Corrigendum to “Seasonal storage and alternative carriers: A flexible hydrogen supply chain model” [Appl. Energy 200 (2017)290–302](S0306261917305457)(10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.050)

Journal article
(Erratum)


Publication Details

Author(s): Reuß M, Grube T, Robinius M, Preuster P, Wasserscheid P, Stolten D
Journal: Applied Energy
Publication year: 2019
ISSN: 0306-2619


Abstract

Unfortunately, we must admit that we discovered an error in our previous calculation. The work that we presented had an error related to the GH2 truck-supplied fuel station. In our script, we highlighted that the model includes additional trailer costs at the fuelling station under the assumption that the trailer serves as low pressure storage. Unfortunately, the model did not factor this cost into the fueling station's cost as intended, and thereby underestimated the specific cost of hydrogen for gaseous trailer-supplied fueling stations by 0.34€/kWh. This influences the costs noted in to Figs. 6–9 and 14. The new figures are shown below: Fig. 6. Hydrogen cost at the fuelling station regarding the full supply chain (Electrolysis, seasonal storage, transportation, fuelling station)for transport = storage. [Figure presented]Regarding the surface diagram from Fig. 6, it became obvious that the gaseous truck transportation is increasing in cost compared to the previously submitted picture. This leads to a smaller area in which the gas truck is the cheapest option. The pipeline is now the cheapest solution for high demand at ∼50 km distance. Fig. 7. Hydrogen costs for pathways without conversion between storage and transportation modules at 250 km distance and 50 t/day hydrogen demand. [Figure presented]Fig. 8. Hydrogen cost at the fuelling station regarding the full supply chain (Electrolysis, seasonal storage, transport, fuelling station). [Figure presented]With regard to Fig. 8, the option LOHC tank, GH2 truck, is no longer visible on the surface plot. Due to the increased fuel station cost, this combination is no longer cost-competitive. Fig. 9. Cost comparison of pathways without seasonal GH2-Tanks at 250 km distance and 50 t/day hydrogen demand. [Figure presented]With regard to Fig. 9, the truck-supplied fuel station with GH2 cavern is now more expensive than LOHC trucks, as well as LH2 trucks with GH2 caverns. The changes in Fig. 14 are similar to Fig. 9. Fig. 14. Comparison of different heat sources for LOHC stations at 250 km and 50 t/day hydrogen demand. [Figure presented]These amendments will not affect the main conclusions of the paper. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.


FAU Authors / FAU Editors

Preuster, Patrick Dr.-Ing.
Lehrstuhl für Chemische Reaktionstechnik
Wasserscheid, Peter Prof. Dr.
Lehrstuhl für Chemische Reaktionstechnik


External institutions with authors

Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH (FZJ)


How to cite

APA:
Reuß, M., Grube, T., Robinius, M., Preuster, P., Wasserscheid, P., & Stolten, D. (2019). Corrigendum to “Seasonal storage and alternative carriers: A flexible hydrogen supply chain model” [Appl. Energy 200 (2017)290–302](S0306261917305457)(10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.050). Applied Energy. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113311

MLA:
Reuß, M., et al. "Corrigendum to “Seasonal storage and alternative carriers: A flexible hydrogen supply chain model” [Appl. Energy 200 (2017)290–302](S0306261917305457)(10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.050)." Applied Energy (2019).

BibTeX: 

Last updated on 2019-29-05 at 04:08