficiency reducing the kWh/kg of
hydrogen, the study estimated future prices for five different European markets. With a price
range between 2,2 and 5,0 Euro/kg hydrogen, best case scenarios are competitive with SMR
at 2,5 Euro/kg H235.
In a study from the US Department of Energy, based on US prices for natural gas, the
production cost for hydrogen from SMR is predicted to be between 1,7 and 2,1 USD/kg,
without compression, storage and dispensing. Using brown coal fuel, Kawasaki has estimated
a production cost of 24 yen/Nm3 or just below 2 Euro/kg hydrogen for their Australia-based
production plants. The price includes CCS and liquefication, but not export to Japan36.
The industry initiative Zero Emission Platform reference a current production cost of 2-4
Euro/kg H2 from SMR and 4-8 Euro/kg H2, arguing that increasing gas prices and reduction
cost on electrolyzers and other infrastructure would level hydrogen prices, independent of
production form towards 205037.
IRENA estimate a current (2018) production price for hydrogen of 5-6 USD/kg H2 and a
retail price of 13-16,5 USD/kg H2 Target prices varies from 3 USD/kg H2 (Japan), 5 USD/kg
H2 (US) and 6 USD/kg H2(Europe)38.
In Norway, DNV-GL estimates a price range from 20 to 50 kr/kg hydrogen from electrolysis
in 2030 and about 9 to 16 kr/kg H2 from gas reformation. The price range depends on the cost
of energy input, CCS and choice of technology39. In a forthcoming report, the Green Coastal
Shipping Programme estimates a price of 3 USD/kg for hydrogen from electrolysis and an
assumption of 3,5 USD/kg for liquified hydrogen40.
As the literature review confirms, it is difficult to establish a price for hydrogen. Most studies
seem to converge towards a production cost of 2-3 Euro/kg for compressed hydrogen. For
large scale liquid hydrogen, some studies indicate a future price around 2 Euro/kg, but this is
dependent on major technological development and larger scale41. Based on information from
the IDEALHY-project, it takes around 11-15 kWh to liquify1 kg of compressed hydrogen42.
With Norwegian energy prices w/tariffs of around 0.1 Euro/kWh – that would add an
additional 1-1,5 EUR/kg to the production price. In addition, the investment cost for the
Leuna facility, operated by Linde and commissioned in 2008 was around 20 MEUR43. From a
33
Tractabel Engie & Hincio (2017)
34
CertifHY (2015b)
35
E4Tech Sarl and Energy Element (2014)
36
Kawasaki (2018)
37
ZEP (2017)
38
Irena (2018)
39
DNV-GL (2019)
40
Green Coastal Shipping Programme (forthcoming)
41
Stolzenburg et.al (2013)
42
Stolzenburg et.al (2013)
43
Krasae-In (2013)
14
14
similar sized LH2- plant in Europe as Leuna, the reported retail price (ex. Distribution) is 7,1
Euro/kg44.
Table 6 – Summary of price estimates45
Source Production Retail Year Compressed/ Electrolysis/SM
cost/kg Price/kg Liquid R
FCH-JU (2017) 4-5 Euro 2025 Compressed Unknown
Hinicio (2015) 5-7 Euro 2030 Compressed Unknown
E4 Tech (2014) 2,2-5,0 Euro 2014 Compressed Electrolysis
E4 Tech (2014) 2,5 Euro 2014 Compressed Gas reformation
US DOE* 1,5-1,9 Euro Price for period of 2020- Compressed Gas reformation
(2012) 2039
Idealhy (2013) 1,72 Euro N.A, price for specific Liquid Electrolysis
plant 50t/day
Kawasaki 2 Euro Estimation current project Liquid Coal gasification
(2018) plans
ZEP (2017) 2-4 Euro Current market price Compressed Gas reformation
ZEP (2017) 4-8 Euro Estimated current market Compressed Electrolysis
price
ZEP (2017) 3 Euro 2045-2050 Compressed Electrolysis/gas
reformation
Shell (2017) Ca 1,5-4 / Weighted current / Compressed Gas reformation
1,8-3 Euro projected market price
Shell (2017) Ca 6-8 / 4 Weighted current / Compressed Electrolysis
Euro projected market price
IRENA* (2018) 4,4-5,3 Euro Estimated current market Compressed Electrolysis
price
IRENA* (2018) 11,5-14,5 Estimated current market Compressed Electrolysis
Euro price
IRENA* (2018) 0,9-2,6 Euro 2025-2030 Compressed Electrolysis
IRENA* (2018) 4,4-6,1 Euro 2025-2030 Compressed Electrolysis
GCSP (2019)* 2,7-2,8 Euro 2019 Compressed Electrolysis
(Alkaline and
PEM)
GCSP (2019)* 3 Euro 2019 Liquid Unknown
DNV-GL* 2-5 Euro 2030 Compressed Electrolysis
(2019) (Alkaline and
PEM)
DNV-GL* 1-1,6 Euro 2030 Compressed Gas reformation
(2019)
Greensight46 7,1 Euro ex. Current market price Liquid Gas reformation
Distribution
Greensight 11 Euro incl. 2020 in Norway in the Compressed Electrolysis
distribution Oslo-area, commercial
long-term contract
Greensight 7,5 Euro incl. 2023/4 in Norway in the Compressed Electrolysis
distribution Oslo-area, commercial
long-term contract
Klebanoff & 5,2-6,5 Euro Current market price Liquid Unknown –
Pratt (2016)* prob. Gas
reformation
44
Correspondance with supplier
45
*Converted from USD to Euro with an exchange rate of 0,88 EUR/USD or NOK to Euro with an exchange
rate of 9,84 NOK/EURO
46
Based on correspondence with suppliers and industrial knowledge
15
15
4. Value chain liquid hydrogen (LH2)

The focus in this chapter is the Norwegian future value chain for LH2 and includes methods and solutions relevant from a Norwegian
perspective. The two production methods included are therefore: 1) gas reformation using natural gas with CCS and 2) electrolysis using
electricity and water. The value chain includes production of hydrogen and subsequent liquefaction to storage solutions and distribution to end
users.
Figure 7: Norwegian future value chains for liquid hydrogen
High-speed
Distribution craft
Steam Carbon by truck with

Natural gas Methane Capture & cryogenic
Reforming Storage tank Direct Ferry
Liquification Storage bunkering
from
Distribution distribution
Electricity & by LH2 unit or local Platform
Electrolysis
water tanker storage supply vessel
Distribution
by cryogenic Other
tank
container on
ship/truck
16 16
4.1 Production processes
Over 95 percent of the current hydrogen production is fossil-fuel based, using oil, coal or gas
as the energy source. Reforming of natural gas is the most dominant production form, and
most cost and energy efficient. Most sources report about 48-50 percent, such as IRENA
(2018), IEA (2015) and Hydrogen Council (2018), but Shell (2017) reports share of 60
percent of annual hydrogen production from gas reformation. In large scale production, the
energy input in form of natural gas is typically 22 to 28 kWh/kg H2 with an efficiency of
around 70-80 percent47.
About 4 percent is produced by electrolysis where electricity is used to split water into
hydrogen and oxygen48. With a typical electrolyser efficiency of 60 percent, it requires
between 50 to 60 kWh to produce one kilo of hydrogen.
Norway has large amounts of both natural gas, 121 billion Sm3 in 201849, and about 10 TWh
of surplus hydropower in 201850. Thus, from an energy perspective Norway is well suited to
produce hydrogen from both gas reformation with CCS and electrolysis.
Figure 8: Hydrogen by production method51
4%
18 %
48 %
30 %
Electrolysis Coal gasification Oil-based Natural Gas Reforming
4.1.1 Hydrogen from gas reformation
The most common form of hydrogen production today is steam-methane reformation

(SMR)In SMR the methane reacts with steam in the presence of a catalyst to produce
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. Subsequently, in what is called the “water-
gas shift reaction,” the carbon monoxide and steam are reacted using a catalyst to produce
carbon dioxide and more hydrogen. In a final step the carbon dioxide and the hydrogen gas
stream, are separated52.
47
Holst, Steffen Møller et. al (2016)
48
IRENA (2018)
49
Norsk Petroleum (2019)
50
Statistics Norway (2019)
51
IRENA (2018)
52
Office of Energy Efficiency and renewable energy (2019)
17
17
Other technologies are partial oxidation using pure oxygen instead of steam as an oxidant and
autothermal reforming using a combination of steam and oxygen. In a recent study on the
introduction of hydrogen in the British gas grid, Auto Thermal Reforming (ATR) is looked
upon as a better solution than SMR – both in terms of investment cost, size and ability to
capture CO2. 53
The reported amounts of CO2 per kilo hydrogen from gas reformation varies. Soltani et.al
finds that the emissions from the production are about 7kgCO2/kgH254. In a more recent
analysis of the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG)
finds an emission level of ca. 9kg CO2/kgH255 from a standalone merchant hydrogen plant.
From life cycle perspective, it is necessary to also include emissions from the production of
natural gas, in the range of 1-5 kgCO2/kgH2 based on data from US gas production56.
Calculations made by Equinor shows that the expected carbon footprint from the Norwegian
continental shelf is about 11-12 kgCO2e/MWh of gas, translating into 0,5-0,6 kgCO2/kgH2.
Thus, the combined emission level from gas reformation in Norway is just below 10
kgCO2/kgH257.
Figure 9 – Hydrogen by gas reformation
While still in an early phase, there are already commercially available technologies for carbon
capture in hydrogen production from natural gas and in use in all major markets5859.
The most mature technology for carbon capture is absorption with solvents, such as amine
technology. Here the CO2 is captured by an amine solvent, a liquid compromising of water
53
H21 (2018)
54
Soltani, Rosen and Dincer (2014)
55
IEAGHG (2017)
56
NETL, 2015 in DNV-GL (2019)
57
Calculations in DVL-GL (2019) with input from Equinor (2017)
58
Voldsund (2016)
59
ZEP (2017)
18
18
and amines. This takes place after the water-gas-shift and before the hydrogen stream is
cleaned, as shown in the figure provided by researchers at SINTEF below60.
Figure 10 – Carbon Capture from Steam-Methane Reforming
A different technology is the cold capture system Cryocap, developed by Air Liquide and put
in use at their production facility in Port-Jerome in Normandy in 2015. Here, low
temperatures compress, liquefy and then separates the gases61.
Studies show that it is possible to capture over 90 percent of the emitted CO2 from SMR,
making the CO2-intensity well below 1 kg/CO2 per kg H262. In the proposed H21 North of
England-project to convert the gas networks across the North of England to hydrogen,
analysis estimate a CO2 capture-level of 94,2 percent and a CO2-footprint of 14,14 g/kWh63.
IEA Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG) reports a capture rate of between 54 and 90 percent of
emissions, from a study using different technologies to capture CO264.
In the H21-project the captured CO2 is going to be stored beneath the North Sea, on UK
Continental Shelf. The cost of establishing the necessary infrastructure for transport and
storage of CO2 is estimated to be £ 1 340 million with a yearly operational cost of £ 24
million. The proposed project looks to store an average of 17 million tons of CO2 per year,
taking maximum effect of economies of scale and estimates a cost between £ 5 and 10 per ton
CO2. Research from Sintef give a rough estimate of transportation costs in a CCS-system at
10-20 Euro/ton CO265. With an average CO2-content of 10 kg/kg H2, if produced with gas
from the Norwegian continental shelf, the transportation of CO2 alone would be between 0,1
and 0,2 Euro per kg H2.
In terms of storage, CO2-storage has been in operation on the Sleipner-field since 1996.
Currently plans are being made for a large-scale storage facility at Smeaheia – west of the
refinery at Kollsnes66. In the feasibility study CO2 from three sources are to be transported by
60
Sintef (2016)
61
Air Liquide (2015a)
62
Berstad (2018b)
63
H21 (2018) – H21 is a partnership between Northern Gas Networks, Equinor and Cadent
64
IEAGHG (2017)
65
Holst, Steffen Møller et.al (2016)
66
OED (2016)
19
19
ship to an onshore facility at Kollsnes for further transport by pipelines to the storage site. The
project costs have been estimated to between 7,2 and 12,6 billion NOK (ext. VAT). A final
investment decision is yet to be made.
4.1.2 Hydrogen from electrolysis
In electrolysis water is split by electricity to produce hydrogen and oxygen. If the source of
electricity is renewable there are no CO2-emissions in the production of hydrogen.
Figure 11: Hydrogen by electrolysis
The source of electricity for the hydrogen produced by electrolysis today is not known, but it
reasonable to assume that it in many cases it comes from a mix of renewables and fossil
sources. As an example, the CO2-emission factor in Norway in 2017 was 16,4 g/kWh67, while
the EU-mix in 2016 was estimated to 295,8g/kWh68.
In a literature study the International Renewable Energy Agency present an expected decrease
in total system cost for alkaline electrolysers from 750 EUR/kW in 2017 to 480 EUR/kW in
2025 and a drop from 1200 EUR/kW to 700 EUR/kW for PEM electrolysers69.
4.1.3 Gasification and other production forms
Gasification is a process where fuels, such as oil, coal or biomass, is dried and heated without
sufficient supply of oxygen for a complete combustion, thus creating a syngas consisting
mainly of hydrogen and CO2. In a water-gas-shift reaction, CO2 and water is converted to
CO2 and hydrogen as two separate streams. There are also other production forms that does
not fall in under the three categories we have presented, see Shell (2017) or DNV-GL (2019)
for an overview.
67
NVE (2018)
68
European Environment Agency (2018)
69
Irena (2018) – Total system cost include power supply and installation costs
20
20
4.2 Liquefaction
Regardless of production method, hydrogen becomes a liquid at -253 °C. At ambient

conditions, the theoretical minimum energy to liquefy hydrogen is 3,3 kWh / kg70. As the
main input of liquid hydrogen is hydrogen, the liquification plants are built where hydrogen
can be supplied. Furthermore, as hydrogen is today sourced primarily from natural gas; most
hydrogen liquification plants are located at natural gas terminals and liquefied at the hydrogen
production site. Finally, hydrogen is best produced near demand points as it is expensive to
transport due to its characteristics.
The market place for commercial scale, economical liquefaction plants is dominated by
Linde, Air Products and Praxair:
Figure 12: Global producers of liquid hydrogen71
3%
6%
10%
40%
31%
11%
Air Products Air Liquide Praxair Linde/BOG Iwatani Others
Liquefaction Method
Large scale hydrogen liquefaction facilities, which are present only in Northern America,
were largely developed during the space race in the 1950’s and 1960’s for NASA. As
hydrogen is a standardized product the production method is not of much concern other than
to the cost and the reliability (which can also be tied to cost) of the process.
In working to optimize the lowest cost per kilo of production, there are trade-offs between
capital expenditures which are upfront fixed costs regardless of actual production levels and
operational expenditures which are variable based on production levels. This gives rise to two
primary methods or cycles for liquefying hydrogen, namely; The Reverse Helium Cycle &
The Claud Cycle.
Reversed Helium Brayton Cycle: Small scale plants (up to 3 TPD) rely on the Reverse
Helium Brayton Cycle where the capital costs tend to be lower while the operating costs tend
70
Gardiner (2009)
71
Krasae-in, Stang and Neksa (2010)
21
21
to be higher. The Reversed Helium Brayton cycle begins with compressed hydrogen at 10 –
15 bar injected into the process. Liquid nitrogen is then used for pre-cooling of the hydrogen
to approximately -193 degrees Celsius or 80 Kelvin. The liquid nitrogen is then subsequently
vented to the atmosphere and not recycled.
The hydrogen is then cooled using expansion turbines through a helium cooling cycle and
finally through a Joule Thomson valve. The use of helium enables the use of low-cost oil-
injected screw compressors because of this, the plant is able to avoid hazardous area
requirements and therefore further reducing associated investment costs. Consequently, the
low-cost compressors are inefficient and therefore result in higher energy use and therefore
higher energy costs. Current energy use from this process ranges from 13,4 – 12,372.
Figure 13: Schematic drawing of Helium Brayton Cycle
Claud Cycle: Large scale plants on the other hand, rely on the Claude cycle where capital
costs are higher but the production levels are high enough that the lower operational costs (per
unit) offset this. Every current large-scale liquefaction system is based on a version of pre-
cooled Claude Cycle. For the beginning of this process a feed pressure of 15 – 25 bar is
required.
Like the Brayton Cycle, liquid nitrogen is then used for pre-cooling of the hydrogen to
approximately -193 degrees Celsius or 80 Kelvin. The liquid nitrogen is then subsequently
vented to the atmosphere. After the pre-cooling cycle the process differs from that of Helium
Brayton by using recycle compressors to cool hydrogen and finally through a Joule-Thomson
valve where it is cooled from 30K to 20K during expansion.2 Current energy use from this
process ranges from 12,7 – 10,8.73
72
The description, facts and illustration of the Helium Brayton Cycle is based on Ohlib and Decker (2015)
73
The description, facts and illustration of the Claud Cycle is based on Ohlig and Decker (2014)
22
22
Figure 14: Schematic drawing of Claud Cycle
Hydrogen liquefaction plant costs (CAPEX) vary significantly by location, time of production
and production capacity and other factors such as synergistic location together with other
processes such as LNG. However, it is still possible to sketch lines on CAPEX costs and
drivers.
Two major relationships between CAPEX and hydrogen liquefaction costs:

