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

Applied Energy

Volumn 200, Issue , 2017, Pages 290-302

  Reuss M ^a   Grube, T ^a   Robinius, M ^a   Preuster, P ^c   Wasserscheid, P ^a,c   Stolten, D ^a,b  

^a FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JÜLICH   (Germany)

^b RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

FCEV; Hydrogen; Hydrogen infrastructure; LOHC; Renewable energies; Seasonal storage

Indexed keywords

CAVES; COSTS; FOSSIL FUELS; FUEL CELLS; GREENHOUSE GASES; HYDROGEN; INVESTMENTS; LIQUEFIED GASES; SUPPLY CHAINS;

FCEV; HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE; LOHC; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; SEASONAL STORAGE;

HYDROGEN STORAGE;

ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ENERGY MARKET; FOSSIL FUEL; HYDROGEN; LIQUEFACTION; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; SEASONAL VARIATION; STORAGE; SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT;

EID: 85019883346     PISSN: 03062619     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113311     Document Type: Erratum

References (61)

1. UN. Adoption of the Paris agreement. In: Framework convention on climate change. United Nations: Paris; 2015.
2. Teichmann D. Konzeption und Bewertung einer nachhaltigen Energieversorgung auf Basis flüssiger Wasserstoffträger (LOHC). In: Berichte aus der Energietechnik. Erlangen-Nürnberg: Aachen; 2015. p. XIV, 190 Seiten.
3. BMWi and BMU. Energiekonzept für eine umweltschonende, zuverlässige und bezahlbare Energieversorgung. Bundeministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi); 2010.
4. BMWi. EEG in Zahlen; 2015.
5. Adamek, F., et al. Energiespeicher für die Energiewende - Speicherungsbedarf und Auswirkungen auf das Übertragungsnetz für Szenarien bis 2050. 2012.
6. Schill, W.-P., Residual load, renewable surplus generation and storage requirements in Germany. Energy Policy 73 (2014), 65–79, 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.032.
7. AgEE-Stat. Entwicklung der Erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland im Jahr 2015; 2016.
8. Minkos, A., et al. Luftqualität 2015 - Vorläufige Auswertung. 2016.
9. McKinsey. A portfolio of power-trains for Europa: a fact-based analysis; 2010.
10. Schiebahn, S., et al. Power to gas: technological overview, systems analysis and economic assessment for a case study in Germany. Int J Hydrogen Energy 40:12 (2015), 4285–4294, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.01.123.
11. Ausfelder, F., et al. Energiespeicherung als Element einer sicheren Energieversorgung. Chem Ing Tec 87:1–2 (2015), 17–89, 10.1002/cite.201400183.
12. Léon, A., Hydrogen technology. Green energy and technology, 2008, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
13. Guandalinia, G., Robiniusb, M., Grubeb, T., Campanaria, S., Stoltenb, D., Long-term power-to-gas potential from wind and solar power: A country analysis for Italy. Int J Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.03.081 in press.
14. Edwards, R., et al. Well-to-Tank Report Version 4.a. Godwin, S., et al. (eds.) JEC Well-to-Wheels Analysis, 2014, Joint Research Centre, 148.
15. Chen, T.-P., Hydrogen delivey infrastructure option analysis. 2010, Nexant.
16. Remick, R., Hydrogen station compression, storage, and dispensing technical status and costs: systems integration. 2014.
17. Dodds, P.M., Will, A review of hydrogen delivery technologies for energy system models. 2012, UCL Energy Institute, University College London.
18. Reddi, K., et al. Hydrogen delivery scenario analysis model. 2015, Department of Energy USA.
19. Nexant. H2A hydrogen delivery infrastructure analysis models and conventional pathway options analysis results; 2008.
20. Cipriani, G., et al. Perspective on hydrogen energy carrier and its automotive applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 39:16 (2014), 8482–8494, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.03.174.
21. DOE. Multi-Year research, development, and demonstration plan – 3.2 hydrogen delivery. Available from: < http://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/downloads/fuel-cell-technologies-office-multi-year-research-development-and-22> 2015 August [08.04.2016].
22. Yang, C., Ogden, J., Determining the lowest-cost hydrogen delivery mode. Int J Hydrogen Energy 32:2 (2007), 268–286, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.05.009.
23. DOE. DOE hydrogen and fuel cells programm – annual progress report 2015; 2015.
24. Gardiner, M., Energy requirements for hydrogen gas compression and liquefaction as related to vehicle storage needs. Satyapal, S., (eds.) DOE hydrogen and fuel cells program record, 2009.
25. Niaz, S., Manzoor, T., Pandith, A.H., Hydrogen storage: materials, methods and perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 50 (2015), 457–469, 10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.011.
26. Teichmann, D., Arlt, W., Wasserscheid, P., Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers as an efficient vector for the transport and storage of renewable energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 37:23 (2012), 18118–18132, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.08.066.
27. Teichmann, D., et al. A future energy supply based on Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers (LOHC). Energy Environ Sci, 4(8), 2011, 2767, 10.1039/c1ee01454d.
28. Dagdougui, H., Models, methods and approaches for the planning and design of the future hydrogen supply chain. Int J Hydrogen Energy 37:6 (2012), 5318–5327, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.08.041.
29. Samsatli, S., Optimal design and operation of integrated wind-hydrogen-electricity networks for decarbonising the domestic transport sector in Great Britain. Int J Hydrogen Energy 41:1 (2016), 447–921.
