To assess the impact of hydrogen transport, the JRC uses 16 environmental criteria from the Environmental Footprint
If we only consider the impact on the climate, import renewable hydrogen into Europe even from long distances it is always the better choice compared to the domestic production of H2 from fossil sources (steam methane reforming, SMR) or with electrolysis powered by an electrical mix at least partly covered by fossils. But the picture changes if the overall environmental impact is also included in the equation. What are the most convenient options? It depends, very much, on variables such as the type of energy carrier and the distance. Understanding the truth impact of hydrogen transportIn short, it is anything but linear.
This is the assessment that emerges from the analysis of the impact of hydrogen transport along the entire life cycle conducted by the Joint Research Center, the in-house research center of the EU Commission. A document which, although preliminary, has the merit of trying to give an overall and thoughtful reading of the best options for the creation of an intra-European hydrogen economy and for the choice of how and from where to import H2.
Hydrogen transport, which option is best?
All things considered, explains the JRC, “When feasible, the least environmentally impactful way to supply hydrogen is to produce it on site through abundant renewable sources”. While importing renewable hydrogen is always better than producing it on-site starting, in whole or in part, from fossil fuels. This is the first fixed point. But only if you look exclusively at the emission balance. This option is able to reduce the carbon footprint of hydrogen production via SMR or with electrolysers not powered only by renewable sources by 4-9 kg of CO2 equivalent for each kg of hydrogen.
But if you also consider the environmental impact, the picture immediately becomes more complicated. Based on the 16 criteria that make up the Environmental Footprint impact assessment, the reference method in the EU, producing H2 locally from fossil fuels is better than importing renewable H2. For 12 of the 16 categories, the environmental impact is minor, including the use of natural resources such as water, minerals and metals, and land use. But when these 16 criteria are assigned a specific weight to give an overall assessment – more in line with the real impact – the result changes once again: any scenario of importing renewable H2 becomes more convenient than producing H2 from fossil fuels on-site .
The second fixed point concerns the different options for hydrogen transport. The reference scenario chosen by the JRC involves the supply of H2 to an industrial center in Northern Europe with production located in the Netherlands or Portugal. In both cases – at a shorter or longer distance – the options with the lowest environmental impact are the transport of hydrogen in liquid form and in compressed gaseous form through H2-ready pipelines. While the use of other energy carriers – ammonia, methanol, syngas, liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC) – are always less convenient options.
“Even under the most optimistic assumptions about process efficiency for these chemical carriers, their environmental performance may still be inferior to that of liquid hydrogen and compressed hydrogen transported via pipelines”, the report highlights. And they remain preferable even when the assessment integrates hydrogen losses along the supply chain. The scenario does not change significantly if we assume that hydrogen is imported over much longer distances, for example from Australia.