• Increased CAPEX investments enable reductions of specific OPEX costs
• Increased plant scale offers reduced specific CAPEX and specific OPEX costs
The strength of the effect of CAPEX on OPEX is unknown other than to know that as overall
CAPEX is increased, specific OPEX costs (cost per kg liquefied) decreases. If the cost of
electricity input is known, the tolerable investment cost to lower electricity consumption can
be calculated. For example; if power consumption is reduced by 1 kW (required effect) an
increase of CAPEX by $2 000 can be justified (assuming 8 000 h / year operation &
$0,05/kWh, 5-year payback period)74.
Finally, specific CAPEX costs can be further reduced by constructing multiple liquefaction
plants under the same specifications therefore spreading the research and development costs.
A possible additional outcome of construction multiple plants with the same design is
economies of scale, particularly on compression and other equipment produced specifically
for use in hydrogen liquefaction plants. Since there has been little activity in the market there
are few numbers which can be accurately relied upon for hydrogen liquefaction plant capital
costs.
74
Essler et.al (2012)
23
23
Figure 15: Selection of Investment Costs, Capacities & Efficiencies of Actual &
Forecasted Liquefaction plants75
Investment Cost and Capacity
160 000 000 Actual:

Air Liquide, Western
140 000 000 USA
Unknown efficiency Forecasted: IDEALHY
Initial Investment (USD)
120 000 000 50 TPD

Forecasted: 6,4 kWh/kg
100 000 000 Hyon
Unknown Efficiency Forecasted:
80 000 000 IDEALHY 40 TPD
6,5 kWh/kg
60 000 000 Forecasted:
US DOE
40 000 000 12 kWh/kg
20 000 000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Daily Liquefaction Capacity (in Tonnes)
Figure 16 shows relative capital cost reductions expected in the near to medium future on new
liquefaction plants.
Figure 16: Summary of Current and Projected Liquefaction Costs & Efficiencies76
75
Put together by the authors from a substantial literature review
76
Cardella et al (2017)
24
24
In terms of OPEX, hydrogen liquefaction variable costs are mostly related to the cost of liquid
nitrogen for pre-cooling and the electrical energy required for compression. Beyond this is
labour and general overhead and maintenance costs77.
Future developments
Hydrogen liquefaction plants processes have not changed significantly in the past 50 years78.
There are varying approaches and plans for reducing the cost and increasing the efficiency of
liquefaction plants. The Integrated Design for Efficient Advanced Liquefaction of Hydrogen
(IDEALHY) project was a project that brought together world experts to design an efficient
hydrogen liquification process in both energy and cost efficiency79. The project was funded
by the European Union and was done in collaboration with academic and industry partners.
According to IDEALHY, the strategy for increasing plant efficiency compared to current
liquification plants rests on 3 core drivers:
• Increasing plant scale
• More efficient process design
• Using more efficient components
Results of the study showed that 6,4 kWh/kg can be achieved. The estimated plant size for
this to be technically and commercially feasible is 40 - 50 tpd. The estimated investment cost
of such a plant is 105 MEUR at 50 tpd. The proposed changes build on both current
liquefaction techniques. The main highlights of the proposed changes include closed
refrigeration loops for pre-cooling, a Reverse Brayton Cycle using improved turbine design
with mixed refrigerant consisting of helium and neon80.
Beyond IDEALHY research, Linde, estimates that they could produce an improved and
scaled up version of the Leuna plant for lower overall specific costs but with higher energy
usage. In either case, it seems likely that scaling up hydrogen production offers a 50 percent
reduction to today’s specific liquefaction costs81. See Figure 16 for further details.
Below we show the findings of Ohlig and Decker (2014) on developments and outlook for
hydrogen liquefaction.
77
Evans West (2003)
78
Krasae-in et. al (2009)
79
Essler et.al (2012)
80
Essler et.al (2012)
81
Ohlig and Decker (2014)
25
25
Table 7: Summary of Select Liquefaction Current and Future methods
Current Technology Short Term Medium Term

Future Future
Liquefaction Capacity, <3 2 - 15 15 - 30 <200
tpd
Main Rerigeratin Brayton Claude Claude Claude
Cycle
Refrigeration Medium Helium Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen
Pre-cooling Cycle LN2 LN2 Chiller & N2 N2 / Mixed

Cycle Refrigerant Cycle
Compressor Type Oil Flooded Screw Piston Piston Piston
Feed Pressure (Bar) 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 > 20
Specific Power (kWh / 13,4 - 12.3 12,7 - 10,8 10,8 - 7,7 9 - 7,5
kg H2 (Including feed
gas compression &
precooling)
Operating Cost Highest Low Lower Lowest
(OPEX)
Investment Cost Low Medium Higher Highest

(CAPEX)
4.3 Storage
Cryogenic storage tanks are perhaps the part of the value chain with the highest technology
readiness level, as several suppliers offer storage solutions for a range of volumes. As an
example, Linde supplies LH2 storage tanks up to 300 m3 82.
The largest single cryogenic storage tank in the world belongs to NASA in Florida, USA. The
tank is 3800 m3 and has a capacity of 270 tons liquid hydrogen83. In addition, JAXA has a 540
m3 storage in Japan with a capacity of 38 tons LH284. Both are associated with the spacecraft
industry. A new LH2 storage tank is about to be constructed at NASA, with a capacity of 375
tons liquid hydrogen85.
The future size of liquid hydrogen storage tanks can be about 13 times bigger than the NASA
one, and have a maximum capacity 3 500 tons hydrogen.
82
Linde (2016)
83
Gas World (2019)
84
Sintef (2018)
85
Houston Chronicle (2019)
26
26
Figure 17 – Current liquid hydrogen storage86
NASA claims that liquid hydrogen can be stored without any losses for an indefinite period of
time using Integrated Refrigeration and Storage (IRaS), a system allowing control of the fluid
inside the tank. By using IRaS the liquid is stored in a zero boil-off state, so that the heat leak
entering the tank is removed by a cryogenic refrigerator with an internal heat exchanger87.
IRaS combined with a new glass “bubble” insulation has replaced the perlite powder that was
state-of-the-art in 1965 in favour of lower losses88.
The cost of storage is unclear. LNG-tanks have typically an investment cost of 30-40 USD/kg
for tanks above 100 tons and 80-100 USD/kg for smaller cryogenic tanks89. Klebanoff & Pratt
(2016) give a price of 625 000 USD for a 4,2 tons LH2-tank indicating a price level 45-50
percent higher tank for LNG-tanks. The US Department of Energy reports a current price for
a LH2-storage tank containing 3500 m3 at 6,6 million USD, with an “ultimate goal” of a price
reduction to 3,3 million USD90.
4.4 Distribution
Distribution by truck with cryogenic tank
According to Linde, who is a world leading supplier of industrial, process and speciality
gases, liquified gases are transported in tank trucks and stored in cryogenic vessels. The tanks
are designed to store the materials at the correct temperature and pressure and can range from
approximately 140 kg to 4 tons depending on the requirements91. A heel of liquid hydrogen
must be left in the truck so a truck that has a nominal holding capacity of 4,6 tons deliver 4,1
86
Sintef (2018)
87
W U Notardonato et al (2017)
88
Gas World (2019)
89
Green Coastal Shipping Programme (forthcoming)
90
Energy.gov (2015)
91
Reddi, Krishna et. al (2016)
27
27
tons92. A distribution truck with a capacity of four tons, undercarriage and cab is estimated to
cost around 800 000 USD93.
The tanks have an inner vessel, often referred to as the liquid container which is surrounded
and supported by an outer vessel or “vacuum jacket”. The space between the inner and outer
vessel is filled with a natural material that provides insulations and inertness. The delivery
system includes piping which carries gas from the inner vessel through the vacuum jacket to
the outside, controlled by gauges and valves mounted outside of the tank94.
Distribution by LH2 tanker
There are no existing LH2 tankers operating yet, but Kawasaki has designed two tankers; a
small and a large liquefied hydrogen carrier. The small carrier has a capacity of 2 500 m3 and
the large carrier has a capacity of 160 000m3, respectively 180 and 11 400 tons of hydrogen.
A boil-off rate of 0,2 per day has been given by Kawasaki95.
The ships are designed to sail between Japan and Australia, where a large amount of brown
coal is used to produce hydrogen for power-generation companies, transport and others.
Figure 18 – Kawasaki’s Small and large LH2 tankers
A demonstration ship will be delivered for tests in 2020. The ship is designed to be about 116-
meter-long and can accommodate two cargo containment systems of 1 250m3 each. The cargo
containment system can accumulate boil-off gas for up to 21 days at sea. Hydrogen is not
used for propulsion, it is driven by electric motors that receive power from generators driven
by diesel engines96.
Moss Maritime, together with several partners, has also developed a design for a hydrogen
distribution/bunkering vessel which will be addressed in chapter 4.5 on bunkering.
92
Nexant (2008)
93
Yang and Ogden (2007)
94
Linde (2019)
95
Kawasaki (2014)
96
LNG World Shipping (2017)
28
28
Distribution by cryogenic tank container on ship
In terms of transporting LH2 in containers on ships, there are two ways of doing so; transport
by truck on a RoRo ferry on top deck or shipment by ISO containers on intercontinental
containerships97. In the latter case road transport is still needed from production site to ferry
and from ferry to point of discharge, and in both cases the distribution is subject to the ADR-
rules in transportation of dangerous goods.
Figure 19: Transport by cryogenic tank on ship
4.5 Bunkering
While there are refuelling stations for liquid hydrogen for land-based transportation, a
commercially available solution for maritime bunkering is yet to be developed. In the
feasibility study for the SF BREEZE-project, the consortium behind had conversations with
leading industrial gas companies to analyse the fuelling infrastructure for the planned high-
speed craft.
In their design, they identified three primary components illustrated in figure 26: LH2 source
tank (permanent or trailer mounted), inert gas supply, and flexible bunkering hose assembly.
Here they use a pressure fill (flow by differential pressure of the two tanks), another solution
would be a pump-assisted fill.
The bunkering station consists of two hose connections, one for hydrogen/inert gas fill, and
one for cooldown gas return. These will be connected via hose to the shoreside facility. The
inert gas is used to remove air and moisture before bunkering to ensure a pure fuel supply. If
liquid helium is used as an inert gas, this will also provide pre-cooling of the lines, as it has a
lower boiling point than LH2.
In the following figures two different solutions is presented schematically. With the use of a
pressure build loop on the shoreside hydrogen tank, the pressure in the lines may be increased
enough to perform the transfer without the use of a pump. If not a LH2-pump is necessary to
complete the transfer. A LH2-pump is estimated to consume 0,8 kWh/kg98 but can increase
the flow rate significantly99.
97
Correspondence with Peter Bout (Air Products), 30th of October 2018
98
CMR Prototech (2014)
99
Cryostar (2019) reports a maximum capacity of 600 m3/h for a submerged LH2-pump.
29
29
The US Department of Energy estimate the current price level of an LH2-pump (5 bar, 1720
kg/h) to be 80 000 USD, with a target price in 2020 at 70 000 USD and an “ultimate goal” of
57 000 USD100.
Figure 20: Flow-schematic of an LH2-bunkering facility – pressure fill101
Figure 21: Schematic presentation of bunkering by LH2-pump102
In their study Klebanoff and Pratt (2016) compare LH2-bunkering to that of LNG, with a few
special considerations, the most important being the lower boiling point (-253 C to -162 C).
This calls for shorter fill lines to minimize the cooling process before bunkering. Even so, the
time needed to cool warm lines and equipment prolongs the bunkering procedure. It is
estimated that a 1000 kg fill process may take 40 minutes for cooldown, 30 minutes for LH2-
transfer and 30 minutes for purge and warm-up prior to disconnect. This, they state, can
100
Energy.gov
101
Pratt & Klebanoff (2016)
102
Cryostar (2016)
30
30
partially be handled by pre-cooling before the vessel arrive for bunkering. A transfer flow rate
of 1000 kg in 20-40 minutes was deemed “straightforward”, regardless of filling method.
This is several times faster than the flow rate of 500 kg/hour that was deemed necessary in a
project led by CMR Prototech (2014) to refuel a PSV in 12 hours103. With the flow rate
suggested in the SF BREEZE-project a PSV would need 2-4 hours to fill six tonnes of
hydrogen, plus cooling and warming of lines and equipment before and after the transfer. In
the Zero-V project for a hydrogen-fuelled research vessel, a total of 3,5-4 hours for the
delivery of four tons of LH2 is estimated. Here the bunker piping system is designed to
facilitate a parallel fuelling of two separate tanks104.
In the Zero-V project, the industrial gas companies consulted gave advice for the bunkering to
use a fuelling stanchion, instead of connecting the hoses directly between the trailer truck and
the vessel. This was done to avoid connecting the truck directly to a moving vessel and
additionally LH2-hoses are very short to reduce heat influx and would probably not reach
from the truck to the bunkering flange on the vessel. They suggest that loading arms, already
developed for LNG can be extended to also be used as a bunkering stanchion for LH2.
Figure 22: Mobile marine loading arm
Source: Wiese Europe
If not refuelled directly from the trailer truck, the LH2 can also be offloaded into a local
storage tank before bunkering. This can be a suitable solution if the vessel for example only
uses 500 kg LH2 a day and a once-a-week delivery of 4 tons provides the weekly fuel
consumption. However, the double transfer can lead to a loss of up to 10 percent of the four
tons from venting as transferring a cryogenic liquid from one tank to another adds heat and
103
104
Klebanoff et. al (2018)
31
31
causes vaporization105. In the table below Klebanoff and Pratt (2016) have estimated
infrastructure cost for the two alternatives.
Table 8: Estimated cost for bunkering solution using pressure fill
Solution Piping and Permits and On-site storage tank (4,2 Total
manifold License fees tons/LH2)
Truck-to-vessel 770 000 USD 200 000 USD 970 000 USD
Tank-to-vessel 770 000 USD 200 000 USD 625 000 USD 1 595 000 USD
Bunkering is also possible with a ship-to-ship solution. Moss Maritime, in cooperation with
Equinor, Wilhelmsen, Viking Cruises and DNV-GL, has developed a design for LH2 bunker
vessel. According to Moss Maritime, the vessel has a cargo capacity of 9 000 m3, 640 tons,
and will provide LH2 bunkering services to merchant ships, in addition to open sea
transport106. The total LH2 storage onboard the vessel shall enable delivery of minimum 500
tons of LH2 after laden voyage of maximum 25 days107.
The cargo containment system shall consist of two 4 500 m3 tanks. The LH2 bunker vessel
will be loaded at a liquefication terminal, with the vessel berthed at a jetty. Offloading will
take place in side-by-side mode to receiving vessels, or at a jetty if delivering to onshore
receiving terminals. In their technical evaluation they find that for all critical equipment, with
the exception of compressors and blowers for tank warming, potential vendors/manufacturers
have confirmed that “existing equipment for LNG may be modified and adapted for LH2 after
further engineering and testing”.
4.6 End users
The sections below highlight state-of-the-art projects with LH2 among our three groups of
vessels as well as some relevant vessels using compressed hydrogen and on-going projects.
Car ferry
Norway has 128 operating ferry routes, with most of them located in Hordaland, Møre &
Romsdal and Nordland. The world´s first car ferry running on LH2, will be put into operation
between Hjelmeland and Nesvik on April 15th of 2021. The ferry will get a minimum of 50
percent of the energy supplied by LH2 while the remaining energy need is provided by
batteries.108. The plan is to refuel the ferry with 4 tons of LH2 every other week. The ferry is
operated and built by Norled, with LMG Marin, Westcon Power and Automation, Prototech,
Ballard Power Systems and Linde Engineering as important partners. It not yet decided which
shipyard will build the ferry which can hold 299 passengers and 80 cars109.

