The transportation of hydrogen by truck is a critical component of the hydrogen supply chain, particularly in regions where pipeline infrastructure is underdeveloped or impractical. Two primary methods dominate this sector: compressed gas transport and liquid hydrogen delivery. Each approach has distinct economic implications influenced by factors such as capital expenditure, operational costs, and logistical considerations. A detailed comparison reveals how these methods perform under varying conditions of distance, demand volume, and regional infrastructure.

Compressed hydrogen gas transport involves storing hydrogen at high pressures, typically between 350 and 700 bar, in specialized trailers. The capital expenditure for compressed gas trailers is significant, with costs ranging between $250,000 and $500,000 per unit, depending on capacity and pressure rating. These trailers are heavy, often constructed from advanced composite materials to reduce weight while maintaining safety standards. Operational expenses include fuel consumption, which is higher compared to liquid transport due to the increased weight and aerodynamic inefficiencies of the trailers. Maintenance costs are also notable, as high-pressure systems require frequent inspections and component replacements to ensure integrity.

Liquid hydrogen transport, on the other hand, involves cryogenic storage at temperatures below -253°C. The trailers for liquid hydrogen are more expensive, with prices ranging from $1 million to $2 million per unit, due to the need for advanced insulation and cryogenic systems. However, liquid hydrogen has a higher energy density, allowing more hydrogen to be transported per trip compared to compressed gas. Operational costs include energy-intensive liquefaction, which consumes approximately 30% of the energy content of the hydrogen itself. Boil-off losses during transit and storage also contribute to inefficiencies, typically amounting to 0.5% to 1% per day. Despite these challenges, liquid hydrogen becomes more cost-effective over longer distances due to the reduced number of trips required.

The economic viability of each method depends heavily on distance and demand volume. For short distances and low to moderate demand, compressed gas transport is often preferred due to lower upfront costs and simpler infrastructure requirements. For example, in regions like California, where hydrogen refueling stations are clustered in urban areas, compressed gas delivery is common for serving fuel cell vehicles. The shorter routes minimize the impact of higher fuel consumption and maintenance costs.

In contrast, liquid hydrogen is more suitable for long-distance transport and high-demand scenarios. Germany’s hydrogen trucking network demonstrates this, where liquid hydrogen is used to supply industrial users and refueling stations across larger geographic areas. The higher energy density reduces the number of trips needed, offsetting the higher capital and operational costs over time. Additionally, economies of scale play a role; as demand grows, the per-unit cost of liquid hydrogen delivery decreases due to more efficient utilization of trailers and liquefaction facilities.

Infrastructure availability further influences the choice between compressed and liquid transport. Compressed hydrogen benefits from relatively simpler refueling and storage infrastructure, making it easier to deploy in regions with limited existing hydrogen facilities. Liquid hydrogen requires specialized handling equipment, including cryogenic storage tanks and vaporizers, which are more expensive and complex to install. Regions with established industrial gas supply chains, such as those leveraging existing liquid nitrogen or oxygen infrastructure, may find it easier to adopt liquid hydrogen transport.

Maintenance and safety considerations also differ between the two methods. Compressed gas systems face challenges related to hydrogen embrittlement and high-pressure fatigue, necessitating rigorous inspection regimes. Liquid hydrogen systems, while not subject to the same pressure-related wear, require careful management of thermal insulation and boil-off. Both methods demand trained personnel and adherence to strict safety protocols, but the specific risks vary.

Regional examples highlight these dynamics. In California, the emphasis on light-duty fuel cell vehicles has led to a preference for compressed gas transport, supported by state incentives for refueling infrastructure. Germany’s focus on industrial applications and heavier transport has driven investment in liquid hydrogen logistics, with companies leveraging existing cryogenic expertise from the industrial gas sector. These cases illustrate how local demand and infrastructure shape the economic calculus.

Future trends may further influence the economics of hydrogen trucking. Advances in materials science could reduce the weight and cost of compressed gas trailers, while improvements in liquefaction technology may lower the energy penalty for liquid hydrogen. Scaling up production volumes will also be critical; as hydrogen demand grows, the fixed costs of transport infrastructure can be amortized over larger quantities, improving cost-effectiveness.

In summary, the choice between compressed gas and liquid hydrogen trucking hinges on a balance of capital and operational costs, distance, demand volume, and infrastructure readiness. Compressed gas offers lower upfront costs and simplicity for short-haul applications, while liquid hydrogen provides efficiency advantages for long-distance and high-volume scenarios. Regional strategies reflect these trade-offs, with local conditions dictating the optimal approach. As the hydrogen economy evolves, continued innovation and scaling will refine the economic viability of both methods.