Hydrogen Supply Chain

MILP · Multi-echelon

Electrolyzers · Pipelines · Storage · Demand

Where should green-hydrogen electrolyzers be built? How should hydrogen move from producer to consumer — pipeline, truck, liquefied ship, or ammonia conversion? How much storage is needed to buffer hourly variability? The hydrogen supply chain (HSC) problem is a multi-echelon MILP with production-location binaries, flow decisions on multiple transportation modes, storage sizing, and demand-satisfaction constraints. Almansoori & Shah (2006) gave the seminal formulation; the 2020+ literature exploded alongside the global green-hydrogen push.

The problem

Green hydrogen from wind to steel plant

Hydrogen is having a moment. The IEA's Net Zero roadmap calls for 200 Mt/year of clean hydrogen by 2050, up from ~1 Mt today (almost all fossil-based). Steel, ammonia, heavy trucking, shipping, aviation fuel, seasonal electricity storage — hydrogen is the chemical vector that decarbonizes sectors electricity alone cannot reach. But realizing this requires building out a physical supply chain: tens of gigawatts of electrolyzers, thousands of kilometers of pipelines or shipping routes, storage at salt caverns or as ammonia.

The operations-research problem: given expected demand centers (refineries, steel plants, mobility hubs), candidate production sites (near cheap renewables), transportation-mode costs (pipeline: high capex, low opex; truck: high opex, flexible; LH2 ship: only viable for transoceanic), and storage technologies (salt cavern, pressure tanks, liquefied, ammonia, LOHCs), decide what to build and how much to ship. Multi-period (plans over a decade), multi-product (gaseous H2, liquid H2, ammonia, methanol), multi-mode.

Historical note
Almansoori & Shah (2006, 2012) wrote the canonical MILP in Chemical Engineering Research & Design, applied to UK hydrogen-mobility supply. Agnolucci & McDowall (2013) reviewed policy-sensitivity analyses. Post-2020 papers scale the framework to continental (European) and global supply chains with renewable-availability coupling: Kakoulaki et al. (2021) on EU green H2, IRENA (2022) on global trade flows. Industry: projects like HyDeal (Europe), NEOM Green Hydrogen (Saudi Arabia), Fortescue Future Industries (Australia) are all backed by similar optimization models.

Mathematical formulation

Multi-echelon MILP with siting and flow binaries

Notation

SymbolMeaningUnits
$\mathcal{P}$Candidate production sites
$\mathcal{D}$Demand nodes
$\mathcal{M}$Transport modes (pipe, truck, LH2)
$I_p^{\mathrm{elec}}$Electrolyzer capex at site $p$$/kW
$c_m^{\mathrm{trans}}$Transport cost, mode $m$$/kg-km
$D_d$H2 demand at node $d$kg/day
$x_p$Build electrolyzer at $p${0,1}
$K_p$Electrolyzer capacitykW
$f_{p,d,m}$H2 flow, producer $p$ to demand $d$ via $m$kg/day

ObjectiveNPV total cost

$$\min \; \sum_{p} I_p^{\mathrm{elec}} K_p + \sum_{m} I_m^{\mathrm{trans}} y_m + \sum_{p,d,m} c_m^{\mathrm{trans}} \, L_{p,d} \, f_{p,d,m} + \sum_p c_p^{\mathrm{elec}} \, K_p \qquad \text{(1)}$$

Electrolyzer capex + transport infrastructure capex + variable transport + electricity cost.

Constraints

Demand satisfaction:

$$\sum_{p,m} f_{p,d,m} \ge D_d \qquad \forall d \qquad \text{(2)}$$

Production capacity:

$$\sum_{d,m} f_{p,d,m} \le \eta \cdot K_p \cdot 24 \cdot CF_p \qquad \forall p \qquad \text{(3)}$$

Build logic:

$$K_p \le K_p^{\max} \cdot x_p, \; x_p \in \{0,1\} \qquad \text{(4)}$$

Infrastructure: pipeline builds are binary $y_m$ with capacity bounds; storage at each site; multi-period accumulation for investment phasing.

Complexity

Static single-period HSC with ~10 sites, ~20 demand nodes is a few thousand binaries — Gurobi solves in minutes. Multi-period (10-year horizon, 8760 operational hours via representative periods) scales to tens of thousands of binaries; Benders decomposition standard.