105
106
Wilhelmsen (2019)
107
Moss Maritime (2018)
108
NCE Maritime CleanTech (2018)
Norled (2018) and (2019)
109
32
32
Figure 23: World´s first LH2 car ferry
Source: LMG Marin

High-speed craft
There are currently 96 routes for high speed crafts in Norway, with a diesel consumption of
approximately 86 500 000 liters per year. This equals to 233 000 ton of CO2 emissions110.
At least two hydrogen passenger vessels are in operation using compressed hydrogen:
Hydroville in Antwerpen111 (dual-fuel) and Water-go-round in San Francisco112. The team
behind the Water-go-round-project sprung out of Sandia National Laboratories and have
previously contributed to the SF-BREEZE project which examined the technical, regulatory,
and economical feasibility of a high-speed passenger ferry powered by hydrogen fuel cells
and LH2 and its associated hydrogen fuelling infrastructure within the context of the San
Francisco Bay. A vessel design was produced, and they did not reveal any insurmountable
regulatory obstacles to deployment 113.
In Norway, five consortiums have signed a contract with Trøndelag County involving the
development and demonstration of a zero-emission high-speed vessel with speed over 30
knots114. In figure 24 a design for one of the solutions, by Brødrene Aa in cooperation with
Westcon and Boreal is shown. Also designs from consortiums led by Selfa Artic and Flying
Foil, that have received support from the Pilot-E programme are included
110
Selfa Artic (2016)
Hydroville (2019)
111
Water Go Round (2019)

112
113
114
Trøndelag Fylkeskommune (2019)
33
33
Figure 24 – Design for non-emission high-speed crafts
Source: From top: LMG Marin, Flying Foil and Brødrene Aa
Platform supply vessel
A platform supply vessel (PSV) is a ship specially designed to supply offshore oil and gas
platforms and can accomplish a variety of tasks. While there are no LH2-powered PSVs, fuel
cells have been tested in an operational environment. In 2009, the Eidesvik-owned PSV Lady
Viking had a 320 kW fuel cell installed, as a part of the research project Fellowship. The fuel
cell provided energy both for systems onboard and propulsion, as part of a dual-fuel system.
However, the fuel cell used natural gas and not hydrogen gas to convert the gas into
electricity115.
In 2014, a project led by CMR Prototech conducted a study of a hydrogen-PSV concluding
that it would need LH2 due to its higher density than compressed hydrogen. Using a PEM fuel
cell with an efficiency of 54 percent, they estimated a daily need of ca 1700 kg/LH2 and
115
Maritimt Magasin (2009)
34
34
suggested either refuelling of 12 tons once a week or 6 tons twice a week, with a
corresponding onboard storage need of 192 or 108 m3116.
Currently a cluster project by NCE Maritime Cleantech, Equinor and Wärtsila Ship Design is
developing a concept for a hydrogen driven platform supply vessel that can serve the oil &
gas industry in the North Sea. The energy system will be based on a combination of batteries
and hydrogen fuel cells117.
Other
Viking Cruises, a Norwegian shipping company, is working on a project for what could
become the world’s first cruise ship with zero emission technology. The ship will be around
230 meters long and fuelled by liquid hydrogen. It has a capacity to accommodate more than
900 passengers and a crew of 500. According to the Norwegian Maritime Authority, Viking
Cruises has been in dialog with Equinor on delivery of hydrogen118.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Lines has previously presented the energy consumption for a large
cruise ship and what it would need of hydrogen supply. They estimate about 240 MWh for
hotel and 240 MWh for propulsion per day – a combined 480 MWh of energy per day.
According to their calculations a battery solution would have a weight of at least 6200 tons
and a size of 10 000 m3. If the same energy consumption is covered by hydrogen, they
estimate about 30 tons of hydrogen per day and a need for 6000 m3 of storage for two weeks
of fuel autonomy. With a density of 71 kg LH2/m3 that gives a total hydrogen need of 426
tons for a two week stretch119.
Another example is the work done by the Norwegian shipowner Havila for preparing their
new ships operating the coastal route (Kystruten) from Bergen to Kirkenes. They have
recently received over 100 million NOK to further research a fuel cell solution that can enable
the vessels to operate in non-emission zones, such as World Heritage Areas120.
In the US, a design for a hydrogen-driven research vessel was presented in 2018. The Zero-V
has 10 900 kg of consumable LH2 stored in two tanks, for parallel refuelling, and a range of
2400 nautical miles121.
The Norwegian support scheme Pilot-E has also supported a smaller containership called
Seashuttle that will use compressed hydrogen122.
4.7 Energy efficiency throughout the value chain
The hydrogen value chain has energy losses from energy input in the production phase to the
efficiency of the powertrain onboard the end user. Through a literature review we have
estimated the energy efficiency from production to propeller for both electrolysis and gas
reformation with carbon capture.
According to IRENAs latest report an alkaline electrolyser today has an energy use of 51
kWh/kg gaseous hydrogen, giving it an efficiency of 65 percent. A liquefaction plant like
Lindes Leuna facility with an energy use of 11,9 kWh/kg LH2 has an efficiency of about 74

116
117
NCE Maritime CleanTech (2019)
118
Norwegian Maritime Authority (2017)
Royal Caribbean Cruises (2018)
119
Sintef (2018b)
120
Klebanoff et. al (2018)

121
122
Teknisk Ukeblad (2019a)
35
35
percent123. With a total energy input of 63 kWh/LH2 and a lower heating value of 33,3
kWh/kg LH2, the energy efficiency to produce 1 kg LH2 is 52 percent.
When produced through gas reformation the estimated energy needed to produce 1 kg of
gaseous hydrogen with carbon capture is 48 kWh/kg, with 11,9 kWh/kg for liquefaction.
Thus, the energy efficiency of the production phase is 55,5 percent, slightly better than by
electrolysis.
During storage and distribution multiple sources estimate a boil-off between 0,2 and 0,5
percent per day. IEA report a boil-off stream of 0,3 percent for liquid tankers for hydrogen
delivery, while US Drive estimate 0,5 percent for liquid distribution tankers and a very low
evaporation rate for large storage. The NASA LH2 tank at Cape Carnaval has a reported
evaporation loss of 0,03 percent per day for storage over multiple years.
US Drive also report a loss of up to five percent when unloading the LH2 to vessel/local
storage124. This is higher than what has been reported by developers/suppliers during the work
of this report, which indicate that bunkering with a minimum of losses, towards 1 percent is
plausible. As a conservative measure, we have used the 0,3 percent loss for
storage/distribution and 5 percent in the bunkering phase. Boil-off during storage on board the
vessel is also a potential loss, but according to Air Liquide there are several options to
permanently re-use boil of gas and thus eliminate the loss125 or technology that increase the
maximum holding time without boil-off126.
Lastly, with an estimated efficiency of 50 percent for the fuel cell about 16 kWh of the input
energy reach the propeller – thus the complete energy efficiency of the value chain is around
25 percent when produced by electrolysis and 26,5 percent when produced by gas reformation
and carbon capture, see appendix for calculations.
The energy losses in kWh are visualized in the next figures.
123
Efficiency = LH2 LHV / (LH2 LHV + Liquefaction Energy)
124
IEA (2015), US Drive (2013)
125
Air Liquide (2015b)
126
Linde (2014)
36
36
Figure 25: Energy losses from production to propeller – Electrolysis
Figure 26: Energy losses from production to propeller – Gas reformation with Carbon Capture
37 37
5. Regulations, standards and codes for liquid hydrogen
In the following chapter we will examine the status quo for regulations, standards and codes for the
different parts of the value chain presented in figure 7. We will concentrate on the land-based
operations and not go into detail for onboard solutions.
For the vessels, the leading regulation is International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or other
Low-Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code) – Part A: 2.3 Alternative design which provides guidelines for the
use of fuels not explicitly mentioned in the code. By demonstrating that functional requirements are
met, and risk assessments carried through one can demonstrate that the alternative solution is as safe
as a conventional fuel. A draft version of a new part E for fuel cells has been discussed127. For
further study on the use of hydrogen onboard vessels we refer to DNV-GLs study on the use of fuel
cells in shipping for the European Maritime Safety Agency or Sandia National Laboratories report
on hazardous zones for on-board maritime hydrogen liquid and gas systems128.
Some international regulations with a wide impact area, such as Pressure Equipment Directive (PED)
and ATEX may apply throughout the value chain. In the following paragraphs we emphasize
regulations, standards and codes that are relevant in a Norwegian context for end users of
infrastructure.
Production of hydrogen
The relevant municipality is responsible for permitting requirements for facilities with a
production/tank capacity for storing up to 5 tons of hydrogen. While there are no regulations made
specifically for hydrogen the Act on protection against fire, explosion and accidents with dangerous
substances with its underlying regulations on the handling of dangerous substances address among
other aspects planning, construction and production of liquid and gaseous fuels129. It also addresses
the need for risk assessments and safety zones around the production facility, especially to protect
third parties.
Instead of fixed generic safety distances, it is customary to use a quantitative risk assessment to
examine the risk contour based on the parameters for each individual case and achieve a more
flexible approach to safety zones. If the amount of hydrogen produced/stored onsite exceeds five
tons consent must be given from the Directorate for Civil Protection and follow the Major Accident
Regulation with additional duties and responsibilities.
On an international level the ISO/TC 220 mainly addresses the use of gaseous hydrogen130, while the
recently established working group from the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) on
hydrogen in energy systems has yet to publish any standards and does not include transport and
storage of liquid hydrogen131.
127
Morelos (2017)
128
DNV-GL (2017) and Blaylock et.al (2018)
129
Lovdata (2002) and (2009)
130
ISO (2019)
131
CEN (2016/2019)
38
38
Storage of hydrogen
The Norwegian acts and regulations described in the previous subchapter also applies for storage of
hydrogen, even if storage is at a different location than production, for example through centralized
production and local storage at the quay. Installations harbouring more than 5 tons of hydrogen must
apply for special consent from the Directorate for Civil Protection.
Internationally, storage is perhaps the part of the value chain that is best covered, as both the
European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA), ISO and CEN have published on the use of
cryogenic tanks/vessels as a mean of storage. The EIGA document 06/19 for example give principles
on layout and location of installations, access to site, testing and commissioning and general advice
on safety distances132. The guideline from the Directorate for Civil Protection on facilities for use of
liquid and gaseous fuels133 defines safety distances for LNG tanks which has been communicated
could serve as an indication, but the exact distance and zones requiring special consideration is
determined through a risk analysis on a case-to-case basis.
Distribution by ship
Distribution by ship can be done in two different ways, either in dedicated LH2-transporters such as
the examples highlighted from Moss Maritime and Kawasaki, or in containers with cryogenic tanks
on ro-ro-ferries, like Air Products transport LH2 from their facility in Rotterdam. The Norwegian
Maritime Authority point to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for regulations134. The
IGC code covers the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk while the
IMDG covers the carriage of dangerous goods in packaged form. Here, the requirements for both
compressed and refrigerated liquid hydrogen are comparable to those for natural gas.
However, the International Gas Carrier Code (IGC Code) lacks specific requirements for hydrogen.
Thus, the HyLaw-project, an EU-project gathering cross-national data on hydrogen regulations and
standards, highlights maritime transport as an area where “adjustment of legal framework is needed,
in order to provide clear and predictable conditions for technology and market development”135. To
address this regulatory gap, IMO adopted a set of interim recommendations for carriage of liquefied
hydrogen in bulk (resolution MSC.420(97) under in November 2016. According to HyLaw, under
the IGF Code it is anticipated that initial restrictions regarding storage quantities and locations will
be put in place for hydrogen (e.g. storage on top deck).
As of now the national regulation on maritime transport of dangerous goods sets a limit to the
number of ADR-units on the same vessel. The maximum number of ADR-regulated units is four on
an open ro-ro deck and two on a closed ro-ro deck. However, flammable gases are not allowed on
closed ro-ro decks, making open deck vessels the only option for hydrogen transport 136.
Distribution by truck
The ADR directive provides regulation for transport by truck in addition to regulations related to the
container systems. Currently the most common transport method in Norway is compressed hydrogen
at 200 bars, with an upper limit for composite cylinders at 520 bar. In terms of hydrogen amount,
132
EIGA (2019)
133
DSB (2015)
134
Conversation with the NMA 21.nov 2018
135
HyLaw (2018)
136
Lovdata (2010)
39
39
there is no upper limit in Norway, but the weight of a truck with trailer cannot exceed 50 tons and a
length of 19,5 meters137.
In accordance with ADR tank transport of hydrogen is forbidden in tunnels of category B,C,D end E.
In Norway this applies to the subsea tunnel between Ellingsøy and Valderøy, near Ålesund between
0600-2400 and Hvalertunnelen where transport of dangerous goods needs permission from the Road
Traffic Central138.
Bunkering
While there are protocols and codes for hydrogen refuelling stations, there is a regulatory gap for
maritime bunkering of liquid hydrogen. In the guidelines to the Regulation on handling of
dangerous substances it states that hydrogen to a large extent is comparable to LPG and CNG and
that hydrogen fuelling stations shall be designed and constructed according to ISO/TS 20100
Gaseous hydrogen – Fuelling stations (later replaved by ISO/TS 19880-1:2016)139.
Perhaps as a better comparison for LH2, the guideline also includes a chapter on
on maritime bunkering of LNG, which serves as a useful comparison for LH2, and defines important
parameters such as necessary risk assessments, safety zones, bunkering procedure, coupling
solutions/break away and layout on the quay. For fuelling of a passenger vessel, a special consent –
“samtykke” is needed from the Directorate of Civil Protection. For these instances a quantitative risk
assessment is required to set safety zones around the bunkering facility140.
137
Correspondance with Arne Lærdal, Directorate for Civil Protection, April 2019 and Lovdata (2014)
138
HyLaw (2018)
139
DSB (2018)
140
Correspondence with DSB
40
40
Table 9: Summary of relevant regulations, standards and codes141
Step of value chain Norwegian International

Production • The Planning and • ISO/TC 197 (gaseous)
Building Act • CEN-CLC/JTC 6 (under
• Act on protection against establishment)
fire, explosion and
accidents with dangerous
substances
• Regulation on handling
of dangerous substances
• Major Accident
Regulation
Storage • Act on protection against • EIGA: Documents 06/19,
fire, explosion and 114/09, 119/04,
accidents with dangerous Technical Bulletin 27/18
substances and 11/14
• Regulation on handling • ISO/TC 220: Cryogenic
of dangerous substances Vessel
• Major Accident • CEN/TC 268: see
Regulation website for several
standards
Distribution by ship • Ship Safety and Security • IMO: IGC and IMDG
Act codes
• Regulation on maritime • EIGA Documents 06/19,
transport of dangerous 41/18
goods • CEN/TC 268: see
• Regulation on bulk website for several
transport of dangerous standards
substances • IMO: Resolution MSC.
420(97)
Distribution by truck • UNECE ADR
• EIGA 06/19
• CEN/TC 268: see
website for several
standards
• ECE Regulation 67 rev.2,
110 rev. 12, 115 or
79/20094 or 406/20105
(container systems)
Bunkering • Act on protection against • No standard for maritime
fire, explosion and bunkering of LH2, several
accidents with dangerous for gaseous refueling of
substances land-vehicles: SAE
• Regulation on handling J2601, ISO TC197 etc
of dangerous substances
141
Based on Hamanaka (2015) with additional information from conversations with the Norwegian Directorate for Civil
Protection, Norwegian Maritime Authority and research from the HyLaw-database
41
41
6. Marine bunkering today

The great majority of the vessels142 in question for this study use Marine Gas Oil (MGO) as fuel,
with a few using Liquid Natural Gas (LNG). On a national level the sale of MGO to the oil and gas
sector and inland water and coastal transport decreased in the period from 2012 and onwards143.
In 2016 the consumption to the oil and gas sector was just below 720 000 m3 of MGO. It is important
to note that figure includes both use on offshore installations and fuel for supply vessels. Within
inland water and coastal transport, the consumption was just above 230 000 m3 in 2016.
There are no official statistics for the use of LNG, however the NGO Energigass Norge estimated in
2015 the annual Norwegian market to be about 260 000 m3 / 1,6 TWh144. In an updated analysis
based on AIS-data, DNV-GL estimated the annual consumption of LNG in Norwegian waters to be
145 000 tons / 2,1 TWh145.
Figure 27 – Annual consumption of Marine Gas Oil – m3 146
1 400 000
1 200 000
1 000 000
M3 MGO
800 000
600 000
400 000
200 000
-
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Oil and gas extraction, including service activities and transport via pipelines
Inland water and coastal transport
Total
While the statistics for annual consumption of MGO is derived from the national energy account and
is not available at county-level, the registered sale of MGO shows that the western counties by far is
the largest market.
142
Car ferries, high speed crafts and platform supply vessels
143
144
Energigass Norge (2015)
145
Norwegian Environment Agency (2018) Kunnskapsgrunnlag for omsetningskrav i skipsfart, report M1125,
http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/Documents/publikasjoner/M1125/M1125.pdf , last visited 31th of January 2019
146
Statistics given in weight, converted to m3 by using a density of 855 kg/m3
42
42
Table 10 – Sale of MGO to sea transport in 2016, by county147
Country Amount in m3 Percentage of total

Rogaland 21 280 7%
Hordaland 65 018 22 %
Sogn og Fjordane 52 145 17 %
Møre og Romsdal 19 209 6%
Sør-Trøndelag 12 003 4%
The table above does not include MGO-sale to platform supply vessels, as Statistics Norway do not
present detailed enough categories to extract those numbers on the county level from a broader
category covering both on- and offshore industries. Hence the actual use of MGO by county would
be higher than given in table 10, especially for Rogaland and Hordaland.
The number of fuel suppliers is limited to a small number of large players, with Circle-K having over
50 percent of the market. The suppliers deliver both to end-customers and distributors of fuel, such
as Bunker Oil who operate their tanking facilities and bunkering vessels along the coast.
Table 11 – Main suppliers of MGO148
2016 2017
ST1 Norge 21,5 % 26,9
Esso Norge 15,4 % 14,6
Circle-K 57,4 % 48,2
UNO-X Gruppen 5,8 % 0,1
Others 0,1 % 10,2
Figure 28 – Major bunkering sites in Western Norway
The suppliers normally have three types of storage solutions149:

