Port areas are critical hubs in the global energy transition, increasingly repurposed to accommodate hydrogen, ammonia, and liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC) exports. However, land use challenges arise when integrating new infrastructure such as storage tank farms, liquefaction plants, and vessel loading facilities alongside traditional cargo and container operations. The spatial demands of these hydrogen-related systems must be carefully balanced against existing port activities to avoid disruptions to trade and logistics.

Storage tank farms for hydrogen and its derivatives require significant land area due to safety regulations and material requirements. Hydrogen storage, whether as compressed gas, cryogenic liquid, or in chemical carriers like ammonia or LOHCs, necessitates large buffer zones to mitigate risks such as leaks or combustion. Ammonia storage, for example, demands corrosion-resistant materials and secondary containment systems, increasing footprint requirements. LOHC facilities often require additional space for dehydrogenation units before export. Tank farms for these commodities may occupy tens of hectares, depending on export capacity, with exact dimensions influenced by throughput and safety standards.

Liquefaction plants, essential for converting gaseous hydrogen into liquid form for transport, are another land-intensive component. These facilities house energy-intensive cooling systems, compression units, and pre-processing equipment, often spanning several hectares. Ammonia synthesis plants, if co-located, further increase space needs due to the Haber-Bosch process infrastructure. The scale of these plants correlates with export volumes, with large-scale facilities requiring dedicated zones within ports. Retrofitting existing port areas to accommodate such plants often competes with space allocated for conventional cargo handling or storage.

Vessel loading infrastructure for hydrogen and its carriers introduces additional spatial constraints. Specialized jetties and berths must be constructed or adapted to handle cryogenic hydrogen or ammonia carriers, which differ from traditional oil or container terminals. Loading arms, vapor recovery systems, and safety perimeters extend the footprint of these facilities. Hydrogen and ammonia terminals may also require separate docking areas due to stricter safety protocols, reducing available berthing space for other vessels. The need for dedicated pipelines or transport corridors from storage areas to loading zones further compounds land use pressures.

Competing demands from traditional cargo and container terminals present a major challenge. Ports are already optimized for high-throughput container handling, bulk cargo, and roll-on/roll-off operations, leaving limited room for expansion. Allocating space for hydrogen infrastructure may require relocating existing terminals, reducing container storage yards, or reclaiming land—each option carrying economic and logistical trade-offs. Container terminals, in particular, operate on tight margins and depend on rapid turnaround times; disruptions from construction or reconfiguration could impact global supply chains.

Geographical constraints exacerbate these challenges. Many ports are located in urbanized or environmentally sensitive areas, limiting expansion possibilities. Coastal geography, water depth, and land availability influence whether ports can physically accommodate new hydrogen export facilities without sacrificing existing operations. In densely developed regions, ports may face opposition from local stakeholders over land use changes, delaying or complicating redevelopment efforts.

Regulatory and safety considerations further shape land use planning. Hydrogen and ammonia handling require adherence to stringent setback distances, explosion-proof equipment, and emergency response zones, which may not align with traditional port layouts. Compliance with international standards, such as those from the International Maritime Organization or national safety agencies, can dictate minimum spacing between storage tanks, loading areas, and other infrastructure. These requirements may force ports to prioritize hydrogen-related infrastructure over other uses, even when space is scarce.

Economic viability plays a decisive role in land allocation. Port authorities must weigh the long-term benefits of hydrogen exports against the immediate revenue from conventional cargo operations. While hydrogen and its carriers represent a growing market, traditional container and bulk cargo operations provide steady income. The capital intensity of hydrogen infrastructure—such as liquefaction plants or ammonia synthesis units—may necessitate public-private partnerships or subsidies to justify land use shifts.

Technological integration offers partial solutions. Co-locating hydrogen facilities with existing industrial zones within ports can reduce land conflicts. For example, repurposing underutilized oil storage areas for ammonia tanks or leveraging synergies with nearby chemical plants may optimize space. Modular or compact designs for liquefaction or storage systems could also minimize footprint, though scalability remains a consideration.

The transition to hydrogen-ready ports is inevitable but must be managed to balance innovation with operational continuity. Strategic master planning, phased development, and stakeholder collaboration are essential to harmonize the spatial demands of hydrogen exports with the diverse functions of modern port ecosystems. Without careful management, land use conflicts could slow the adoption of hydrogen as a global energy carrier, underscoring the need for proactive infrastructure planning.