Transport Matrix
Compare hydrogen carrier technologies for Central Asia–Europe corridors
H₂ Pipeline
Efficiency95%
Energy loss5%
CAPEXVery High
Cost range$2–5M/km
Max dist.5,000 km
Lead time10–15 yrs
New dedicated H₂ pipeline
Storage: Line-pack + terminals
Ammonia Carrier
Efficiency72%
Energy loss28%
CAPEXMedium
Cost range$300–500/t H₂
Max dist.20,000 km
Lead time3–5 yrs
Port + synthesis + cracking
Storage: -33°C liquefaction tanks
Liquid H₂ (LH₂)
Efficiency65%
Energy loss35%
CAPEXHigh
Cost range$400–700/t H₂
Max dist.15,000 km
Lead time5–8 yrs
Cryogenic ships + terminals
Storage: Cryogenic -253°C
LOHC
Efficiency60%
Energy loss40%
CAPEXMedium-High
Cost range$350–600/t H₂
Max dist.12,000 km
Lead time4–7 yrs
Hydrogenation plants
Storage: Ambient temperature
Compressed Truck
Efficiency88%
Energy loss12%
CAPEXLow
Cost range$500–1200/t H₂
Max dist.500 km
Lead time< 1 yr
Compressors + 700 bar
Storage: High-pressure vessels
Suitability for Central Asia → Europe
| Method | Efficiency | Loss | CAPEX | Distance fit | Lead time | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H₂ Pipeline | 95% | 5% | Very High | 90% | 10–15 yrs | Recommended |
| Ammonia Carrier | 72% | 28% | Medium | 85% | 3–5 yrs | Recommended |
| Liquid H₂ (LH₂) | 65% | 35% | High | 75% | 5–8 yrs | Possible |
| LOHC | 60% | 40% | Medium-High | 70% | 4–7 yrs | Possible |
| Compressed Truck | 88% | 12% | Low | 20% | < 1 yr | Not viable |