• Main storage or terminals with most products available, and normally supplied by
boat from a refinery
147
148
Data supplied by Drivkraft Norge
149
Drivkraft Norge, quoted in Energigass Norge (2015)
43
43
• Distribution storage, supplied by boat from a refinery or from a main storage

facility
• Coastal storage facility – often run by independent operators
In addition, you also have larger storage solutions at services- and logistics ports for the oil and gas
industry.
The refuelling of vessels is normally done from permanent fuelling facilities or delivered to the ship
by a bunkering vessel or truck, depending on the vessel type and current route.
The table below is a non-exhaustive list of bunkering sites along the coastline but shows the storage
capacity of MGO and LNG and location for the largest facilities. In addition, we have estimated the
necessary volume if the same energy amount represented by MGO and LNG is to be replaced by
liquid hydrogen. Due to the higher energy density in MGO and LNG, as shown in table 4, the
volume storage needed is significantly larger with LH2.
Table 12: A selection of marine bunkering sites Marine Gas Oil (MGO) and Liquified Natural
Gas (LNG)150
Location Operator Used by Storage capacity (m3) Storage capacity

needed if LH2
(m3)151
MGO LNG LH2
Egersund H.E. Seglem & Sønner Bunker Oil 3 500 15 600
Stavanger Norsea AS Circle-K 7000 31 300
Stavanger Norsea AS Circle-K / Esso / 7000 31 300
Shell
Risavika Skangas Skangas 0 30 000 77 600
Haugesund L Storesund & Sønner Circle-K / Bunker Oil 11 000 49 200
Haugesund Shell Shell / Esso 10 700 47 900
Ågotnes CCB Circle-K / Gasnor 9 900 500 45 600
Mongstad Mongstadbase Circkle-K / Gasnor 9 000 1 000 42 800
Bergen Esso Shell / 16 000 71 500
Esso/Bunkeroil
Halhjem Gasnor Gasnor 0 1 000 2 600
Sløvåg Bunker Oil Bunker Oil 15 000 67 100
Florø Sundfjord Drift / Saga Circle-K / Gasnor 7 000 500 32 600
Fjordbase
Florø Florø Bil og Bunker Oil 1 500 6 700
Havneservice
Måløy Brødrene Tennebø Circle-K / Bunker Oil 3 800 17 000
Måløy MH24 6 700 30 000
Ålesund MH24 5 500 24 600
Ålesund Shell Circle-K / Esso / 6 000 26 800
Shell
Ålesund Bunker Oil Bunker Oil 0 21 560 28 700
Kristiansund Norsea AS, Vestbase Circle-K / Gasnor / 13 000 400 59 200
Uno-X
Kristiansund Atlantic Bunkers Bunker Oil 500 2 200
Fosnavåg MH24 400 1 800
Trondheim Esso Shell / Esso 11385152 50 900
Trondheim Statoil Circle-K 500 2 200
150
Based on input from Energigass Norge (2014) and input from the various operators and fuel companies
151
Storage capacity found by using the following energy densities (MJ/m3): MGO 38000 MJ/m3, LNG 22000 MJ/m3 and
LH2 8500 MJ/m3
152
Gas oil, but used for maritime fuel
44
44
In figure 29 we have grouped together the information from table 12 on a regional level. While this
is a simplified presentation of the geographical aspect, it gives a perspective on how much storage
capacity is needed to store the same amount of energy in LH2.
Figure 29: Regional storage needs for LH2
45
45
6.1 Alternative zero-emission fuels to LH2
By 2050 DNV-GL estimates that 39 percent of maritime fuel will be carbon-neutral. In

addition to hydrogen, several other energy carriers, such as ammonia, bio-diesel and
methanol, have the potential to be carbon-neutral fuels if produced without emissions153.
Ammonia is particularly interesting as it contains 18 weight percent hydrogen and is an
integral part of the hydrogen market, using nearly half of the current global hydrogen
production. With a density of 653.1 kg/m3 ammonia contains more hydrogen than a cubic
meter of liquid hydrogen. It can also be used directly in fuel cells with the most efficient
technology being high-temperature Solide Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC)154. They can achieve an
efficiency of over 60 percent155 but are a more immature large-scale technology than alkaline
or PEM fuel cells.
MAN Energy Solutions has recently introduced the development of a dual-fuel engine
running on ammonia in combination with liquid petrol gas. According to the company the
two-stroke engine design is suitable for large ocean-going vessels, including tankers, bulk
carriers, and container ships, with engine sizes from 5 to 85 MW. They estimate a
development time of 2-3 years a development cost of 5 MEUR and an expected efficiency of
50 percent156.
The advantages for using ammonia as a maritime fuel is an already existing infrastructure
with most of the value chain illustrated below already in place up to the point of bunkering to
maritime end-users. According to Statkraft, the energy needed to produce ammonia, in
addition to the energy to produce the hydrogen used as input, is about 10-12 kWh/kg NH3157
or equal to the kWh/kg used to liquify hydrogen. With a higher density of hydrogen per cubic
meter than liquid hydrogen, it can be a cost-efficient alternative in terms of fuel price only. It
also just needs to be cooled down to minus 39 degrees Celsius under atmospheric pressure to
obtain a liquid form, which is far less than LH2, making it easier to handle. Among the
disadvantages, ammonia is highly toxic, and the corrosive effect is a problem that needs to be
addressed. For example, copper and zinc corrode rapidly in contact with ammonia.
Ammonia can be transported either by truck, railway or by ship. If transported by truck, the
transports are limited to maximum 36 tons due to weight restrictions on the highway. The
capacity of a tank ranges from approximately 13 000 litres to 57 000 litres. Most units
typically range from approximately 30 000 to 45 000 litres158.
The second way of transport is by rail where about 70 percent of the hazmat moves in tank
cars. Tank cars transporting anhydrous ammonia are pressure tank cars, typically DOT Class
105 and 112. The capacity of these cars is approximately 130 600 liters159.
When transporting ammonia by sea, it is usually transported in a fully refrigerated ship or a
semi-refrigerated liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) carrier. A fully refrigerated ship has a
capability of carrying 15 000 to 85 000 m3 gas and is best suited for long voyages. A semi-
153
DNV-GL (2018)
154
Afif et.al (2016)
155
Fuel Cell Today (2019)
156
MAN (2018)
157
Statkraft (2018)
158
Transcaer (2004)
159
Transcaer (2004)
46
46
refrigerated ship has a capacity of transporting up to 5 000 m3 gas and are light weighted
compared to fully pressurized ships160.
Figure 30: Value chain for ammonia
Biodiesel is the most promising biofuel for ships and is suitable for replacing marine diesel
oil or marine gas oil. The density is 860 kg/m3 compared to 890 kg/m3 for MGO, a more
significant difference is to be seen from the comparison with LH2, where the density is
70.85kg/m3.
It can be produced from agricultural crops and residues, energy crops, forest residues and
waste, but does not reduce carbon emissions directly. Bio-CO2 is traditionally considered to
be part of the CO2 that would otherwise circulate within the natural cycle and is therefore
often categorised as carbon neutral. From a lifecycle perspective the greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) is assumed to be about 50 percent less than for conventional diesel161.
There are three different methods for converting biomass to biodiesel; thermal conversion,
chemical conversion and biochemical conversion. The energy content of biodiesel is 11.80
kWh/kg compared to 33.3 kwh/kg for LH2.
Hydro treated vegetable oils (HVO) is high-quality biodiesel where the oxygen is removed
using hydrogen, which results in long-term stability. The fuel is compatible with existing
infrastructure and can also be used in existing engines162. Biodiesel can be used alone or
blended with petrodiesel.
First generation biofuel such as vegetable oil-based biofuel can typically compete with fossil
fuels at oil price round 60 USD/barrel. Second generation biofuel that is younger and less
optimised needs oil prices around 100 USD/barrel to be competitive163.
160
Marine Insight (2016)
161
DNV GL (2018)
162
DNV GL (2018)
163
IEA Bioenergy (2017)
47
47
Figure 31: Value chain for biofuel
Methanol, CH3OH is four parts hydrogen, one-part oxygen and one-part carbon, making it
the lowest carbon content and the highest hydrogen content of any liquid fuel. It can be
produced from several different resources, like natural gas or coal, or from renewable
resources such as biomass and green164 hydrogen. The most common feedstock for the
industrial process is oil or natural gas. The density of methanol is the same as for biodiesel,
780 kg/m3.
In this case, where methanol is an alternative zero-emission fuel to LH2, it must be produced
from green hydrogen. Methanol production from green hydrogen includes a carbon source,
which needs to be included in a renewable life cycle in order to define it as carbon neutral.
On the global market, the price of a kg renewable methanol is approximately 0,8 euro, which
gives a price of 40 NOK per kg hydrogen165. The energy content of methanol is 5.56 kWh/kg
which is far less that hydrogen’s 33.3 kWh/kg, the density however, shows 780 kg/m3 for
methanol versus 70.85 kg/m3 for liquid hydrogen.
Methanol is transferred in chemical tankers with an estimated price of 15-40 USD/ton,
depending on distance and size of the ship166. It can be stored in tanks designed for diesel and
other highly flammable hydrocarbons under atmospheric pressure and does not require
cooling. Methanol fuel tanks are often twice the volume of oil tanks with the same energy
content167.
164
Green hydrogen is produced from electrolysis with renewable energy as input, or from natural gas reforming
with CCS.
165
Statkraft (2018)
166
Statkraft (2018)
167
DNV-GL (2018)
48
48
Figure 32: Value chain for methanol
6.2 Price comparison between fuels
Looking at the price of hydrogen in a vacuum is not very useful, and another way to address
the question is to find a price level that is competitive with other types of fuels. Prices for
liquid hydrogen are based on market availability and produced by gas reformation without
CCS, while the compressed hydrogen is produced by electrolysis.
In table 13 we have compared current prices for hydrogen to other current maritime fuels and
future alternatives. The prices are all for fuel delivered at or near the end user.
We only consider fuel cost and do not include capital expenditure in vessels or varying level
of other operational costs.
Table 13 – Price comparison
Fuel Retail price Calorific Spec. fuel Efficiency Cost in EUR Corresponding
EUR/kg value Consumption powertrain per kWh LH2-price
(ex. vat)168 (kWh/kg) (g/kWh) EUR/kg LH2
LH2 Norway 15,4 33,3 60,1 50 % 0,92 N.A.
LH2 Europe 7,1 33,3 60,1 50 % 0,43 N.A.
LH2 US 5,4 33,3 60,1 50 % N.A.
CH2 (250 bar) 10,2 33,3 60,1 50 % 0,61 10,2
Norway
MGO 0,61 11,97 185,6 45 % 0,11 1,9
Bio-diesel 1,68 10,20 188,3 45 % 0,32 5,3
LNG 0,76 12,50 177,8 45 % 0,14 2,3
LPG 1,10 12,90 172,3 45 % 0,19 3,2
Ammonia (fuel 0,51 5,17 193,4 55 % 0,18 3,0
cell)
Ammonia 0,51 5,17 193,4 50 % 0,20 3,3
(combustion)
Methanol 0,8 6,39 313 50 % 0,25 4,2
168
Prices are based on the industrial knowledge of the project partners and information from suppliers. The price
of Ammonia is gathered from ISPT (2017). Some prices are converted from NOK to Euro with a conversion rate
of 9,84 EUR/NOK
49
49
In the current market, hydrogen is far from competitive with fossil fuels. The current
merchant price of LH2 delivered in Norway is more than eight times higher in Euro/kWt than
marine gas oil. But there is room for price reductions.
If we use the price given by Air Products for LH2 ex. works in Europe at 7,1 Euro/kg LH2 the
price difference is reduced to nearly four times as expensive. While the price for LH2
delivered on-site in California for the SF Breeze-project could be as low as 5,4 Euro/kg,
comparable to that of bio-diesel prices in Norway. The price difference is probably due to
larger liquefaction plants in the US than the 5 tons per day facility of Air Product in
Rotterdam.
Ammonia is also a possible non-emission energy carrier, which already has an established
value chain. The price of ammonia today varies between 300-350 dollar per ton, but this is
ammonia produced with hydrogen from gas reformation without CCS. In their study of
ammonia as an energy carrier for Svalbard they estimate a price of 5000 NOK per ton from
small production plants based on electrolysis from renewable energy. The price for methanol
is collected from the same study and is also based on hydrogen production from electrolysis.
Still, ammonia is a cost-effective option from a fuel perspective, but we emphasize that we do
not consider the cost/maturity of vessels and powertrains using ammonia. To utilize directly
in a fuel-cell the ship needs a high-temperature Solide Oxide Fuel Cell which is less mature
than alkaline and PEM fuel cells. Alternatively, engine producer MAN Energy has recently
released the first dual fuel-engine combining diesel and ammonia as fuel169.
6.3 Price development for liquid hydrogen
As seen in table 13 there is a wide price gap from LH2 to commonly used fuels such as MGO
and LNG today. Predicting a future price depends on several variables: production volume,
capital cost, efficiency levels, energy cost for natural gas and electricity, distribution and for
gas reformation also the cost for carbon capture and storage.
Today, hydrogen produced from gas reformation is cheaper than hydrogen produced from
electrolysis, but as the latter value chain mature, the price gap is expected to decrease170,
especially with an added cost of carbon capture and storage, which according to IEAGHG
(2017) increase CAPEX with 18-79 percent and OPEX with 18-33 percent.
Concentrating on development in Norway we have separate estimations from DNV-GL on
production from gas reformation with CCS and electrolysis in 2030, as well as cost for
liquefaction, storage and transportation171. In addition, a scenario with “trapped” wind power
from Northern Norway is estimated to have an electricity price below 0,20 NOK/kWh. In
their analysis they use an electricity price between 0,34-0,67 NOK/kWh ex vat and a gas price
between 1,70-2,20 NOK/Sm3.
Other input is an efficiency of 75 percent for liquefaction, 15 days of storage before transport
and 1000 km transportation by bunkering ship.
Combing the input and these parameters shows a price range from 3,5-7.7 EUR/kg LH2
depending on the cost of energy input and fall of capital cost, the latter mostly affecting
production from electrolysis.
169
Man Energy (2018)
170
See for example Energy.gov (2015), IRENA (2018), DNV-GL (2019) for a review of expected cost
reductions
171
DNV-GL (2019)
50
50
Figure 33: 2030: Estimation of LH2-cost in Norway172

9,00
8,00
7,00
6,00
5,00
EUR/kg
4,00
3,00
2,00
1,00
0,00
NG low NG medium NG high Alkaline low Alkaline high PEM low PEM high Trapped WP
Production H2 Liquefaction Storage Transport
Using the same parameters as in table 13 we compare the 2030 price per kg LH2 with other
fuels, we see that LH2 as a fuel can compete with current bio-diesel prices and ammonia in
terms of fuel cost alone.
In the scenarios above, the hydrogen is distributed by ship. By using a standardized formula
for various distribution units developed by the Institute for Transport Economics it is possible
to get an understanding of land-based transportation. The formula considers time and km-cost
for transport but does not consider investment cost for distribution units. But it can be used to
assess how much distance affects the transportation cost by trailer.173.
We have used the formula to calculate whether transport from Tjeldbergodden or Kvinnherad,
two known project sites, is best served to supply a need of 4 tons in Florø, assuming similar
investment cost for trailer and storage tank. Despite the distance/time being higher from
Tjeldbergodden and twice the number of ferry crossings, the difference between the two
alternatives are only about 1,50 NOK/kg LH2 in favour of the closer alternative in Kvinnherad
(see appendix for calculations). This gives an indication that the total cost for LH2 is much
more sensitive to the production price than transportation cost. In line with calculations based
on US data which attributes 16,4 percent of the total LH2 cost to transport174:
172
Combination of data from DNV-GL (2019)
173
Grønland (2018). The km-cost covers salaries, capital cost, annual fees, insurance and administration. The
time cost covers: maintenance, fuel, washing tires and other supplies
174
Klebanoff & Pratt (2016) – Production 38,5 percent, Liquefaction 45,2 percent and transport 16,4 percent,
51
51
Table 14: Cost per kWt with 2030-price for LH2
Fuel Retail price Cost in EUR per kWt LH2-price to match other
EUR/kg (ex. vat) fuels
MGO 0,61 0,11 1,9
LNG 0,76 0,14 2,3
Ammonia (fuel cell) 0,51 0,18 3,0
LPG 1,10 0,19 3,2
Ammonia (combustion) 0,51 0,20 3,3
LH2– Best case NG 3.5 0,21 N.A.
Methanol 0,8 0,25 4,1
Bio-diesel 1,68 0,32 5,3
LH2– High estimate 7.5 0,45 N.A.
In figure 34 we illustrate a variation in prices per kWt for other fuels compared against a set
price of 3,5 EUR/kg LH2 (low estimate) and 7,5 EUR/kg LH2 (high estimate).
If the predicted LH2 in 2030 holds true we see what the comparable price level is for other
fuels
Figure 34: Price development of fuels compared to 2030-prices of LH2
0,6
0,5
EUR/kWt to propeller
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2,0 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,9 3,0
EUR/kg fuel
LH2 low estimate LH2 high estimate MGO LNG Bio-diesel
52
52
7. Future demand for liquid hydrogen

