European Study Reveals Best Ways to Transport Hydrogen

The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has published a comprehensive analysis comparing the costs and environmental impacts of transporting hydrogen across Europe. The study evaluated five delivery methods—compressed hydrogen, liquid hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, and liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC)—transporting renewable hydrogen from Portugal to the Netherlands. The findings provide crucial guidance for Europe’s ambitious target of importing 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen annually by 2030.

The Challenge: Moving Hydrogen Across Europe

Europe’s hydrogen strategy hinges on a fundamental question: how do we transport large quantities of renewable hydrogen from production sites with abundant renewable energy to industrial demand centers? The EU’s REPowerEU initiative targets producing 10 million tonnes domestically and importing another 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen by 2030. This requires determining not just whether long-distance hydrogen transport is viable, but which methods offer the best balance of cost and environmental performance.

To answer these questions, researchers at the Joint Research Centre conducted both a techno-economic assessment (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) of hydrogen delivery chains. The study stands out for its comprehensive approach—most existing research focuses solely on costs or greenhouse gas emissions, neglecting broader environmental and social impacts.

The Study Design

The analysis examined a case study route from Portugal to the Netherlands (2,500 km), representing typical intra-European hydrogen corridors. A sensitivity analysis also considered longer distances (10,000 km) representing routes from the Persian Gulf via the Suez Canal. The assessment assumed delivery of 1 million tonnes of hydrogen annually post-2030.

Five hydrogen carriers were compared:

• Compressed hydrogen (C-H2) – Stored at 250 bar for shipping or 70 bar for pipelines
• Liquid hydrogen (L-H2) – Cooled to -253°C for transport
• Ammonia (NH3) – Synthesized from hydrogen and nitrogen
• Methanol (MeOH) – Produced by combining hydrogen with CO2 from direct air capture
• Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC) – Using dibenzyltoluene as the carrier molecule

All hydrogen was assumed to be produced via renewable electrolysis powered by photovoltaic electricity in Portugal (20 g CO2e/kWh), while processes at the delivery site used the projected 2030 Netherlands grid mix. Transportation by ship was modeled using biodiesel fuel, as large-scale hydrogen-powered vessels are unlikely by 2030.

Key Findings: Winners and Losers

The study’s conclusions were clear: shipping liquid hydrogen and transporting compressed hydrogen via pipeline emerged as the most cost-effective and environmentally sustainable options for long-distance delivery within Europe.

Cost Analysis

For the reference case (2,500 km), importing renewable hydrogen was generally more economical than on-site production using local renewable electricity, with one notable exception: the LOHC pathway proved more expensive than local production. Compressed hydrogen via pipeline and liquid hydrogen by ship offered the best economics, particularly where existing natural gas pipelines could be repurposed.

As distance increased to 10,000 km, liquid hydrogen maintained its cost advantage, while compressed hydrogen became less attractive due to the increased number of vessels and fuel required for transport. Among chemical carriers, ammonia proved more economical than local production even over longer distances, while LOHC showed comparable costs and methanol remained the most expensive option.

Environmental Performance

On-site hydrogen production using renewable electricity at the delivery location remained the most environmentally sustainable option overall. However, when affordable renewable sources aren’t accessible at the delivery site, liquid hydrogen by ship and compressed hydrogen by pipeline proved most favorable among import options.

The study assessed 16 environmental impact categories using the European Commission’s Environmental Footprint method, finding that resource use, climate change, and water use contributed most to overall environmental impact. Key insights included:

• Chemical carriers face conversion penalties – Ammonia, LOHC, and methanol incurred higher costs and environmental impacts due to energy and materials required for “packing” (converting hydrogen to the carrier) and “unpacking” (reconverting to hydrogen)
• Direct air capture is energy-intensive – Methanol’s packing stage proved particularly detrimental due to the high energy demands of capturing CO2 from the atmosphere
• Dehydrogenation drives impacts – For ammonia and LOHC, the main environmental drawback was the additional energy required at the delivery site to extract hydrogen from the carrier
• Transportation impact is relatively small – The transport stage itself had negligible environmental impact for most pathways, with compressed hydrogen being the exception (accounting for 27% of overall climate impact due to large shipping volumes)
• PV panel production matters – Chemical carriers require additional renewable electricity at the production site, necessitating more solar panels. Given the significant environmental burden of manufacturing photovoltaic panels, this substantially increases overall impact

The Global Warming Perspective

When analysis focused solely on greenhouse gas emissions, compressed hydrogen and liquid hydrogen consistently showed the lowest carbon intensity. The study found climate impacts ranging from 1.88 kg CO2e per kg H2 delivered for compressed hydrogen by ship to 3.33 kg CO2e per kg H2 for methanol by pipeline over 2,500 km.

An important finding: hydrogen leakage during transport partially offsets the climate benefits of shipping hydrogen in liquid or compressed form. Current loss estimates for liquid hydrogen (1.6% during liquefaction, 0.21% during storage, 0.2% per day during transport) are considerably higher than for chemical carriers, though these are expected to decrease. The study incorporated the latest research showing hydrogen has a global warming potential of 11.6 kg CO2e per kg H2 over a 100-year timeframe.

