IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v168y2022ics1364032122006499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of green hydrogen carriers: A multi-criteria decision analysis tool

Author

Listed:
  • Oner, Oytun
  • Khalilpour, Kaveh

Abstract

Hydrogen carriers are one of the most promising renewable energy storage technologies, particularly for medium or long-duration applications. However, there are several options with various features, making their selection complex and cumbersome. This study introduces a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model to evaluate several options and identify the most feasible alternative(s) for a given purpose. Eleven different hydrogen carriers are evaluated considering nine criteria: storage energy density, technical readiness, reversibility, material handling, toxicity, safety, environmental impact, and cost. Two hybrid MCDM methods, AHP-TOPSIS and AHP-VIKOR, are applied for three application scenarios of (i) vehicle fuel, (ii) international renewable energy transport, and (iii) energy supply for a steel factory. Results show that the most feasible carrier alternative is highly dependent on the application purpose. For fuel cell vehicles, the best alternatives are methanol, toluene, and dibenzyl toluene, while for international renewable energy transport, toluene, dibenzyl toluene, and N-ethyl carbazole are found as the best carriers. Methane, methanol, and dibenzyl toluene are found as the best carriers for the energy supply of a steel-making factory. It is also noted that the decision criteria have a significant impact on the outcome, and depending on the importance of each criterion (particularly hazard/safety and environmental impact) for a given decision-maker, the outcome will notably vary.

Suggested Citation

  • Oner, Oytun & Khalilpour, Kaveh, 2022. "Evaluation of green hydrogen carriers: A multi-criteria decision analysis tool," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:168:y:2022:i:c:s1364032122006499
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112764
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122006499
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112764?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eypasch, Martin & Schimpe, Michael & Kanwar, Aastha & Hartmann, Tobias & Herzog, Simon & Frank, Torsten & Hamacher, Thomas, 2017. "Model-based techno-economic evaluation of an electricity storage system based on Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P1), pages 320-330.
    2. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    3. Ogden, Joan & Jaffe, Amy Myers & Scheitrum, Daniel & McDonald, Zane & Miller, Marshall, 2018. "Natural gas as a bridge to hydrogen transportation fuel: Insights from the literature," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 317-329.
    4. Louis Schlapbach & Andreas Züttel, 2001. "Hydrogen-storage materials for mobile applications," Nature, Nature, vol. 414(6861), pages 353-358, November.
    5. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    6. Kim, Dongin & Han, Jeehoon, 2020. "Comprehensive analysis of two catalytic processes to produce formic acid from carbon dioxide," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    7. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    8. Pospíšil, Jiří & Charvát, Pavel & Arsenyeva, Olga & Klimeš, Lubomír & Špiláček, Michal & Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír, 2019. "Energy demand of liquefaction and regasification of natural gas and the potential of LNG for operative thermal energy storage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-15.
    9. Matzen, Michael & Alhajji, Mahdi & Demirel, Yaşar, 2015. "Chemical storage of wind energy by renewable methanol production: Feasibility analysis using a multi-criteria decision matrix," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(P1), pages 343-353.
    10. Oleg Bazaluk & Valerii Havrysh & Vitalii Nitsenko & Tomas Baležentis & Dalia Streimikiene & Elena A. Tarkhanova, 2020. "Assessment of Green Methanol Production Potential and Related Economic and Environmental Benefits: The Case of China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, June.
    11. Joakim Andersson, 2021. "Application of Liquid Hydrogen Carriers in Hydrogen Steelmaking," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-26, March.
    12. Purna Chandra Rao & Minyoung Yoon, 2020. "Potential Liquid-Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC) Systems: A Review on Recent Progress," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-23, November.
    13. Anicic, B. & Trop, P. & Goricanec, D., 2014. "Comparison between two methods of methanol production from carbon dioxide," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 279-289.
    14. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    15. Rasool, Muhammad & Khalilpour, Kaveh & Rafiee, Ahmad & Karimi, Iftekhar & Madlener, Reinhard, 2021. "Evaluation of Alternative Power-to-Chemical Pathways for Renewable Energy Exports," FCN Working Papers 4/2021, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN), revised Apr 2023.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chung, Kyong-Hwan & Park, Young-Kwon & Kim, Sun-Jae & Kim, Sang-Chai & Jung, Sang-Chul, 2023. "Green hydrogen production from ammonia water by liquid–plasma cracking on solid acid catalysts," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    2. Kim, Ju-Hee & Han, Su-Mi & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2023. "Price premium for green hydrogen in South Korea: Evidence from a stated preference study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 647-655.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hong, Sanghyun & Kim, Eunsung & Jeong, Saerok, 2023. "Evaluating the sustainability of the hydrogen economy using multi-criteria decision-making analysis in Korea," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 485-492.
    2. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    3. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    4. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand & Hossein Azadi & Dereje Teklemariam & Ehsan Houshyar & Philippe Maeyer & Frank Witlox, 2019. "Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 11-36, February.
    6. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    7. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Can microalgae biodiesel contribute to achieve the sustainability objectives in the transport sector in France by 2030? A comparison between first, second and third generation biofuels though a range-," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1032-1046.
    8. Usman, Muhammad R., 2022. "Hydrogen storage methods: Review and current status," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    9. Kaya, Tolga & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2010. "Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 2517-2527.
    10. Tabibian, Seyed Shayan & Sharifzadeh, Mahdi, 2023. "Statistical and analytical investigation of methanol applications, production technologies, value-chain and economy with a special focus on renewable methanol," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    11. Kulisic, Biljana & Dimitriou, Ioannis & Mola-Yudego, Blas, 2021. "From preferences to concerted policy on mandated share for renewable energy in transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    12. Simsek, Yeliz & Watts, David & Escobar, Rodrigo, 2018. "Sustainability evaluation of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) projects under Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by using Multi Criteria Decision Method (MCDM)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 421-438.
    13. Bortoluzzi, Mirian & Correia de Souza, Celso & Furlan, Marcelo, 2021. "Bibliometric analysis of renewable energy types using key performance indicators and multicriteria decision models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    14. Joakim Andersson, 2021. "Application of Liquid Hydrogen Carriers in Hydrogen Steelmaking," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-26, March.
    15. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    16. Abreu Kang, Takanni Hannaka & da Costa Soares Júnior, Antônio Marques & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Evaluating electric power generation technologies: A multicriteria analysis based on the FITradeoff method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PB), pages 10-20.
    17. Na Li & Rudi Hakvoort & Zofia Lukszo, 2021. "Cost Allocation in Integrated Community Energy Systems—Social Acceptance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-24, September.
    18. Baumann, Manuel & Weil, Marcel & Peters, Jens F. & Chibeles-Martins, Nelson & Moniz, Antonio B., 2019. "A review of multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 516-534.
    19. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    20. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:168:y:2022:i:c:s1364032122006499. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.