The most important factor for the dimension of a future value chain for liquid hydrogen is the
expected market demand. This has important implications for the production capacity, size of
storage and distribution and bunkering units.
In a recent analysis of hydrogen in Norway, DNV-GL identified 186 vessels that spent most
of their sailing time in Norwegian waters and have at least half of their calls in one of five
ports DNV-GL sees as early adopters of hydrogen infrastructure175. Based on their assessment
of the maturity of hydrogen solutions for different vessels, they estimate that a total of 18
vessels are converted to hydrogen by 2030, with an annual demand of 17 900 tons/year176.
Table 15: Market demand for hydrogen in 2030177
Vessel Theoretical number of Number of H2-vessels by 2030 Estimated demand

vessels tons/year
Car ferry 9 9 10 000
Offshore service 8 4 2 500
Coastal route 13 Not quantified 2 000
(Kystruten)
Cruise 48 Not quantified 1 200
Service/others 22 Not quantified 1 200
High-speed 40 5 1 000
crafts
Fishing 48 Limited testing Negligible
Bulk and cargo 7 Limited testing Negligible
Total 186 18 17 900
In this early transition phase from fossil fuels, the yearly demand for the 18 vessels equals a
daily demand of ca 49 tons of LH2. As seen from table 15, the need for liquid hydrogen in the
DNV-GL scenario by 2030 is more than double the current European production capacity of
liquid hydrogen.
To supply such volumes of liquid hydrogen an increase in liquefaction capacity is Norway to
minimize transportation costs and CO2-emissions, given that a full CCS value chain is
developed for production of blue hydrogen from gas reformation.
Continuing from the DNV-GL scenario, we have studied how a major transformation of fuel
supply to the vessels represented in our study: car ferries, high-speed crafts and platform
supply vessels would affect the need for LH2 in Western Norway.
The vessels represented in our study: car ferries, high-speed crafts and platform supply
vessels use MGO today, with a few vessels running on LNG. Our approach for car ferries and
high-speed crafts has been to identify the routes that are most likely to run on hydrogen and
use their current fuel consumption to estimate how much LH2 they would use with a similar
operational profile.
For PSVs we have used fuel data from DNV-GL178 to estimate the number of PSVs operating
in Norwegian waters and combined them with port calls to get a geographical overview of the
activity. The calculations from MGO and LNG are made by using known quantities of energy
175
Bergen, Ålesund, Tromsø, Kristiansund and Stavanger
176
9 car ferries, four PSVs and 5 high-speed crafts
177
DNV-GL (2019)
178
DNV-GL (2016) and (forthcoming)
53
53
per kilo for different fuel types and taken into account different efficiency for the
powertrains179.
Doing this presents us with a maximum amount of LH2 needed for three vessel types in our
geographical area of interest. However, it is highly uncertain how fast the deployment of
hydrogen vessels will be, whether there are other emission-free alternatives that reduce the
demand or how the hydrogen demand is divided between gaseous and liquid form.
For smaller quantities, for example short routes in remote locations, locally produced gaseous
hydrogen from electrolysis might be the best option. This will not impact the need for
hydrogen but reduces the need for liquefaction capacity. To address the uncertainty on the
demand-side, we also show scenarios where 50 and 25 percent of the combined fuel
consumption on a county level is LH2.
7.1 Car ferries
The Norwegian Road Authorities has estimated a national need for 10 000 tons of hydrogen
per year for car ferries, but mainly for just a few of the longer ferry routes. In the five counties
covering the western coast of Norway we have identified two ferry routes:
• Hjelmeland-Nesvik in Rogaland
• Halhjem-Sandvikvåg in Hordaland
The route from Hjelmeland to Nesvik is part of a developmental contract recently won by
Norled, for the development of the first car ferry using hydrogen as fuel.
Halhjem-Sandvikvåg is part of the E39 – the main road along the Western Coast of Norway
and has a crossing time of about 40 minutes. The ferries are a gas-electric hybrid, bunkering
LNG at Halhjem combined with battery charging.
Two other routes currently in operation – Mekjarvik-Kvitsøy and Arsvåg-Mortavika, both in
Rogaland, would also be suitable for a conversion to hydrogen, but are no longer publicly
tendered ferry routes from 2025, due to the planned building of the road/bridge project
Rogfast.
In addition to the two routes identified above, other routes might end up being run by hybrid-
vessels, especially where the quality of the local grid prevents a fully battery-electric solution.
But it has been outside the scope of this report to consider grid capacity and/or detailed
operational profiles for those ferry routes.
Table 16 – LH2 for Car Ferries
Route Region LH2 tons/year LH2 tons/day

Halhjem-Sandvikvåg Hordaland 5 743 Ca 15,75
Hjelmeland-Nesvik Rogaland 54,75 0,15
Total Ca 5 797 Ca 16
7.2 High speed crafts
With longer distance, a need for high speed and a lack of storage volume/weight limitations
makes liquid hydrogen the best solution for non-emission high speed crafts. A recent study
from Sandia Laboratory of zero emission powertrains for a range of vessels found that the
179
45 % efficiency for combustion engines and 50 % efficiency for fuel cells
54
54
energy storage density of LH2 (1,3 kWh/l) was higher compared to gaseous hydrogen tanks
(0,36 kWh/l) and battery systems (ca. 0,09 kWh/l)180.
In the table below estimates for annual fuel consumption provided by Selfa Artic are used to
estimate the necessary volume of LH2. We have only included routes with a crossing longer
than 10 nautical miles – as shorter distances could be operated primarily by battery-electric
powertrains.
For the daily fuel consumption, we have divided the annual consumption by 365 days. Ideally
a more detailed study of daily departures on weekdays, weekends and holidays should be
conducted to provide even more specific estimates, but that has been outside the scope of this
report. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the daily LH2 consumption is a bit higher on busy
weekdays than showed in table 16 and lower during weekends/public holidays.
Table 17 - LH2 for High Speed Crafts
Route Region LH2 tons/year LH2 tons/day181

Trondheim – Kristianssund Trøndelag 1 371 3,8
Trondheim-Brekstad Trøndelag 302 0,8
Namsos-Leka og Rørvik Trøndelag 212 0,6
Ålesund-Nordøyane Møre og Romsdal 413 1,1
Molde-Helland-Viksebusekken Møre og Romsdal 311 0,9
Bergen-Sogn-Flåm Sogn og Fjordane 1 447 4,0
Bergen-Nordfjord Sogn og Fjordane 1 281 3,5
Sogn-Nordfjord Sogn og Fjordane 576 1,6
Florø-Svanøy-Askrova Sogn og Fjordane 250 0,7
Florø-Fanøy-Barekstad Sogn og Fjordane 154 0,4
Florø-Måløy Sogn og Fjordane 94 0,3
Ortnevik-Vik Sogn og Fjordane 91 0,2
Flåm-Balestrand Sogn og Fjordane 78 0,2
Hardbakke-Mjømna Sogn og Fjordane 44 0,1
Eivindvik-Mastrevik Sogn og Fjordane 43 0,1
Hardbakke-Utvær Sogn og Fjordane 31 0,1
Sunnhordland-Austevoll-Bergen Hordaland 1 504 4,1
Rosendal-Bergen Hordaland 311 0,9
Norheimsund-Eidfjord Hordaland 114 0,3
Austevollruten Hordaland 88 0,2
Reksteren-Våge-Os Hordaland 62 0,2
Stavanger-Ryfylke Rogaland 803 2,2
Stavanger-Hjelmeland Rogaland 730 2,0
Stavanger-Lysebotn (kombi) Rogaland 326 0,9
Stavanger-Kvitsøy Rogaland 110 0,3
Stavanger-Fisterøyene (kombi) Rogaland 35 0,1
Total Trøndelag 1 185 5,2

Total Møre og Romsdal 723 2,0
Total Sogn og Fjordane 4 087 11,2
Total Hordaland 2 079 5,7
Total Rogaland 2 003 5,5
Total 10 778 29,5
180
Minnehan & Pratt (2017)
181
Yearly consumption divided by 365
55
55
In total the high-speed crafts from the southern part of Trøndelag to Rogaland have an annual
need of nearly 11 000 tons of LH2 – representing a daily demand of 29,5 tons of LH2. The
longest crossings have a daily demand of plus/minus 4 tons of LH2. That is a daily demand
equivalent to the amount transported by a truck with a cryogenic tank. Other routes have a
daily demand that would indicate that one delivery/bunkering from a distribution truck per
week is enough.
From a regional perspective the county of Sogn and Fjordane has the largest demand with 38
percent of the consumption. However, this figure also includes two routes going between
Hordaland and Sogn og Fjordane, for which they have the administrative responsibility.
7.3 Platform Supply Vessels
While car ferries and high-speed crafts represent a stable market – organized through public
tenders, the PSV market is much more volatile and difficult to estimate.
In an analysis for the Green Coastal Shipping Programme, DNV GL has, based on data from
2013, estimated the yearly fuel consumption from domestic traffic182 for PSVs to be
approximately 290 000 tons of MGO. Looking at CO2-emissions from PSVs from 2013 and
2017 it is fair to assume that the fuel consumption has remained relatively stable183.
Using data on port calls from Statistics Norway it is possible to estimate regional numbers on
fuel for PSVs184, with the main assumption being that the vessels refuel in or nearby the port
they call to.
Table 18 – Regional fuel consumption for PSVs
Geographical area Number of port calls Percentage of total calls MGO in tons
Rogaland 2907 25,4 % 73 660
Hordaland 3853 33,7 % 97 730
Sogn og Fjordane 1496 21,8 % 63 220
Møre og Romsdal 1569 13,7 % 39 730
Trøndelag 30 0,3 % 760
Rest of Norway 585 5,1 % 14 790
Total 11 440 100 % 290 000
As we see in table 18 and figure 35 – almost all the PSVs are in route between supply bases in
Western Norway/Trøndelag and the Norwegian continental shelf. Of the 585 port calls in rest
of Norway, 459 are in the municipality of Hammerfest in Finnmark, where Polarbase supplies
the oil & gas activity in the Barents Sea.
The patterns of regional activity are also evident when looking at AIS-data provided by the
Norwegian Coastal Administration.
182
Defined as transport between Norwegian harbor and oil & gas installations in Norwegian waters
183
DNV-GL (2017) and (2019)
184
We are using port calls from 2013 in order to keep all data within the same year
56
56
Figure 35 – PSV activity in Norwegian185
By using the parameters from table 4 on fuel properties, we estimate that the current fuel
consumption is equivalent with an annual LH2 demand of nearly 90 000 tons.
Table 19 – LH2 for Platform Supply Vessels
Region LH2 tons/year LH2 tons/day

Rogaland 23 830 65,3
Hordaland 31 617 86,6
Sogn og Fjordane 20 453 56
Møre og Romsdal 12 853 35,2
Trøndelag 245 0,67
Total 88 999 243,8
In 2014. Prototech presented a study of a hydrogen-run PSV, where they estimated an average
consumption of 1,7 tons LH2, with 3 tons of LH2 per day as a worst-case scenario in heavy
weather conditions186. For a week-long trip they suggest onboard storage of 12 tons of LH2
An ongoing study by NCE Maritime Cleantech, Wärtsila and Equinor has estimated a daily
average of 2 tons LH2187. Based on this the volume identified in table 18 equals around 120
platform supply vessels in total.
185
Data from Havbase/Norwegian Coastal Administration
186
187
NCE Maritime Cleantech, forthcoming
57
57
7.4 Summary – Demand of LH2
When we summarize the volumes identified in chapters 7.1 to 7.3, the total demand if all
vessels convert to LH2 is about 105 000 tons LH2/year and 287 tons LH2/day. In terms of the
global production of liquid hydrogen today, such a demand would need over 80 percent of the
production capacity. This is of course not a transformation that happens overnight and the
numbers in table 20 must be looked upon as a maximum scenario without a clear timeline
rather than a demand in 2030.
Table 20 – Demand of LH2 per vessel category
Trøndelag Møre og Sogn og Hordaland Rogaland Total

Romsdal Fjordane
High speed craft tons per year 1 885 723 3 417 2 079 2 003 10 108
High speed craft tons per day 5,2 2 9 6 5 28
Car ferry tons per year 0 0 0 5 743 55 5 798
Car ferry tons per day 0 0 0 16 0,2 16
PSV tons per year 246 12 853 20 453 31 617 23 830 88 999
PSV tons per day 0,67 35 56 87 65 244
Total tons per year 2 131 13 577 23 870 39 439 25 888 104 906
Total tons per day 6 37 65 108 71 287
Figure 36 – Future regional demand for LH2
2%
13%
25%
23%
38%
Trøndelag Møre og Romsdal Sogn og Fjordane Hordaland Rogaland
The two most southern counties, Rogaland and Hordaland, represent most of the LH2-demand
with over 60 percent of the total. As we move north the activity in the PSV-market decrease
with Trøndelag being the county with the lowest share of the LH2-demand.
As shown in table 19, just a few passenger routes or PSVs switching fuels would have a
substantial demand for LH2. With some of the longer high-speed routes needing around 4 tons
of hydrogen per day, and a single PSV using about 2 tons per day, with a minimum storage of
6 tons of LH2 for a three-day operation. In terms of the current production capacity in Europe,
58
58
even the demand in Trøndelag from high-speed crafts equals the total capacity of either
Lindes or Air Products liquefaction plants in Leuna and Rotterdam.
Without considering each individual car ferry, high-speed route or PSV we have also
estimated the volume of LH2 needed for a 50 and 25 percent conversion from MGO and
LNG. The 25 percent-scenario is close to DNV-GLs estimate for 2030 and should be a
realistic demand for the next 10-15 years in Western Norway, especially if upcoming tenders
for the major high-speed crafts in Sogn og Fjordane and Trøndelag includes hydrogen as a
potential energy carrier.
Table 21 – Demand of LH2 – different scenarios188
Scenario 100 % conversion to LH2 50 % conversion to LH2 25 % conversion to LH2

County t/year t/day t/year t/day t/year t/day
Trøndelag 2 131 6 1 066 3 533 1,5
Møre og 13 577 37 6 789 19 3 394 9
Romsdal
Sogn og 23 870 65 11 935 33 5 968 16
Fjordane
Hordaland 39 439 108 19 720 54 9 860 27
Rogaland 25 888 71 12 944 36 6 472 18
Total 104 905 287 52 454 144 26 227 72
Another way to calculate future market demand is to argue that the transformation of publicly
tendered vessels will happen faster than in the private sector. Here, the authorities can include
criteria for emission reduction that operators must follow. Also, hydrogen-powered car ferries
and high-speed crafts are expected in 2021-22. From car ferries and high-speed crafts alone,
the total demand of LH2 is 44 tons per day, with a gravity of demand in the three southern
counties.
In figures 37-40 we have visualized the volumes geographically. We have chosen to have
separate maps for public tendered car ferries and high-speed crafts suitable for LH2 and one
indicating consumption for platform supply vessels.
188
Figures are rounded to nearest whole number
59
59
Figure 37: Distribution of LH2-need for car ferries and high-speed crafts: Møre og
Romsdal and Trøndelag
60
60
Figure 38: Distribution of LH2-need for car ferries and high-speed crafts: Hordaland &
Sogn og Fjordane
61
61
Figure 39: Distribution of LH2-need for car ferries and high-speed crafts: Rogaland
62
62
Figure 40: Geographic distribution of LH2-need for platform supply vessels
63
63
7.5 Energy need – natural gas and electricity
Even with 25 percent of the current fuel consumption by car ferries, high-speed crafts and
PSVs switching to LH2, it represents a daily demand of just above 70 tons/day. This is about
3,5 times more than the current European liquefaction capacity. In order to achieve a larger
restructuring of fuel in the maritime sector the volumes clearly show that in order to supply
the Norwegian maritime sector with green hydrogen it is necessary to establish local
production of hydrogen and liquification plants in Norway.
Following this line of thought, we have calculated the necessary energy input to produce the
amounts above from either electrolysis or gas reformation. For each scenario we first
identified how much energy the estimated volume of LH2 contained. Secondly, using
efficiency data for electrolysers and gas reformation plants with carbon capture and
liquefaction plants, both state-of-the-art and with future technology developments, we
estimated how much electricity and grid capacity, or natural gas is needed.
With a lower heating value of 33,3 kWh/kg LH2 the volumes presented in table 20 above
represent an annual energy amount ranging from 0,6 to 3,5 TWh. Considering the energy
efficiency of electrolysis and gas reformation with carbon capture and the subsequent
liquefaction, the needed energy input is nearly the double with today’s technology.
Table 22: Energy needed for H2 production - Today and Future189
Scenario DNV-GL 2030 25 % 50 % 100 %

Ton H2 17 900 26 277 52 454 104 906
Energy from H2 (TWh) 0,60 0,80 1,75 3,50
Electricity demand – today/future (TWh) 1,1/1 1,7/1,4 3,3/2,9 6,6/5,8
Total cap. load from grid – today/future (MW) 129/122 189/165 377/329 754/659
Demand of natural gas (Million SM3) 104,2/93,8 153,1/137,7 305,6/275 611,1/550
If produced by electrolysis the volumes described in this report would require a substantial
amount of the Norwegian electricity surplus. In 2018 Norway produced 146 TWh of
electricity, mainly from hydropower, and had a gross consumption of 136 TWh, resulting in a
surplus of ca 10 TWh190. The volumes estimated by DNV-GL in 2030 would require 11
percent of this surplus, while a complete change to LH2 for the vessels included in our
scenario would require 66 percent of the surplus energy of 2018.
A county breakdown of gross consumption is not publicly available from Statistics Norway,
but using net consumption shows that the counties of Rogaland, Hordaland and Sogn og
Fjordane has a substantial surplus of electricity191. While Møre og Romsdal and Trøndelag
does not have the same surplus of electricity, the natural gas facility at Tjeldbergodden
process volumes that are more than large enough to provide hydrogen from gas reformation to
the region (and beyond).
189
Calculations are made from electrolyser data from IRENA (2018), liquefaction data from the Idealhy-project
and calculations on SMR and carbon capture from IEAGHG (2017)
190
Statistics Norway (2019a)
191
Statistics Norway (2019d) and (2019e)
64
64
Figure 41 – Electricity balance – Western Norway 2015-2017

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2015 2016 2017
-2000
-4000
-6000
Rogaland Hordaland Sogn og Fjordane Møre og Romsdal Sør-Trøndelag (-2017)
As a comparison the export of gas from Norway in 2017 was 117,4 billion SM3, meaning that
between 0,09 and 0,5 percent of the annual export is needed to produce the volume of
hydrogen estimated. See the appendix for a regional breakdown of energy need and grid
capacity.
65
65
8. Case studies
Based on the information presented in the previous chapters we have done preliminary case
studies of how a value chain for liquid hydrogen would look like for three specific
geographies:
• The car ferries between Halhjem and Sandvikvåg

