On the bulk transport of green hydrogen at sea: Comparison between submarine pipeline and compressed and liquefied transport by ship
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares six (6) alternatives for green hydrogen transport at sea. Two (2) alternatives of liquid hydrogen (LH2) by ship, two (2) alternatives of compressed hydrogen (cH2) by ship and two (2) alternatives of hydrogen by pipeline. The ship alternatives study having hydrogen storage media at both end terminals to reduce the ships’ time at port or prescinding of them and reduce the immobilized capital. In the case of the pipeline, new models are proposed by considering pressure costs. One scenario considers that there are compression stations every 500 km and the other one considers that there are none along the way. These alternatives are assessed under nine different scenarios that combine three distances: 100 km, 2500 km, and 5000 km; and three export rates of hydrogen 100 kt/y, 1 Mt/y and 10 Mt/y. The results show, including uncertainty bands, that for the 100 km of distance the best alternative is the pipeline. For 2500 km and 100 kt/y the top alternative is cH2 shipping without storage facilities at the port terminals. For 2500 km and 1 Mt/y and for 5000 km and 100 kt/y the best alternatives are cH2 or LH2 shipping. For the remaining scenarios the best alternative is LH2 shipping.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it