30. Klell, M., Storage of hydrogen in the pure form. Handbook of hydrogen storage, 2010, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 1–37.
31. Di Profio, P., et al. Comparison of hydrogen hydrates with existing hydrogen storage technologies: energetic and economic evaluations. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34:22 (2009), 9173–9180, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.09.056.
32. Sartbaeva, A., et al. Hydrogen nexus in a sustainable energy future. Energy Environ Sci, 1(1), 2008, 79, 10.1039/b810104n.
33. He, T., Pei, Q., Chen, P., Liquid organic hydrogen carriers. J Energy Chem 24:5 (2015), 587–594, 10.1016/j.jechem.2015.08.007.
34. Okada, Y., Shimura, M., Development of large-scale H2 storage and transportation technology with Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC). 2013, Chiyoda.
35. Dalebrook, A.F., et al. Hydrogen storage: beyond conventional methods. Chem Commun (Camb) 49:78 (2013), 8735–8751, 10.1039/c3cc43836h.
36. Krasae-in, S., Stang, J.H., Neksa, P., Development of large-scale hydrogen liquefaction processes from 1898 to 2009. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35:10 (2010), 4524–4533, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.02.109.
37. Bruckner, N., et al. Evaluation of industrially applied heat-transfer fluids as liquid organic hydrogen carrier systems. Chemsuschem 7:1 (2014), 229–235, 10.1002/cssc.201300426.
38. Durbin, D.J., Malardier-Jugroot, C., Review of hydrogen storage techniques for on board vehicle applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 38:34 (2013), 14595–14617, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.07.058.
39. Aardahl, C.L., Rassat, S.D., Overview of systems considerations for on-board chemical hydrogen storage. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34:16 (2009), 6676–6683, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.06.009.
40. Converse, A.O., Converse, A.O., Seasonal Energy Storage in a Renewable Energy System. Proc IEEE 100:2 (2012), 401–409 ISSN: 0018-9219 (print), CODEN: IEEPAD Publisher: IEEE Country of Publication: USA, 2012. 100(2): p. 401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/jproc.2011.2105231.
41. Robinius, M., Strom- und Gasmarktdesign zur Versorgung des deutschen Straßenverkehrs mit Wasserstoff. Institut für elektrochemische Verfahrenstechnik, 2015, RWTH Aachen, Aachen.
42. Öko-Institut. Die Entwicklung der EEG-Kosten bis 2035; 2015, study in order of Agora Energiewende.
43. Eurostat. Strompreise nach Art des Benutzers. < http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/> 2016.
44. Edwards, R., et al. Well-to-Wheels Report Version 4.a. Godwin, S., et al. (eds.) JEC well-to-wheels analysis, 2014, Joint Research Centre.
45. Krieg, D., Konzept und Kosten eines Pipelinesystems zur Versorgung des deutschen Straßenverkehrs mit Wasserstoff. Forschungszentrum Jülich, 2012, RWTH Aachen.
46. Noack C. et al. Studie über die Planung einer Demonstrationsanlage zor Wasserstoff-Kraftstoffgewinnung durch Elektrolyse mit Zwischenspeicherung in Salzkavernen unter Druck. DLR – Deutsches Zentrum für Luft und Raumfahrt; Ludwig Bölkow Systemtechnik; Fraunhofer ISE; KBB Underground Technologies; 2015.
47. Barckholtz T. et al. Hydrogen delivery technical team roadmap, U.S.D. Partnership, Editor; 2013.
48. Acht, A., Salzkavernen zur Wasserstoffspeicherung. 2013, RWTH Aachen, 98.
49. Bell, I.H., et al. Pure and pseudo-pure fluid thermophysical property evaluation and the open-source thermophysical property library coolprop. Ind Eng Chem Res 53:6 (2014), 2498–2508, 10.1021/ie4033999.
50. Tietze, V., Techno-ökonomischer Entwurf eines Wasserstoffversorgungssystems für den deutschen Straßenverkehr. 2016.
51. Reddi, K., et al. Challenges and opportunities of hydrogen delivery via pipeline, tube-trailer, LIQUID tanker and methanation-natural gas grid. Stolten, D., Emonts, B., (eds.) Hydrogen science and engineering: materials processes, systems and technology, 2016, Wiley, 849–874.
52. Reddi, K., Elgowainy, A., Sutherland, E., Hydrogen refueling station compression and storage optimization with tube-trailer deliveries. Int J Hydrogen Energy 39:33 (2014), 19169–19181, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.09.099.
53. Elgowainy, A., et al. Tube-trailer consolidation strategy for reducing hydrogen refueling station costs. Int J Hydrogen Energy 39:35 (2014), 20197–20206, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.10.030.
54. Baufumé, S., et al. GIS-based scenario calculations for a nationwide German hydrogen pipeline infrastructure. Int J Hydrogen Energy 38:10 (2013), 3813–3829, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.12.147.
55. McClain, A.W., Brown, K., Bowen, D.D.G., Magnesium hydride slurry: a better answer to hydrogen storage. J Energ Resour Technol, 2015, 10.1115/1.4030398.
56. Elgowainy, A., et al. Hydrogen refueling station analysis model. 2015, Argonne National Laboratory.
57. Mayer, M., From prototype to serial production. A3PS Conference 2014, 2014, Linde, Vienna.
58. Stolzenburg, K., Mubbala, R., Hydrogen liquefaction report – whole chain assessment. Integrated design for demonstration of efficient liquefaction of hydrogen (IDEALHY), 2013, FCH JU.
59. Loh, H.P., Lyons, J., White, C.W., Process equipment cost estimation – final report. 2002, DOE.
60. Toyota. Toyota Mirai ist verbrauchsärmstes Serien-Brennstoffzellenfahrzeug. Available from: < https://www.toyota.de/news/details-2015-43.json> 2015.
61. Gesetz für den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz - EEG 2014). Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz; 2014.