• The high-speed craft from Bergen to Nordfjord (Selje)
• A PSV in traffic between the supply base at Mongstad and Statfjord
8.1 Car ferry Halhjem-Sandvikvåg
The ferry service between Halhjem and Sandvikvåg across Bjørnefjorden in Hordaland
County are among the most heavily trafficked route in Norway, ranking third in number of
daily vehicles, passengers and PCU-kilometers192.
The service is currently run by Torghatten Nord on an eight year-long contract running from
2019, with five one-year options following 2027. Currently, Torghatten is phasing in new gas
(LNG)-electric ferries to replace the previous LNG-ferries. From 2020, five gas-electric
ferries operate the service, four in operation and one in reserve.
Table 23: Data Halhjem-Sandvikvåg
Value Data
Length 22 km/12 Nm
Duration 45 min
Estimated speed 16 knots/hour
Daily crossings (from 2020) 54
Powertrain Hybrid gas-electric (LNG)
Estimated annual energy consumption 212 500 000 kWh
Estimated energy consumption per crossing ca 11 000 kWh
Estimated daily need of LH2 16 tons
Today, LNG is stored locally at Halhjem in two 500 m3 tanks, in total a gross volume of 1000
m3, in proximity to the road. The tanks are filled from an LNG-trailer but can also be re-filled
by an LNG-tanker.
192
Norwegian Public Roads Administration (2016) – PCU = Passenger Car Units
66
66
Figure 42: LNG-storage at Halhjem
Based on our calculations the ferries need about 16 tons of hydrogen per day or about 4 tons
of LH2 per operational vessel.
A volume of 16 tons of LH2 per day is enough to consider establishing a local hydrogen
production with liquefaction capacity. But a lack of nearby energy resources, as well as its
location between a potential production sites at Kollsnes (ca 85 km) and Matre where Gasnor,
SKL and Kvinnherad Municipality (ca 100 km) have plans for a liquefaction plant, counts
towards a solution with distributed LH2 from a central production facility. In addition, there is
no available land next to the quay, introducing the need for transport to the bunkering facility.
From an operational perspective, we assume it would be unsatisfying to have a logistical
chain where the necessary fuel arrived on-site each day, without any local storage capacity in
case of downtime at the hydrogen production facility or other forms of delivery problems. A
delivery of 16 tons of LH2 would take four trailers offloading per day. Considering an
estimated 3,5-4 hours for delivery of four tons193, it would potentially result in offloading of
LH2 16 hours per day. The duration can be reduced if the storage facility is designed to
receive from multiple points simultaneously.
Ideally, the LH2 would be delivered from a bunkering vessel capable of delivering several
days of fuel in one offloading. This would remove the need for a minimum of four trailers per
day and, with the transfer flow rate given by Moss Maritime in their design for a bunkering
vessel, the offloading would go a lot quicker. With an unloading rate of 300 m3/h it would
take below two hours to fill a storage tank like the spherical solution used by Jaxa – with a
capacity of 540 m3 or 38 tons of LH2. A storage solution with 700 m3 would have enough fuel
to cover three days of operation before a new shipment must arrive with a bunkering vessel.
193
Klebanoff et.al (2018)
67
67
Figure 43: Spherical storage tank – Jaxa
The tank is 12 meters high and would have enough hydrogen for two days, plus a sizeable
margin.
Alternatively, if based on trailer transport, a 300 m3 cylinder from an industrial gas supplier
could provide a one-day-back-up, in case the daily delivery fails. Despite possible venting
losses from a double transfer operation (trailer to storage to vessel), a local storage provides a
much more flexible solution.
Based on the current schedule it would be advisable to have multiple lines from the storage to
multiple bunkering stanchions. Between 06:00-22:00 all four ferries are in operation, before
two ferries continue to operate until 00:45, and then three single departures from each
direction between 00:45 and 05:30.
In the SF-BREEZE-project a transfer flow of 1000 kg LH2/20-40 min is said to be

manageable. The transfer time for 4 tons of LH2 for one vessel would therefore be between 1h
20 min and 2h 40 min, plus pre-cooling and warming of lines and equipment before and after.
The small bunkering window suggests that an LH2-pump with a capacity of 200-250 m3/h is
needed to reduce the bunkering time or 125 m3/h with two pumps connected to separate
bunkering stanchions.
68
68
Figure 44: Simplified schematic flow of value chain - Halhjem
8.2 High-speed craft Bergen-Nordfjord
The route between Bergen and Selje in Nordfjord is 140 nautical miles long and has two
return trips with 14 potential stops between the two end stops on weekdays and once during
the weekend.
The current fuel consumption is reported to be around 500 kg diesel per hour for the five-
hour voyage, about 2 500 kg diesel194. In addition, comes empty running while at quay and
maneuvering in and out of the numerous stops underway. Looking at the annual fuel
consumption of diesel an average of about 4 tons of hydrogen for a day of normal service
with four crossings is estimated.
Table 24: Input high-speed craft Bergen-Nordfjord
Distance 140 Nm
Return trips per weekday 2
Number of stops, included end stops 16
Current fuel consumption one way 2500 kg diesel one-way + empty running and
maneuvering
Current daily fuel consumption 10 000 kg ++
Daily LH2-consumption with similar vessel Ca 4 tons
Unlike the car ferry, the high-speed craft is much more weight sensitive and the vessel is
unlikely to carry a full-day of fuel. A smaller high-speed craft (100 pax, 28 knots) designed
by the Norwegian company Brødrene Aa as part of the Green Coastal Programme has a
storage of 450 kg compressed hydrogen at 250 bar 195. In the design for the high-speed craft
SF Breeze (150 pax and 35 knots) the onboard storage was 1 200 kg LH2, enough for two 50
nm-trips + a margin of 2-400 kg196.
With a similar capacity for a LH2-vessel going from Bergen to Selje it needs to refuel per
every crossing. From a logistical point of view the bunkering would need to take place at the
end stops as bunkering along the way would prolong the crossing.
194
Correspondance with Norled, April 2017
195
Nygård & Strømgren (2017)
196
69
69
Thus, the vessel needs to bunker about 1 ton of LH2 twice in Bergen and twice at Selje during
a weekday. As Bergen and Selje are two widely different locations, both in terms of other
traffic, geography and population, we look at the two end stops separately.
At Selje the high-speed craft hails in the centre of the village, close to the town hall, shops
and pubs. The industrial harbour in the municipality is on the other side of the peninsula and
not an option as a bunkering site.
Figure 45: Selje Harbour
The daily demand at Selje suggests that a solution with distributed hydrogen from a central
production facility is preferable from an economic point of view.
With the current schedule bunkering would take place between in the afternoon (between 13-
15) and after the final arrival at 21.40 in the evening (to prepare for the first departure the next
day). From a logistical point of view, a delivery of 4 tons by trailer to a local storage unit
every other day seems like a good solution. Pratt & Klebanoff (2016) estimate the cost for a
storage unit of 4,2 tons and a bunkering stanchion that connects the storage unit and the vessel
to 1,395 million USD.
With a window of two hours between arrival and departure in the afternoon a bunkering
transfer flow as indicated in the SF BREEZE-project of 1000 kg LH2 per 20-40 minutes,
through pressure filling, is fast enough.
A project that might influence the bunkering solution at Selje is the Stad Tunnel, where the
western entry point is located 6-7 nautical miles from the current quay. The project is fully
financed in the national transportation plan for 2018-2029 and can be ready in 2026 at the
earliest197.
In the SF-BREEZE project they recommend a maximum distance of 5 nm between the

bunkering facility and the embarkation point, however they have a smaller window between
197
Stad Tunnel (2019)
70
70
departures. If a larger bunkering facility is established in relations to the tunnel it can

potentially also serve the high-speed craft.
Figure 46: Simplified schematic flow of value chain – Selje Harbour
In Bergen, the vessels call in the inner city. A previous study by Greensight has questioned
whether it is possible to have any form of hydrogen bunkering due to public areas close by
and limited space for trailers to operate198. Also, Bergen is a hub for several other high-speed
crossings and probably be one of the harbours most suited for hydrogen on a larger scale,
hence the findings made by DNV-GL (2019). They estimate a daily need of nearly 8 tons LH2
in 2030, divided by high-speed crafts, a few PSVs and testing of fuel cells & hydrogen at
Kystruten199. Infrastructure to serve the high-speed craft from Bergen to Selje would likely
also have the capacity to serve other end users.
Figure 47: Bergen, Standkaien
198
Greensight (2018)
199
DNV-GL (2019)
71
71
A potential production site is Equinors gas terminal at Kollsnes, about 50 kilometers from the
centre of Bergen. An amount of 8 tons per day could be transported by two trailers of 4 tons
each to a local storage facility, or if the high-speed craft is the only end user in the beginning,
a trailer every other day would be enough to provide the vessel with hydrogen. The most
challenging task is perhaps to find room for a storage tank and bunkering stanchion. The Port
of Bergen has suggested to the regional authorities to fill out a portion of the inner fjord to
obtain new land, which could serve as a potential area. The potential new land area of roughly
17 000 m2 is illustrated by the red line in the figure below.
Figure 48: Suggested new land in Bergen Harbour
A cryogenic tank of 100 m3 – with a diameter of 3 m and length of 14 m can store just above
7 tons of LH2 and can be a first step – with a continuous expansion of local storage as the
demand increases.
8.3 PSV from Mongstad to Statfjord
Of the vessel-types we have included in the report, the platform supply vessels represent the
largest single user, as the demand for ferry/high-speed crossings is divided between multiple
vessels.
In table 20 we have listed input on a hydrogen-driven PSV from a research project done by
CMR Prototech in 2014. The distances between Mongstad and the Statfjord-area is about 200
nautical miles. It is not given in the CMR-report which distance the PSV is designed to cover
per day with the daily fuel consumption of 1701 kg LH2 per day. As Statfjord are among the
most western oil fields we have set a daily LH2-use of 2 tons per day on average.
72
72
Table 25 – Input Platform Supply Vessel
Distance one-way Mongstad-Statfjord Ca 200 nm

Estimated average LH2 per day 2 tons
1 refuelling per week Ca 12 tons
2 refuelling per week Ca 6 tons
Expeditions per week 2
On-board storage with 1 refuelling 192 m3
On-board storage with 2 refuellings 108 m3
CCB Mongstad is the main supply base for Equinors activity in the North Sea Today they
have a storage capacity of 9000 m3 marine gas oil from Cirkle-K and 1000 m3 of LNG from
Gasnor. As figure 48 shows it is a major hub for the PSV activity to and from the Norwegian
continental shelf.
Figure 49 – AIS-data for PSV-traffic to Mongstad200
In 2016 Greenstat did a feasibility study on potential hydrogen production from electrolysis at
Mongstad, then with the intention to supply Equinors refinery. The study showed a maximum
production per day of 31,2 tons of compressed hydrogen per day201. If those volumes are
liquefied a production of green LH2 at Mongstad could provide 2,5 platform supply vessels
per day, based on a once-a-week refuelling of 12 tons, in total 16-18 vessels per week.
The scope of this report does not allow for a detailed study of how a production plant at
Mongstad should be designed, but a possible solution is to transport low pressure compressed
hydrogen in a pipeline from the electrolyzer for compression and liquefaction closer to the
shoreline.
But to provide a single PSV with LH2 it will be provided from an external production plant. A
solution is distribution by bunkering vessel from a potential production from gas reformation
at Kollsnes, about 20 nautical miles north of Mongstad. Offloading into a 540 m3-storage
tank, see figure 23, could provide fuel for three weeks for a single PSV. Depending on the
200
Havbase (2019)
201
Greenstat (2016)
73
73
need for flexibility and ability to schedule bunkering it is also possible to have a single
weekly bunkering with LH2 distributed by three trailers with 4 tons each. Distribution by
truck would minimize the need for infrastructure on the shoreside, especially if it is possible
to use pressure filling to transfer LH2 on-board.
But without fixed departure times and a volatile work load, the flexibility provided by a local
storage unit and a LH2-pump for speedy transfer of fuel, seems like the best solution for a
PSV. The size of the storage unit is flexible, in their study CMR Prototech suggest a storage
of 12 500 kg/LH2 to match the weekly consumption of the vessel. While it increases CAPEX
for storage, if supplied by a bunkering vessel a larger quantity stored locally would reduce the
transportation cost per kg LH2,
An LH2-pump providing a flow transfer rate of 1000 kg LH2/h would give an estimated
refuelling time of 12 hours for 12 tons or six hours if the vessel refuels six tons twice a week.
Figure 50: Simplified schematic flow of value chain – Mongstad
74
74
9. Summary: Barriers for a liquid hydrogen value chain

The goal of this report was to examine a future value chain for liquid hydrogen in Norway,
with a special focus on car ferries, high-speed crafts and platform supply vessels.
This has identified several barriers that need increased intention in the years to come.
Demand for liquid hydrogen: A first step for a Norwegian value chain is to create a demand
that leads to production of liquid hydrogen in Norway. Our volume scenarios and cost
comparisons clearly show that the current European capacity is both too small and distant to
serve a Norwegian maritime market. And even with the LH2-prices available in Europe, the
cost per kWt to the propeller of a vessel represents a substantial increase in fuel cost.
To reduce cost per kg the research literature clearly states that size matters. In combination
with technology improvements a tenfold increase in production capacity per day can reduce
the energy needed for liquefaction by 50 percent202. A minimum production capacity of 10-15
tons LH2 per day has been mentioned by Equinor and SKL/Gasnor for their potential
production at Tjeldbergodden and Kvinnherad.
A large barrier is therefore to substantiate a demand of liquid hydrogen large enough for
trigger investment in hydrogen production and liquefaction in Norway. As seen from the
development of electric ferries and the first car ferry on LH2, public tenders can be an
effective tool. Our data on future demand high-speed crafts show that several crossings would
require around 4 tons per day and the car ferry crossing from Halhjem to Sandvikvåg
requiring around 15 tons per day on its own.
Cost development: In addition to the scale of production, a positive cost development is

closely connected to three areas: the cost of energy needed to produce hydrogen, increased
efficiency for all parts of the value chain and a continued fall in capital cost for infrastructure.
With about half of the production cost per kg of hydrogen being energy cost203, as well as a
substantial energy need for liquefaction, a decrease of cost depends on stable energy prices or
the ability to utilize “trapped power” outside of energy markets.
Also, for production of hydrogen from natural gas, which currently is cheaper than
electrolysis, the establishment of and cost associated with CCS provides an element of
uncertainty. Our run-through of criteria for blue and/or green hydrogen shows that CCS is
necessary in order to achieve a low enough level of kgCO2/kg LH2 to label hydrogen from
natural gas as blue hydrogen.
Technology: While there is a continued need for increased efficiency, both production and
liquefaction of hydrogen is considered as a mature industry, from few, but highly competent
industrial gas companies. The last year has also seen a spike in new capacity being built in the
US (3x30 tons per day) and a doubling of Lindes plant in Leuna from 5 to 10 tons per day. In
terms of land-based storage of LH2 there are several suppliers with experience and availability
for cryogenic storage tanks and there exists large solutions developed for space industry.
202
Idealhy (2013)
203
DNV-GL (2019)
75
75
As we move further along the value chain the need for technology development increases.
Currently distribution of LH2 in Europe is done by trailer truck or by ISO-containers on ships.
This is a suitable solution for small volumes, but as seen in our case studies it is not a very
cost efficient or flexible form of distribution for larger volumes. The development of LH2-
tankers that can supply bunkering sites along the coastline is necessary for an effective
distribution of large volumes.
In general, for distribution and bunkering, suppliers seem to believe that existing technology
for LNG can be modified and adapted to LH2. This includes tanks, submerged pumps for
offloading, vacuum insulated pipes and valves and flexible pipes or loading arms.
However, this requires considerable engineering and qualification before solutions are
commercially available for maritime applications204.
Regulations and standards: While some regulations and standards are developed for
hydrogen as an energy carrier, less is available for maritime use of liquid hydrogen. In
Norway it falls to a large degree under the general regulation on handling of dangerous
substances with references made to maritime use of LNG. A development of international
standards for a maritime use of hydrogen, especially concerning bunkering, is needed. Also
hydrogen should be more directly addressed in national guidelines following the regulation on
handling of dangerous goods.
Spatial planning: The lower energy density, 8500 MJ/m3 compared to 38 000 MJ/m3 for
MGO and 22 000 MJ/m3 for LNG, makes liquid hydrogen a more area demanding solution.
As an example, we showed how much storage was needed to match the current amount of
energy stored at major bunkering sites along the coastline (figure 29). In order to make room
for infrastructure it is important that harbors, logistics bases and bunkering sites have this in
mind for future spatial planning.
204
Moss Maritime (2018)
76
76
10. Literature and references

