Optimizing hydrogen supply chain networks for climate change mitigation: a multi-objective MILP framework with carbon pricing and geographic advantages
Résumé
Introduction Hydrogen export infrastructure requires decisions—carrier pathway, production location, capacity, and market allocation—with 20-40-year lifespans that lock in emission profiles decades ahead. Existing models focus on import-side networks, treat carriers as emission-equivalent, and ignore multi-coastline geographic advantages, collectively missing 75%-90% of supply chain emissions amenable to export-side optimization. Methods A multi-period mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model integrating economic and life-cycle environmental objectives was developed and applied to Saudi Arabia over 2025-2045. The model simultaneously optimizes four production zones, three carriers (compressed hydrogen, liquefied hydrogen, and ammonia; 0.8-5.3 kg CO 2 e/kg H 2 ), infrastructure sizing and timing, and market allocation across ten destination countries under four carbon pricing scenarios ($0-$120/ton CO 2 e). A 47,520-variable formulation was solved using IBM ILOG CPLEX via two-phase warm-start at <0.5% optimality gap. Results Dual-coastline routing reduces total costs 18.2% ($107B) while simultaneously reducing transport emissions 18.5%—a no-regret intervention generalizable to Morocco, Egypt, Oman, and Australia. Carbon pricing drives pathway diversification: ammonia share falls from 70.3% to 50.4%, and liquefied hydrogen rises from 24.6% to 35.7%, achieving 31% emission reduction at a marginal abatement cost of $29.7/ton CO 2 e—competitive with industrial carbon capture and storage ($25–$60/ton). Distance thresholds emerge: compressed hydrogen below 2,000 nautical miles, liquefied hydrogen at 2,000–5,500 nautical miles, and ammonia above 5,500 nautical miles, each shifting 1,000–1,500 nautical miles under $60–$120/ton pricing. Capital constraints ($10B/year) achieve 69.3% of unconstrained volume with 39.8% of investment, but worsen specific emissions 19.7% (17.3 → 20.7 kg CO 2 e/kg H 2 ). Discussion Capital availability, not technical feasibility, is the binding constraint for simultaneously meeting volume and emission targets. The framework generalizes to climate infrastructure sharing investment lock-in dynamics, discrete facility sizing, geographic emission constraints, and capital limitations, supporting a phased Saudi strategy reaching 16–21 Mt/year by 2045 ($200–$253B cumulative investment).
Citer ce document
Accès au document
Texte intégral en lecture en ligne, réservé aux abonnés SPHAERO et aux membres de l'institution. Se connecter
Voir l'article sur le site de la revueAuteur(s)
Statistiques
Consultations : 1
Téléchargements : 0