Why Chemical Carriers Underperform

The research reveals a consistent pattern: while chemical carriers like ammonia, methanol, and LOHC offer advantages in terms of using existing infrastructure and established handling protocols, they face fundamental thermodynamic challenges.

Converting hydrogen into these carriers and back again requires significant energy input. For example:

• Ammonia synthesis requires nitrogen extraction from air and energy-intensive Haber-Bosch processing, followed by energy-intensive cracking at the delivery site
• Methanol production demands CO2 capture (via direct air capture in this study to maintain carbon neutrality) plus synthesis energy, with dehydrogenation required at delivery
• LOHC hydrogenation and dehydrogenation both require substantial heat input, with the dehydrogenation step being particularly energy-intensive

This additional energy typically requires more renewable electricity generation capacity at the production site—meaning more solar panels, which carry their own manufacturing environmental burden. When processes at the delivery site rely on grid electricity (which in 2030 will still have fossil fuel components), this further increases the environmental footprint.

Literature Context and Validation

The study’s literature review revealed significant gaps in existing research. Of 334 papers on hydrogen delivery costs published since 2015, only 34 addressed life cycle assessment and 44 covered greenhouse gas emissions. Just 8 studies included both cost and environmental analysis.

The JRC findings align with most existing literature identifying compressed and liquid hydrogen as environmentally favorable options. However, comparisons across studies remain challenging due to varying assumptions about transport distance, hydrogen volumes, technology maturity, and infrastructure availability. Cost estimates for identical pathways can vary by factors of 2-3x depending on these assumptions.

Why This Matters

Limitations and Future Research

The authors acknowledge several limitations that warrant consideration:

• Geographic specificity – Results are specific to the Portugal-Netherlands corridor; different regions with varying renewable resources, grid mixes, and existing infrastructure may show different optimal pathways
• Technology maturity uncertainty – Many technologies assessed are still in early development stages, with significant uncertainty around future costs and performance
• Forward-looking projections – The study assumes post-2030 deployment with optimistic projections for renewable electricity GHG intensity (20 g CO2e/kWh), considerably lower than current state-of-the-art
• Social impacts excluded – The analysis doesn’t address safety considerations, training costs, or societal acceptance—factors that may favor established chemical carriers despite higher environmental costs
• Limited environmental models – Some environmental impact categories have low robustness in their assessment methodologies

The JRC has since conducted separate social life cycle assessments, finding that local hydrogen production in Northern Europe outperforms import-based scenarios across most social indicators due to simpler value chains and reduced labor intensity.

Policy Recommendations

Based on the findings, the researchers recommend:

1. Promote multi-criteria assessments to avoid shifting impacts from one sustainability dimension to another
2. Expand regulatory scope – Mechanisms like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) should encompass the entire hydrogen delivery chain and consider environmental categories beyond climate change
3. Prioritize infrastructure development for liquid hydrogen shipping and compressed hydrogen pipelines while continuing R&D on conversion efficiency improvements
4. Enhance data quality – Improve reliability and transparency of life cycle inventory data for hydrogen technologies
5. Refine assessment methodologies – Emphasize underrepresented environmental categories and develop robust social impact indicators
6. Consider temporal trade-offs – Substantial investments in ammonia infrastructure may delay development of more efficient direct hydrogen transport systems

The Bottom Line

For Europe’s hydrogen economy to achieve its dual goals of cost-effectiveness and environmental sustainability, the path forward is clear: liquid hydrogen shipping and compressed hydrogen pipelines should be the primary focus for long-distance transport infrastructure investment. Chemical carriers like ammonia, methanol, and LOHC have roles to play—particularly where existing infrastructure can be leveraged—but their fundamental conversion inefficiencies mean they cannot match the economics and environmental performance of direct hydrogen transport.

The study also underscores a crucial insight: the most economically favorable options tend to be environmentally preferable as well. This alignment suggests that market forces, if properly structured through mechanisms like carbon pricing and environmental standards, can drive deployment of the most sustainable hydrogen delivery pathways.

As Europe moves toward its 2030 target of importing 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen, this research provides the evidence base needed for informed infrastructure investment decisions worth tens of billions of euros.

Specifications at a Glance

Note: Values are approximate and vary with specific assumptions. Costs shown are levelized costs including production, packing, transport, unpacking, and delivery.

Sources

• Arrigoni, A., D’Agostini, T., Dolci, F., & Weidner, E. (2025). “Techno-economic and life-cycle assessment comparisons of hydrogen delivery options.” Frontiers in Energy, 19(6): 1129-1142. DOI: 10.1007/s11708-025-1041-1
• Ortiz Cebolla, R., Dolci, F., & Weidner, E. (2022). “Assessment of hydrogen delivery options: Feasibility of transport of green hydrogen within Europe.” Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
• Arrigoni, A., Dolci, F., Ortiz Cebolla, R., et al. (2024). “Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) comparison of hydrogen delivery options within Europe.” Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
• European Commission. (2020). “A Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe.”
• European Commission. (2022). “REPowerEU: Joint European Action for More Affordable, Secure and Sustainable Energy.”