Afif, Ahmed et.al (2016) Ammonia-fed fuel cells: a comprehensive review, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Review, vol. 60 (July), p. 822-835
Air Liquide (2015a) World premiere: Air Liquide inaugurates its CO2 cold capture system,
Cryocap, https://www.airliquide.com/sites/airliquide.com/files/2015/11/05/world-
premiere_air-liquide-inaugurates-its-co2-cold-capture-system-cryocap.pdf , last visited 28th of
January 2019
Air Liquide (2015b) Hydrogen Storage on board aeronef and ground infrastructure,
presentation given under FCH-JU Workshop on aeronautical applications of fuel cell and
hydrogen technologies,
https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/12.%20Bensadoun%20%28ID%202844157%29
_0.pdf , last visited 24th of March 2019.
Air Liquide (2018) Air Liquide to build first world scale liquid hydrogen production plant
dedicated to the supply of Hydrogen energy markets, https://www.airliquide.com/media/air-
liquide-build-first-world-scale-liquid-hydrogen-production-plant-dedicated-supply-hydrogen-
energy-markets , last visited 19th January 2019
Air Liquide (2019) Storing Hydrogen, https://energies.airliquide.com/resources-planet-
hydrogen/how-hydrogen-stored, last visited 12th of March 2019.
Air Products (2014) Safetygram 9: Liquid Hydrogen, available at
https://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/company/safetygram-9.pdf, last visited on
4th January 2019
Air Products (2018) Air Products to Build World-Scale Liquid Hydrogen Plant at its La Porte,
Texas Facility, http://www.airproducts.com/Company/news-center/2018/09/0911-air-
products-to-build-world-scale-liquid-hydrogen-plant-at-laporte-texas-facility.aspx , last
visited 19th January 2019
Asplan Viak (2018) Vedlegg 3.14: Metodikk for beregning av klimaintensiteten til Nordisk
elektrisitetsmiks, provided by Asplan Viak for Statens Vegvesen in May 2018, available at
request to the latter.
Barth, Frederic (2016) CerifHy – Developing a European guarantee of origin scheme for
green hydrogen, presentation from the CertifHy-project,
https://www.certifhy.eu/images/media/files/CertifHy_Presentation_19_10_2016_final_Definit
ion_of_Premium_Hydrogen.pdf , last visited 30th of January 2019.
Barthelemy, Herve (2016) ISO and EIGA standards for cryogenic vessels and accessories,
presentation given at Cern for Air Liquide 22.sep 2016,
https://indico.cern.ch/event/495194/contributions/2223315/attachments/1338260/2019613/IS
O_and_EIGA_stds_for_cryogenic_vessels_and_accessories.pdf last visited 19th of March
2019.
Baykara, Sema. Z (2018) Hydrogen: A Brief overview on its sources, production and
environmental impact, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43 (2018), p. 10605-10614
Berstad, David, Jacob H. Stang and Petter Nekså (2009) Comparison criteria for large-scale
hydrogen liquefaction processes, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34 (2009), p.
1560-1568
Berstad, David et.al (2013) Schedule for Demonstration Plant including options for Location,
report from Integrated design for demonstration of efficient liquefaction of hydrogen
77
77
(IDEALHY), https://www.idealhy.eu/uploads/documents/IDEALHY_D5-
22_Schedule_demonstration_and_location_web.pdf , last visited 27th of March 2019.
Berstad, David (2018a) Technologies for hydrogen liquefaction, presentation given at
Gasskonferansen 11.04.2018
Berstad, David (2018b) Hydrogen liquefaction, storage and long distance transport,
presentation given at Mission Innovation, Deep dive workshop, Berlin, 17.10.2018,
https://www.now-gmbh.de/content/1-aktuelles/2-veranstaltungen/20181017-innovation-
challenge-8-on-hydrogen/2_2_h2-liquefaction-storage-long-distance-
transport_sintef_berstad.pdf , last visited 29th of January.
Blaylock, Myra et.al (2018) Informing hazardous zones for on-board maritime hydrogen
liquid and gas systems, Sandia Report – Sand2018-0585, https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-
noauth/access-control.cgi/2018/180585.pdf , last visited 26th of March 2019.
Cardella, U. et al (2017) Roadmap to economically viable large-scale hydrogen liquefaction,
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol 42 (19), p. 13329-13338
CertifHY (2015a) Technical report on the Definition of CertifHy Green Hydrogen,
http://www.certifhy.eu/images/project/reports/Certifhy_Deliverable_D2_4_green_hydrogen_
definition_final.pdf , last visited 30th of Januar 2019.
CertifHY (2015b) Overview of the market segmentation for hydrogen across potential
customer groups, based on key application areas,
http://www.certifhy.eu/images/D1_2_Overview_of_the_market_segmentation_Final_22_June
_low-res.pdf , last visited 07th of February 2019
CMR Prototech (2014) Hydrogen som drivstoff på skip, sluttrapport for Transnova-
prosjektnr. 2014028990, available at request from the authors
Cryostar (2016) Liquid hydrogen solutions,
https://cleantuesdayparis.fr/media/files/HYVOLUTION_2016_CRYOSTAR_LH2_solutions_
short_-_final.pdf , last visited 26th of March.
Cryostar (2019) Hydrogen, https://cryostar.com/hydrogen/ , last visited 26th of March 2019.
Damman, Sigrid et.al (2018) HyLaw – National Policy Paper – Norway,
https://www.hylaw.eu/sites/default/files/2019-03/National%20Policy%20Paper%20-
%20Norway%20%2810.03.2019%29.pdf, last visited 21th of March
Dept. of Oil and Energy (2016) Mulighetsstudier av fullskala CO2-håndtering i Norge,
https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/departementene/oed/pdf/mulighetsstudien.pdf last
visited 29th of January 2019
Dillich, Sara et.al (2012) Hydrogen Production Cost Using Low-Cost Natural Gas, DOE
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Program Record 12024,
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/12024_h2_production_cost_natural_gas.pdf , last
visited 7th of February 2019
DNV-GL (2017) Study on the use of fuel cells in shipping, report for EMSA European
Maritime Safety Agency, http://www.emsa.europa.eu/emsa-
documents/download/4545/2921/23.html , last visited 19th of March 2019.
DNV-GL (2018) Maritime forecast to 2050, available from
https://eto.dnvgl.com/2018/download , last visited 19th of February 2019.
DNV-GL (2019) Synteserapport om produksjon og bruk av hydrogen i Norge, rapportnr.
2019-0039, Rev 1,
78
78
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/0762c0682ad04e6abd66a9555e7468df/hydrogen-i-
norge---synteserapport.pdf , last visited 12th of February 2019.
DSB (2018) Guideline on tapping of dangerous substances, https://www.dsb.no/lover/farlige-
stoffer/veiledning-til-forskrift/temaveiledning-om-omtapping-av-farlig-stoff/#kapittel-3--
bunkring-av-lng, last visited 21th of March 2019.
E4 Tech Sarl and Energy Element (2014) Study on the development of water electrolysis in
the EU, report for FCH-JU
https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/FCHJUElectrolysisStudy_FullReport%20(ID%2
0199214).pdf , last visited 06th of February 2019
EIGA (2019) Safety in storage, handling and distribution of liquid hydrogen, Doc 06/19,
https://www.eiga.eu/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=3539&token=80a8580dc3996dcb1705
315e53c21f7aa283db2e last visited 19th of March 2019.
Energigass Norge (2015) Norskekysten LNG – Utvikling av infrastruktur for LNG som
drivstoff i Norge,
http://energigass.no/content/uploads/2017/06/Norskekysten_LNG_rapport.pdf , last visited
31th of January 2019.
Energy.gov (2015) Department of Energy Technical Targets for Hydrogen Delivery,
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/doe-technical-targets-hydrogen-delivery , last visited
28th of March 2019
Equinor (2017) Minimizing greenhouse gas emissions – Greenhouse gas emissions of the
Norwegian natural gas value chain 2016,
https://www.equinor.com/content/dam/statoil/documents/climate-andsustainability/
170135%20Greenhouse%20gas%20emissions_10.08.2017%20final.pdf , last visited 12th of
February
European Committee for Standardization (2017) Business Plan Cen-Cenelec/TC6 Hydrogen

in Energy Systems, https://standards.cen.eu/bp/2121095.pdf , last visited 21th of March
European Committee for Standardization (2019) CEN/TC 268 – Cryogenic vessels and
specific hydrogen technologies applications,
https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:6249&cs=172C7ABB5878B
DDA737ED75C120F556C1 , last visited 21th of March 2019.
European Environment Agency (2018) Overview of electricity production and use in Europe,
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/overview-of-the-electricity-production-
2/assessment-4 , last visited 22nd of January 2019
FCH-JU (2019) Hydrogen Roadmape Europe,
https://fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Hydrogen%20Roadmap%20Europe_Report.pdf , last
visited 14th of March 2019
Fuel Cell Today (2019) SOFC, http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/technologies/sofc , last visited
19th of February 2019
Gardener, Monterey (2009) Energy requirements for hydrogen gas compression and
liquefaction as related to vehicle storage needs, DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program
Record,
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirements_for_hydrogen_gas_compr
ession.pdf , last visited 23th of March 2019.
79
79
Gas World (2019), NASA to build world’s largest liquid hydrogen storage tank,
https://www.gasworld.com/nasa-to-build-worlds-largest-h2-tank/2016328.article, last visited
13th of March 2019.
Green Coastal Shipping Programme (forthcoming) Hydrogen as maritime fuel for Norwegian
short sea and coastal shipping, report for the Green Coastal Shipping Programme, available
by request
Greensight (2018) Barrierestudie for Bergen havn, http://www.greensight.no/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/Rapport-Bergen-Havn-min-2.pdf , last visited 26th of March 2019.
Greenstat (2016) Feasbility study Mongstad – Executive Summary, published 15th of January
2016, http://www.greensight.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Greenstat-hydrogenanlegg-
Mongstad-Mulighetsstudie_-executive-summary.pdf , last visited 27th of March 2019
Grønland, Stein Erik (2018) Kostnadsmodeller for transport og logistikk – basisår 2016,
Institute of Transport Economics, report 1638/2018,
https://www.toi.no/getfile.php?mmfileid=48556 , last visited 24th of March 2019
H21 (2018) H21 North of England, https://www.northerngasnetworks.co.uk/h21-noe/H21-
NoE-26Nov18-v1.0.pdf , last visited 27th of January 2019.
Holst, Steffen Møller et al (2016) Hydrogen verdikjeder og potensial, Sintef paper for Green
Coastal Shipping Programme,
https://www.sintef.no/contentassets/cd105affc9d64e09a7b6e822203c5b0d/underlagsnotat_hy
drogen_sintef.pdf , last visited 27th of January 2019
Houston Chronicle (2019) McDermott lands contract to build hydrogen storage tank at
NASA’s Cape Canaveral,
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/McDermott-lands-contract-to-
build-hydrogen-13647332.php, last visited 13th of March 2019.
Hydrogen Council (2017) Hydrogen Scaling Up, http://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/Hydrogen-scaling-up-Hydrogen-Council.pdf , last visited 20th of
January 2019
Hydrogen.no (2019) Planlegger storstilt produksjon av flytende hydrogen i Kvinnherad,
https://www.hydrogen.no/hva-skjer/aktuelt/planlegger-storstilt-produksjon-av-flytende-
hydrogen-i-kvinnherad , last visited 14th of February 2019.
HyLaw (2018) Online database, https://www.hylaw.eu/database , last visited 19th of March.
Essler et.al (2012), Report on Technology Overview and Barriers to Energy- and Cost-
Efficient Large Scale Hydrogen Liquefaction, report from Integrated design for demonstration
of efficient liquefaction of hydrogen (IDEALHY),
https://www.idealhy.eu/uploads/documents/IDEALHY_D1-
1_Report_Tech_Overview_and_Barriers_web2.pdf , last visited 24th of March 2019.
IEAGHG (2017) Techno-Economic Evaluation of SMR Based Standalone (Merchant)
Hydrogen Plant with CCS, IEAGHG Technical Report 2017-02,
https://ieaghg.org/exco_docs/2017-02.pdf , last visited 12th of February 2019.
IEA (2015) Technology Roadmap Hydrogen and Fuel Cells,
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapHydrogen
andFuelCells.pdf last visited 18th March 2019
80
80
IEA (2017) Biofuels for the marine shipping sector, https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-

content/uploads/2018/02/Marine-biofuel-report-final-Oct-2017.pdf, last visited 5th of March
2019.
Ikuo Hamanaka (2015) Regulations, Codes & Standards for hydrogen handling and use, paper
presented at the International workshop on Renewable Energy and Hydrogen Export, 24th of
March, 2015, https://www.sintef.no/contentassets/9b9c7b67d0dc4fbf9442143f1c52393c/6-
regulations-codes--standards-for-hydrogen-handling-ikuo-hamanaka-dnv-gl.pdf , last visited
19th of March 2019.
IMO (2016) Resolution MSC. 420(97) Interim recommendations for carriage of liquefied
hydrogen in bulk, https://www.iso.org/committee/54560.html, last visited 21th of March 2019
IMO (2018) UN Body adopts climate change strategy for shipping, published 13.04.2018,
available at
http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/06ghginitialstrategy.aspx, last
visited 4th of January 2019
Institute for Sustainable Process Technology (2017) Power to ammonia – a feasibility study
for the value chains and business cases to produce CO2-free ammonia suitable for various
market applications, http://www.ispt.eu/media/ISPT-P2A-Final-Report.pdf , last visited 16th
of January 2019
IRENA (2018) Hydrogen from renewable power: technology outlook for the energy
transition, http://www.irena.org/publications/2018/Sep/Hydrogen-from-renewable-power ,
last visited 20th of January 2019
IRENA (2018b) Global Energy Transformation. A roadmap to 2050, https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Apr/IRENA_Report_GET_2018.pdf last
visited 29th of January 2019.
ISO (2019) ISO/TC 197 – Hydrogen Technologies,
https://www.iso.org/committee/54560.html , last visited 21th of March 2019.
Kawasaki (2014) Study on Introduction of CO2-free energy to Japan with Liquid Hydrogen,
presentation given at University of Twente, 7-11th July of 2014,
https://indico.cern.ch/event/244641/contributions/1563161/attachments/418191/580844/OO-
2_Shoji_Kamiya-TUE-MO-Plenary_R2.pdf, last visited 24th of March 2019
Kawasaki (2018) Liquefied Hydrogen Supply Chain and Carrier Ship to Realize Hydrogen
economy, presentation given at Gasskonferansen 10th of April 2018,
http://gasskonferansen.com/images/foredrag/2018/A%CC%8A%20bygge%20hydrogen%C3
%B8konomi%20som%20forsyningskjede%20for%20flytende%20hydrogen%20Katsuya%20
Morimoto.pdf , last visited 7th of February.
Klebanoff, Leonard et al (2018) Feasibility of the Zero-V: A Zero Emission, hydrogen fuel-
cell, coastal research, Sandia National Laboratory report,
https://energy.sandia.gov/download/43090/ , last visited 24th of March 2019
Krasae-In, Songwut (2013) Efficient Hydrogen in liquefaction processes, dissertation for a
Phd from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/235025 , last visited 11th of February 2019.
Krasae-In, Songwut et.al (2010) Development of large-scale hydrogen liquefaction processes
from 1898 to 2009, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 35 (10), p.4524-4533,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319910004118 , last visited 23th of
March 2019
81
81
Linde (2014) The Cleanest energy carrier ever – hydrogen solutions from Linde,
https://www.the-linde-group.com/en/images/HydrogenBrochure_EN_tcm14-10196.pdf, last
visited 24th of March 2019.
Linde (2016) Hydrogen Solutions, https://linde-kryotechnik.ch/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/hydrogen_solutions_eng.pdf, last visited 12th of March 2019.
Linde (2018) Press information, http://www.linde-
gas.de/de/images/PR_Linde_Wasserstoffanlage_Leuna_tcm565-502926.pdf , last visited on
19th January 2019.
Linde (2019) Distribution Methods,
https://www.lindeus.com/en/products_and_supply/bulk_gases/distribution-methods.html, last
visited 5th of March 2019.
Lovdata (2002) Act on protection against fire, explosion and accidents with dangerous
substances, https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2002-06-14-20, last visited 21th of March
Lovdata (2009) Regulation for safe handling of inflammable, explosive and pressurized
substances, including relevant installations and equipment,
https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2009-06-08-
602?q=forskrift%20om%20h%C3%A5ndtering%20av%20farlig , last visited 21th of March
2019
Lovdata (2010) Regulation on maritime transport of dangerous goods
https://lovdata.no/dokument/LTI/forskrift/2009-12-08-1481, last visited 21th of March 2019
Lovdata (2014) Regulations on detailed provisions on permitted weights and dimensions for
public roads, https://lovdata.no/dokument/LTI/forskrift/2014-01-15-28, last visited 11th of
April 2019
Ohlig, K and Decker, L. (2014) The latest developments and outlook for hydrogen
liquefaction technology, AIP Conference Proceedings 1573, 1311,
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4860858 , last visited 24th of March 2019
LNG World Shipping (2017) Kawasaki ship designs support Japan’s hydrogen-society plans,
https://www.lngworldshipping.com/news/view,kawasaki-ship-designs-support-japans-
hydrogensociety-plans_46421.htm, last visited on 5th of March 2019.
MAN (2018) Ship operation using LPG and Ammonia as fuel on MAN B&W Dual Fuel ME-
LGIP Engines, presentation given by Rene Sejer Laursen at NH3 Fuel Conference 2018
https://nh3fuelassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/0900-Ammonia_vision-Rene-
Sejer-Laursen-MAN.pdf , last visited 19th of February 2019.
Marine Insight (2016) What are Gas Carrier Ships?, https://www.marineinsight.com/types-of-
ships/what-are-gas-carrier-ships/, last visited 5th of March 2019.
Minnehan, John and Pratt, Joseph (2017) Practical Application Limits of Fuel Cells and
Batteries for Zero Emission Vessels, Sandia Report – Sand2017-12665,
https://energy.sandia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/SAND2017-12665.pdf , last visited
26th of March 2019.
Morelos, Joseph (2017) Hydrogen – Safety Considerations and Future Regulations,
presentation given from Lloyd’s Register at Hydrogen Safety Considerations in Valencia
2017, https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/3.%20Joseph%20Morelos%20-
%20H2Safety.pdf , last visited 20th of March 2019.
82
82
Moss Maritime (2018) Ship transport solution for liquified hydrogen (LH2 Bunker Vessel)
Summary report, available by request, last visited 5th of March 2019.
NASA (2016) Ground Systems Development & Operations Highlights,
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/gsdohighlights2016inreview_web.pdf,
last visited 12th of March 2019.
National Energy Technology Laboratory (2015) Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions –
natural gas and power production, US Dept. of Energy,
https://www.eia.gov/conference/2015/pdf/presentations/skone.pdf , last visited 12th of
February 2019.
National Public Road Administration (2016) Ferjestatistikk 2016, handbook V620,
https://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/2305773/binary/1258240?fast_title=H%C3%A5ndbok
+V620+Ferjestatistikk+2016.pdf , last visited 12th of March 2019.
National Public Road Administration (2018) Konkurransegrunnlag. Drift av
riksferjesambandet Hjelmeland-Skipavik-Nesvik, available at request for NPRA
NCE Maritime CleanTech (2019) Hydrogen PSV,
https://maritimecleantech.no/project/hydrogen-psv/, last visited 5th of March 2019.
NCE Maritime CleanTech (2018) Norled to develop the world’s first hydrogen ferry,
https://maritimecleantech.no/2018/11/30/norled-to-develop-the-worlds-first-hydrogen-ferry/,
Nexant (2008) H2A Hydrogen Delivery Infrastructure Analysis Model and Conventional
Pathway Options Analysis Results,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/nexant_h2a.pdf , last visited 24th of
March 2019.
Norsk Petroleum (2019) Olje og gassproduksjon, https://www.norskpetroleum.no/produksjon-
og-eksport/olje-og-gassproduksjon/ , last visited 28th of January 2019.
Norwegian Maritime Authority (2017), Norway may get the world’s first hydrogen-powered
cruise ship, https://www.sdir.no/en/news/news-from-the-nma/norway-may-get-the-worlds-
first-hydrogen-powered-cruise-ship/, last visited 5th of March.
NVE (2018) Nasjonal varedeklarasjon 2017, https://www.nve.no/reguleringsmyndigheten-
for-energi-rme-marked-og-monopol/varedeklarasjon/nasjonal-varedeklarasjon-2017/ , last
visited 22nd of January 2019.
Nygård & Strømgren (2017) Hurtiggåande passasjerbåt med hydrogenbasert framdrift, Sogn
og Fjordane, GKP7H2,
https://brandcentral.dnvgl.com/download/DownloadGateway.dll?h=BE1B38BB718539CC0A
B58A5FF2EA7A83229B8953BC99D8DE553CC23B3A0212AB9D71AB054084A26ECC51
3C4A16A40FEA , last visited 26th of March 2019
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2019) Hydrogen production: Natural
Gas Reforming, https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-
reforming , last visited 27th of January 2019.
Pratt, Joseph & Klebanoff, Leonard (2016) Feasibility of the SF-BREEZE: a Zero-Emission,
Hydrogen Fuel Cell, High-Speed Passenger Ferry, Sandia Report – SAND2016-9719,
https://energy.sandia.gov/download/38805/ , last visited 26th of March 2019
Praxair (2016) Hydrogen, refrigerated liquid, Safety Data sheet, https://www.praxair.com/-
/media/corporate/praxairus/documents/sds/hydrogen/liquid-hydrogen-gas-h2-safety-data-
83
83
sheet-sds-p4603.pdf?la=en&rev=5c09c28f6acd421eb9330a58c3e5bd6a , last visited 21th of

