氨和液氢运输成本与液化天然气的比较研究

IF 2.3 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, MARINE
Youngjun You , Sewon Kim , Joon Chae Lee
{"title":"氨和液氢运输成本与液化天然气的比较研究","authors":"Youngjun You ,&nbsp;Sewon Kim ,&nbsp;Joon Chae Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2023.100523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Since ammonia and liquid hydrogen are the optional future shipping cargo and fuels, the applicability was crucial using the current technologies and expectations. Existing studies for the economic feasibility of the energies had limitations: empirical evaluation with assumptions and insufficiency related to causality. A distorted estimation can result in failure of decision-making or policy in terms of future energy. The present study aimed to evaluate the transportation costs of future energy including ammonia and liquid hydrogen in comparison to LNG for overcoming the limitations. An integrated mathematical model was applied to the investigation for economic feasibility. The transportation costs of the chosen energies were evaluated for the given transportation plan considering key factors: ship speed, BOR, and transportation plan. The transportation costs at the design speed for LNG and liquid hydrogen were approximately 55% and 80% of that for ammonia without considering the social cost due to CO<sub>2</sub> emission. Although ammonia was the most expensive energy for transportation, ammonia could be an effective alternative due to insensitivity to the transportation plan. If the social cost was taken into account, liquid hydrogen already gained competitiveness in comparison to LNG. The advantage of liquid hydrogen was maximized for higher speed where more BOG was injected into main engines.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":14160,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study on ammonia and liquid hydrogen transportation costs in comparison to LNG\",\"authors\":\"Youngjun You ,&nbsp;Sewon Kim ,&nbsp;Joon Chae Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2023.100523\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Since ammonia and liquid hydrogen are the optional future shipping cargo and fuels, the applicability was crucial using the current technologies and expectations. Existing studies for the economic feasibility of the energies had limitations: empirical evaluation with assumptions and insufficiency related to causality. A distorted estimation can result in failure of decision-making or policy in terms of future energy. The present study aimed to evaluate the transportation costs of future energy including ammonia and liquid hydrogen in comparison to LNG for overcoming the limitations. An integrated mathematical model was applied to the investigation for economic feasibility. The transportation costs of the chosen energies were evaluated for the given transportation plan considering key factors: ship speed, BOR, and transportation plan. The transportation costs at the design speed for LNG and liquid hydrogen were approximately 55% and 80% of that for ammonia without considering the social cost due to CO<sub>2</sub> emission. Although ammonia was the most expensive energy for transportation, ammonia could be an effective alternative due to insensitivity to the transportation plan. If the social cost was taken into account, liquid hydrogen already gained competitiveness in comparison to LNG. The advantage of liquid hydrogen was maximized for higher speed where more BOG was injected into main engines.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2092678223000122\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MARINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2092678223000122","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MARINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

由于氨和液态氢是未来可选的运输货物和燃料,因此使用当前的技术和期望,适用性至关重要。现有的能源经济可行性研究存在局限性:假设的经验评价和因果关系方面的不足。对未来能源的扭曲估计可能导致决策或政策的失败。本研究旨在评估包括氨和液态氢在内的未来能源的运输成本,并与液化天然气进行比较,以克服这些限制。采用综合数学模型进行了经济可行性研究。考虑船速、BOR和运输计划等关键因素,对所选能源的运输成本进行了评估。在不考虑二氧化碳排放的社会成本的情况下,LNG和液氢在设计速度下的运输成本约为氨的55%和80%。虽然氨是最昂贵的运输能源,但由于氨对运输计划的不敏感,它可能是一种有效的替代能源。如果考虑到社会成本,液态氢已经具备了与LNG相比的竞争力。在向主发动机注入更多BOG的情况下,液氢的优势在更高的速度下得到了最大化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative study on ammonia and liquid hydrogen transportation costs in comparison to LNG

Since ammonia and liquid hydrogen are the optional future shipping cargo and fuels, the applicability was crucial using the current technologies and expectations. Existing studies for the economic feasibility of the energies had limitations: empirical evaluation with assumptions and insufficiency related to causality. A distorted estimation can result in failure of decision-making or policy in terms of future energy. The present study aimed to evaluate the transportation costs of future energy including ammonia and liquid hydrogen in comparison to LNG for overcoming the limitations. An integrated mathematical model was applied to the investigation for economic feasibility. The transportation costs of the chosen energies were evaluated for the given transportation plan considering key factors: ship speed, BOR, and transportation plan. The transportation costs at the design speed for LNG and liquid hydrogen were approximately 55% and 80% of that for ammonia without considering the social cost due to CO2 emission. Although ammonia was the most expensive energy for transportation, ammonia could be an effective alternative due to insensitivity to the transportation plan. If the social cost was taken into account, liquid hydrogen already gained competitiveness in comparison to LNG. The advantage of liquid hydrogen was maximized for higher speed where more BOG was injected into main engines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
62
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering provides a forum for engineers and scientists from a wide range of disciplines to present and discuss various phenomena in the utilization and preservation of ocean environment. Without being limited by the traditional categorization, it is encouraged to present advanced technology development and scientific research, as long as they are aimed for more and better human engagement with ocean environment. Topics include, but not limited to: marine hydrodynamics; structural mechanics; marine propulsion system; design methodology & practice; production technology; system dynamics & control; marine equipment technology; materials science; underwater acoustics; ocean remote sensing; and information technology related to ship and marine systems; ocean energy systems; marine environmental engineering; maritime safety engineering; polar & arctic engineering; coastal & port engineering; subsea engineering; and specialized watercraft engineering.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信