The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has published one of the most comprehensive head-to-head comparisons yet of hydrogen delivery pathways — combining techno-economic and life-cycle assessment to rank five carriers on both cost and carbon. The route modelled runs from renewable electrolysis in Portugal to delivery in the Netherlands. The verdict: ship liquid hydrogen, or push compressed gas through a pipeline.
⚡ TL;DR
- What: JRC compares five hydrogen transport options from Portugal to the Netherlands by ship or pipeline.
- Why it matters: First combined TEA + LCA of all major carrier options under a single consistent methodology — directly comparable numbers.
- Key finding: Liquid hydrogen (LH₂) shipping and compressed hydrogen (CGH₂) via pipeline are the most economically and environmentally viable long-distance options.
- The losers: Ammonia, methanol, and LOHC all score worse on both cost and carbon due to energy-intensive conversion and reconversion steps.
- Watch for: How LH₂ carrier economics evolve as the first commercial-scale vessels enter service.
Five Pathways, One Consistent Methodology
Researchers Alessandro Arrigoni, Tatiana D’Agostini, Francesco Dolci, and Eveline Weidner from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) modelled a specific and commercially relevant scenario: hydrogen produced via renewable electrolysis in Portugal, transported to the Netherlands — one of Europe’s largest industrial hydrogen demand centres. Five delivery routes were assessed:
| Carrier | Transport mode | Conversion required |
|---|---|---|
| Compressed hydrogen (CGH₂) | Pipeline | None |
| Liquid hydrogen (LH₂) | Ship | Liquefaction at −253°C; regasification at destination |
| Ammonia (NH₃) | Ship | Haber-Bosch synthesis; cracking at destination |
| Methanol (CH₃OH) | Ship | Synthesis (+ CO₂ feedstock); reforming at destination |
| Liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC) | Ship | Hydrogenation; dehydrogenation at destination |
The combination of techno-economic assessment (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) in a single study is the methodological strength here. These analyses are too often done separately, forcing decision-makers to reconcile results from different teams, system boundaries, and assumptions. A single consistent methodology produces directly comparable numbers.
Liquid Hydrogen by Sea: The Winning Shipping Option
For ship-borne delivery, liquid hydrogen is the clear winner. It outperforms all three chemical carrier routes on both cost and environmental impact.
From a naval architect’s perspective, this result is significant but not entirely surprising. LH₂ avoids the round-trip thermodynamic penalty that chemical carriers incur. The conversion steps required by ammonia, methanol, and LOHC all involve energy losses and material inputs that accumulate against them in both the cost and carbon accounts.
LH₂ carriers transport hydrogen in cryogenic tanks at −253°C. Liquefaction is energy-intensive — typically consuming 30–35% of the hydrogen’s energy content — but it is a one-way process. There is no cracking or reconversion required at the receiving terminal. Liquefy once, ship, regasify. The energy balance is cleaner than the round-trip chemistry required by the alternatives.
Shipping liquid hydrogen and transporting compressed hydrogen via pipeline represent the most economically and environmentally sustainable options for long-distance hydrogen delivery. — Arrigoni et al., Frontiers in Energy, 2025
Why Chemical Carriers Underperform as Hydrogen Delivery Vehicles
The study is direct: ammonia, methanol, and LOHC all score worse on both metrics. The fundamental reason is the energy and materials consumed in the conversion cycle.
Ammonia (NH₃): Synthesis via Haber-Bosch operates at high temperature and pressure — already an energy-intensive step. At the destination, cracking back to hydrogen requires additional energy input, and cracking efficiency is not 100%, meaning some hydrogen is destroyed in the process. Industrial-scale ammonia cracking is also less proven than the synthesis side.
Methanol (CH₃OH): Requires CO₂ as a feedstock, adding supply chain complexity. Steam reforming or methanol cracking at the destination produces CO₂ as a byproduct, creating lifecycle accounting complications even if the CO₂ is theoretically recycled.
LOHC: Typically toluene or dibenzyltoluene that absorbs and releases hydrogen through a hydrogenation/dehydrogenation cycle. The dehydrogenation step requires substantial heat input — around 40–50 kJ per mol H₂ — which in practice must come from somewhere. If that heat source is not zero-carbon, it degrades the lifecycle emissions picture considerably.
It is worth being precise here: the JRC study evaluates these carriers as hydrogen delivery vehicles, not as direct marine fuels. Ammonia combustion in a marine engine or ammonia fuel cell is a separate question — one where the calculus looks quite different, because the cracking step is eliminated. That analysis is not what this paper addresses.
Pipeline vs. Ship
The compressed hydrogen pipeline scenario is the best-performing option overall in the study. The case for pipelines is strong when:
- Dedicated infrastructure can be built or existing natural gas networks repurposed
- The corridor is fixed, volumes are high enough to justify capital, and the distance is manageable
- The EU’s emerging hydrogen backbone (connecting Portugal, Spain, and northern Europe) realises its ambitions
For the shipping industry, pipelines are only relevant at the shore connection. The comparison that matters operationally is which carrier to ship, and on that question, LH₂ is the JRC’s preferred answer.
Implications for Hydrogen Shipping
For those of us tracking the hydrogen-powered ships market, this study carries several direct implications:
LH₂ carrier investment has a stronger evidence base. Projects pursuing large-scale LH₂ shipping — including the Kawasaki-led Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain and various European import terminal concepts — now have a comprehensive peer-reviewed study supporting the economic and environmental logic of their approach.
The ammonia-as-carrier narrative faces scrutiny. Much of the commercial momentum behind green ammonia is predicated on ammonia as a hydrogen delivery vehicle, not just as a direct fuel. If combined TEA and LCA studies consistently show chemical carriers are more expensive and more carbon-intensive as delivery vehicles, that commercial framing will come under pressure.
Port terminal design choices are consequential. LH₂ import terminals require cryogenic infrastructure at far lower temperatures than LNG — the design challenge involves achieving acceptable boil-off rates, safe vent management, and efficient regasification at large scale. Ports making that infrastructure investment are now backed by JRC analysis.
The Portugal–Netherlands corridor is a proxy for EU import strategy. The EU’s REPowerEU hydrogen import targets depend on getting the delivery pathway right. This study suggests the most viable physical routes are LH₂ shipping and pipeline — not necessarily the chemical carrier routes that have attracted the most commercial attention to date.
Challenges and Open Questions
- Technology readiness: LH₂ shipping at commercial scale is still at an early stage. Model-based cost and efficiency projections carry uncertainty that real-world operations will eventually resolve.
- Liquefaction capacity: Building the large-scale liquefaction plants required at the production end is a major capital challenge; global LH₂ liquefaction capacity today is a fraction of what the import volumes would require.
- Heat source for LOHC: If low-cost waste industrial heat is available at the destination, LOHC economics improve. The study’s baseline assumptions may not capture all industrial integration scenarios.
- Ammonia as fuel vs. carrier: The results apply specifically to hydrogen delivery, not to ammonia as a direct marine fuel — an important distinction that should not be elided.
- Early-stage uncertainty: The authors explicitly note that “further research is needed to address the limitations of multi-criteria assessments for emerging hydrogen technologies, particularly the uncertainties associated with the early development stages.”