March 2019
Praxair (2018) Praxair to Build New Liquid Hydrogen Plant in La Porte, Texas,
https://www.praxair.com/news/2018/praxair-to-build-new-liquid-hydrogen-plant-in-la-porte-
texas , last visited 19th January 2019.
Reddi, Krishna et. al (2016) Challenges and Opportunities of Hydrogen Delivery via Pipeline,
Tube-Trailer, LIQUID Tanker and Methanation-Natural Gas Grid in Stolten, Detlef and
Bernd Emots (ed) Hydrogen Science and Engineering: Materials, Processes, Systems and
Technology, Wiley-VCH Verlag.
Regjeringen (2016) Norge har ratifisert Parisavtalen, published 21.06.2016, available at
https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/norge-har-ratifisert-parisavtalen/id2505365/, last
visited on 4th of January 2019.
Sandia National Laboratories (2016), Feasibility of the SF-BREEZE:a Zero-Emission,
Hydrogen Fuel Cell, High-Speed Passenger Ferry,
https://energy.sandia.gov/download/38805/, last visited on 5th of March.
Selfa Artic (2016) Batteri/brenselcelle hurtigbåt, FoU-prosjekt for Næringslivets NOx-fond,
https://www.nho.no/siteassets/nox-fondet/rapporter/2018/batteri-og-brenselcelle-pa-
hurtigbat.pdf , last visited 11th of March 2019.
Shell (2017) Shell hydrogen study: Energy of the future? Sustainable mobility through fuel
cells and hydrogen, https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/future-
transport/hydrogen.html , last visited 12th of February 2019.
Shell (2018) Shell Scenarios: SKY – Meeting the goals of the Paris agreement,
https://www.shell.com/promos/meeting-the-goals-of-the-paris-
agreement/_jcr_content.stream/1530643931055/d5af41aef92d05d86a5cd77b3f3f5911f75c3a5
1c1961fe1c981daebda29b726/shell-scenario-sky.pdf , last visited 14th of March 2019.
Sintef (2018) – Power Point: Technologies for hydrogen liquefication, last visited 12th of
March 2019, available on request.
Soltani, R, M.A. Rosen and I. Dincer (2014) Assessment of CO2 capture options from various
points in steam-methane reforming for hydrogen production, International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 39 (35), p. 20266-20275
Stad Tunnel (2019) Facts about Stadt Tunnel, http://skipstunnel.no/om-stad-skipstunnel/ , last
visited 26th of March 2019
Statistics Norway (2018a) Production and consumption of energy, energy account,
https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/11558 , last visited on 30th of January 2019.
Statistics Norway (2018b) Utslipp til luft, publisert 18.12.2018, available at
https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/statistikker/klimagassn, last visited on 4th of January
Statistics Norway (2018c) Sales of petroleum products, by industry,
https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/11185/ , last visited 31th of January.
Statistics Norway (2018d) Net consumption of electricity, by consumer group and county,
https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/08312/ , last visited 29th of March 2019
Statistics Norway (2018e) Production of electricity, by type and county,
https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/08308/ , last visited 29th of March 2019
84
84
Statistics Norway (2019a) Electricity balance (MWh),

https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/08583/tableViewLayout1/ last visited 15th of March 2019.
Statistics Norway (2019b) Electricity balance from production
https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/08583/tableViewLayout1/ , last visited 28th of January
2019
Statkraft (2018) Fornybar energiforsyning til Svalbard – Longyearbyen. Input note by
Statkraft, Sintef Industri og Nordic Zoning,
https://www.statkraft.com/globalassets/explained/svalbard_rapport_0911_final.pdf , last
visited 19th of February 2019.
Stolzenburg, K et. al (2013) Efficient Liquifaction of hydrogen: results of the IDEALHY-
project, presentation give at the XXth energie Symposium, Stralsund/Germany, 7-9th of
November 2013, https://www.idealhy.eu/uploads/documents/IDEALHY_XX_Energie-
Symposium_2013_web.pdf , last visited on 11th of February 2019
Teknisk Ukeblad (2019a) Samskip utvikler hydrogendrevet containerskip, publisert 10th of
January 2019, https://www.tu.no/artikler/samskip-utvikler-hydrogendrevet-
containerskip/455212?key=Jgt6Hjwt , last visited 25th of March 2019
Teknisk Ukeblad (2019b) Equinor vil lage hydrogen fra gass, ber om å få slippe CO2-rensing,
published 20th of March 2019, https://www.tu.no/artikler/equinor-vil-lage-hydrogen-fra-gass-
ber-om-a-slippe-co2-rensing/460459?key=cvOO5638 last visited 20th of March
Timmers, Piet and Stam, Gea (2017) Risk based safety distances for hydrogen refuelling
stations, International Conference Hydrogen Safety (ICHS), paper 107-ICHS-2017,
https://hysafe.info/wp-content/uploads/2017_papers/107.pdf last visited 19th of March 2019
Tractabel Engie & Hincio (2017) Study on Early Business Cases for H2 in Energy Storage
and more broadly power to H2 Applications, report for FCH-JU,
https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/P2H_Full_Study_FCHJU.pdf , last visited 06th
of February 2019.
Transcaer (2004) TRANSCAER® Anhydrous Ammonia Training Anhydrous Ammonia
Properties.
https://www.transcaer.com/docs/AATour/Transcaer_Ammonia_Training_Student_Handout_r
ev04.pdf, last visited 5th of March 2019.
Trøndelag fylkeskommune (2019) Jakten på fremtidens hurtigbåt,
https://www.trondelagfylke.no/nyhetsarkiv/jakten-pa-fremtidens-hurtigbat , last visited 5th of
March
Tüv Süd (2011) Generation of green hydrogen,
https://www.netinform.de/GW/files/pdf/70_Erzeugung_GH-12-2011_en.pdf , last visited 13th
of February 2019
Tüv Süd (2019) GreenHydrogen Certification, https://www.tuev-sued.de/plants-buildings-
technical-facilities/fields-of-engineering/environmental-engineering/energy-
certification/greenhydrogen-certification#tab_1542033222148822960138 , last visited 13th of
February 2019
UNESE (2019) ADR – European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of
Dangerous Goods by Road,
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/publications/ADR_2019_vol1_1818953_E.pdf ,
85
85
US Drive (2013) Hydrogen Delivery Technical Team Roadmap,

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/hdtt_roadmap_june2013.pdf , last visited
18th March 2019
Voldsund, Mari. et. al (2016) Hydrogen production with CO2 capture, International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, vol 41 (9), p. 4969-4992
West, James Evans (2003) The Economics of Small to Medium Liquid Hydrogen Facilities,
published in Cryogas International in 2003, http://www.rmwsolutions.net/pub3.pdf , last
visited 23th of March
Wilhelmsen (2019) New design makes liquefied hydrogen bunker vessels a reality,
https://www.wilhelmsen.com/media-news-and-events/press-releases/2019/new-design-makes-
liquefied-hydrogen-bunker-vessels-a-reality/, last visited 5th of March 2019.
W U Notardonato et al (2017) Zero boil-off methods for large-scale liquid hydrogen tanks
using integrated refrigeration and storage, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, last visited 12th of March.
Yang, C and Ogden, J (2007) Determining the lowest-cost hydrogen delivery mode,
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 32 (2), p. 268-286,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319906001765?via%3Dihub
Zero Emissions platform (2017) Commercial scale feasibility of Clean Hydrogen,
http://www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu/downloads/1640.html , last visited 28th of January
2019.
Øystese, Kirsten (2019) Ferjekontrakt viktig sted mot produksjon av flytende hydrogen i
Norge, article at Energi og Klima, 10th of January 2019,
https://energiogklima.no/blogg/ferjekontrakt-viktig-steg-mot-produksjon-av-flytende-
hydrogen-i-norge/ , last visited 14th of February 2019.
86
86
11. Appendix
Table 26: Energy efficiency throughout value chain – Electrolysis (kWh/kg)
Electrolysis
kWh Energy Loss
efficiency
Input Electrolysis/ 51 65 %
Input Liquefaction 11,9 74 %
Output: LH2 (LHV) 33,3 48 %
Distribution / storage 33,2 0,3 %

Delivery/bunkering 31,55 5%
Energy to propeller 15,77 50 %
Total energy loss 75 %
Table 27: Energy efficiency throughout value chain – Gas reformation (kWh/kg)
Electrolysis
kWh Energy Loss
efficiency
Input Gas reformation with Carbon capture/ 48 70 %
Input Liquefaction 11,9 74 %
Output: LH2 (LHV) 33,3 53,7 %
Distribution / storage 33,2 0,3 %

Delivery/bunkering 31,55 5%
Energy to propeller 15,77 50 %
Total energy loss 73,5 %
Table 28: Energy needed for H2 production – Rogaland
Scenario 25 % conv. to LH2 50 % conv. to LH2 100 % conv. to LH2

Ton H2 6 472 12 944 25 888
Energy from H2 (GWh) 220 430 860
Electricity demand – 410/360 820/710 1630/1420
today/future (GWh)
Total cap. load from grid 47/41 93/81 186/163
– today/future (MW)
Demand of natural gas 37,7/33,90 75,4/67,9 150,8/135,7
(Million SM3)
Table 29: Energy needed for H2 production – Hordaland

Ton H2 9 860 19 720 39 439
today/future (TWh)
(Million SM3)
87
87
Table 30: Energy needed for H2 production – Sogn og Fjordane

Ton H2 5 968 11 935 23 870
today/future (TWh)
(Million SM3)
Table 31: Energy needed for H2 production – Møre og Romsdal

Ton H2 3 394 6 789 13 577
today/future (GWh)
(Million SM3)
Table 32: Energy needed for H2 production – Trøndelag

Ton H2 533 1066 2131
today/future (GWh)
(Million SM3)
Table 33: Ex.Transportation cost to Florø from Tjeldbergodden and Kvinnherad

Input
Cost per km 6,93 NOK
Cost per hour 549 NOK
Cost per tonn in 11 NOK + 136 NOK per shipment
terminal services
Amount of LH2 4000 kg
Variable cost Tjeldbergodden Kvinnherad
Total cost per km 5 766 NOK 4 851 NOK
Total cost per hour) 10 980 NOK 8 784 NOK
Total terminal cost 180 NOK 180 NOK
Ferries/toll 7 430 NOK 3 994 NOK
Cost per kg LH2 6,09 NOK 4,43 NOK
88
88
Table 34: Regulations, standards and codes for hydrogen205
Regulations (legally binding, international and UN ECE

national) • Global Technical regulation (vehicles)
• ADR (Road transport)
• AND (Inland waterways transport)
IMO
• IMDG code (Maritime transport)
• IGC code (Maritime transport in bulk)
• IFG code (Ships)
EU Directives
• Pressure vessel (PED etc)
• Explosive atmosphere (ATEX etc)
• Fuelling stations (AFI etc)
Norway (in Norwegian):
• Forskrift om håndtering av farlig stoff
• Forskrift om storulykkevirksomheter
Standards & Codes (not legal documents, serve as ISO

guidelines to meet requirements) • TC 197 Hydrogen Technologies
IEC
• TC 105 Fuel Cell Technologies
EIGA
• IGC Docs Hydrogen stations, pipelines etc
SAE International
• J2601 Fueling protocols
205
Hamanaka (2015)
89
89

2016 Report Liquid Hydrogen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Report Liquid Hydrogen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Report Liquid Hydrogen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norwegian future

Acronyms and abbreviations

Organization/company Name Position

Refining Ammonia Methanol Other chemicals Processing Liquid hydrogen

3.1 Future demand

Transportation Power Generation Industrial Energy

Figure 3 – European final energy demand from hydrogen in 2050 (TWh)

Ammonia Methanol Heavy FCEV Bus Train Maritime New Industry

Source Geography Year TWh EJ

3.2 Liquid hydrogen

Figure 5 – Tons of liquid hydrogen produced per day

Producer City Country Process Capacity Capacity Year

Boiling Density Specific Specific Energy Storage Chemical

3.4 Green hydrogen

Table 5 – CO2-intensity of the Nordic Grid 2013-201729

Mix Kg/CO2e / kWH Kg/CO2e / Kg H230

There is no global or regional marketplace for hydrogen as a commodity, making it difficult

4. Value chain liquid hydrogen (LH2)

Steam Carbon by truck with

4.1 Production processes

Electrolysis Coal gasification Oil-based Natural Gas Reforming

4.1.1 Hydrogen from gas reformation

The most common form of hydrogen production today is steam-methane reformation

Figure 9 – Hydrogen by gas reformation

Figure 10 – Carbon Capture from Steam-Methane Reforming

Regardless of production method, hydrogen becomes a liquid at -253 °C. At ambient

Figure 12: Global producers of liquid hydrogen71

Air Products Air Liquide Praxair Linde/BOG Iwatani Others

Figure 13: Schematic drawing of Helium Brayton Cycle

Figure 14: Schematic drawing of Claud Cycle

Two major relationships between CAPEX and hydrogen liquefaction costs:

Investment Cost and Capacity

160 000 000 Actual:

120 000 000 50 TPD

Table 7: Summary of Select Liquefaction Current and Future methods

Current Technology Short Term Medium Term

Pre-cooling Cycle LN2 LN2 Chiller & N2 N2 / Mixed

Feed Pressure (Bar) 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 > 20

Investment Cost Low Medium Higher Highest

Figure 17 – Current liquid hydrogen storage86

Distribution by truck with cryogenic tank

Distribution by cryogenic tank container on ship

Figure 20: Flow-schematic of an LH2-bunkering facility – pressure fill101

Figure 21: Schematic presentation of bunkering by LH2-pump102

Figure 22: Mobile marine loading arm

Source: Wiese Europe

Table 8: Estimated cost for bunkering solution using pressure fill

4.6 End users

Pratt & Klebanoff (2016)

Figure 23: World´s first LH2 car ferry

Source: LMG Marin

Water Go Round (2019)

Figure 24 – Design for non-emission high-speed crafts

Source: From top: LMG Marin, Flying Foil and Brødrene Aa

Platform supply vessel

CMR Prototech (2014)

Klebanoff et. al (2018)

Figure 25: Energy losses from production to propeller – Electrolysis

5. Regulations, standards and codes for liquid hydrogen

Table 9: Summary of relevant regulations, standards and codes141