Ammonia, Methane, Hydrogen and Methanol Produced in Remote Renewable Energy Hubs: a Comparative Quantitative Analysis

TL;DR

This study compares the production costs of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and methanol in remote renewable energy hubs, finding that ammonia offers the most cost-effective energy export option for distant load centers.

Contribution

It extends previous research by including ammonia, hydrogen, and methanol as alternative energy carriers in the analysis of remote renewable energy hubs.

Findings

Ammonia has the lowest production cost among the carriers.

All three new carriers are more cost-effective than methane.

Ammonia shows the best cost-to-energy exported ratio.

Abstract

Remote renewable energy hubs (RREHs) for synthetic fuel production are engineering systems harvesting renewable energy where it is particularly abundant. They produce transportable synthetic fuels for export to distant load centers. This article aims to evaluate the production costs of different energy carriers, and includes a discussion on advantages and disadvantages in terms of technical performance. To do so, we extend the study of Berger et al., (2021) which focuses on methane (CH4) as energy carrier and introduce three new carriers: ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2) and methanol (CH3OH). The four different RREHs are located in the Algerian Sahara desert and must serve to the load center, Belgium, a constant electro-fuel demand of 10 TWh per year. The modelling and optimisation of these systems are performed using the modelling language GBOML (Graph-Based Optimisation Modelling Language). Our findings reveal that the three new RREHs, each with its respective carrier (ammonia, hydrogen, and methanol), are all more cost-effective than the methane-based system. Ammonia demonstrates the most favourable cost-to-energy exported ratio.