Real-world data

IRENA Global Hydrogen Trade

IRENA 2022 provides cost curves for green hydrogen production by country, pipeline and shipping tariffs, and scenario-based trade flows through 2050.

Hydrogen Council + McKinsey Hydrogen Insights

Hydrogen Council publishes annual investment and project pipeline data. Useful for demand forecasts by sector (steel, mobility, ammonia, refining).

Illustrative 5-site network (this page)

5 candidate production sites (good wind/solar), 4 demand nodes (steel plant, refinery, port, mobility hub), 2 transport modes (pipeline, truck). Single-period MILP with NPV cost.

Interactive solver

Production siting + transport mode choice

Scenario parameters

200
30
4
0.03
Adjust parameters and press Optimize.

Producer siting + flows

Producers (selected = gold, not selected = grey), demand nodes (violet), pipeline flows (thick blue), truck flows (thin amber)

Solution interpretation

The network diagram shows the producer-demand topology: which electrolyzer sites the solver builds (gold nodes), which demand centers each serves, and by which transport mode. Cheap-electricity producers dominate at low hydrogen demand; as demand scales, more sites come online.

Pipeline vs truck: pipelines have huge upfront cost but collapse transport cost per kg; trucks are flexible but expensive per kg-km. Rule of thumb: pipelines pay off above ~50 kt/year flow on a given corridor. The solver's mode choice is highly sensitive to the pipeline capex slider.

The levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) at each demand node is the shadow price of constraint (2). Typical range: $3–$8/kg for green H2 in 2024, targeting $1–$2/kg by 2030–2035 per IEA Net Zero.

Extensions & variants

Coupled electricity-H2 operations

Electrolyzers as flexible electricity load, providing grid services while producing H2. Joint optimization of UC/ED and H2 supply.

Refs: Mansilla et al. (2012); Guerra et al. (2020).

Multi-period stochastic HSC

Uncertain demand growth and electricity price trajectories. Scenario-based stochastic MILP with scenario reduction.

Refs: Almaraz et al. (2014); Almansoori & Betancourt-Torcat (2016).

Ammonia as H2 carrier

Convert H2 → NH3 for easier liquid transport, then optionally reconvert at destination. Opens long-distance shipping routes.

Refs: Salmon & Bañares-Alcántara (2021); IRENA (2022).

Salt-cavern seasonal storage

Large-volume low-cost H2 storage for seasonal balancing (summer wind surplus → winter heat demand). Integer siting + continuous sizing.

Refs: Caglayan et al. (2020); Ozarslan (2012).

Multi-energy system optimization

HSC as one layer in a broader electricity + heat + gas + H2 multi-energy system.

Refs: Welder et al. (2018); Van Leeuwen & Mulder (2018).

Carbon-constrained HSC

Net-zero constraint on well-to-wheel emissions. Forces blue H2 off the table above a carbon-price threshold.

Refs: Bauer et al. (2022); Howarth & Jacobson (2021).

Key references

[1]
Almansoori, A., & Shah, N. (2006).
“Design and operation of a future hydrogen supply chain: Snapshot model.”
Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 84(6), 423–438. doi:10.1205/cherd.05193
[2]
Almansoori, A., & Shah, N. (2012).
“Design and operation of a stochastic hydrogen supply chain network under demand uncertainty.”
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 37(5), 3965–3977. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.11.091
[3]
Agnolucci, P., & McDowall, W. (2013).
“Designing future hydrogen infrastructure: Insights from analysis at different spatial scales.”
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 38(13), 5181–5191. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.02.042
[4]
Kakoulaki, G., et al. (2021).
“Green hydrogen in Europe: A regional assessment.”
Energy Conversion and Management, 228, 113649. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113649
[5]
IRENA. (2022).
“Global Hydrogen Trade to Meet the 1.5°C Climate Goal.”
International Renewable Energy Agency. irena.org
[6]
Caglayan, D. G., et al. (2020).
“Technical potential of salt caverns for hydrogen storage in Europe.”
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(11), 6793–6805. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.161
[7]
Guerra, O. J., et al. (2020).
“The value of seasonal energy storage technologies for the integration of wind and solar power.”
Energy & Environmental Science, 13(7), 1909–1922. doi:10.1039/D0EE00771D
[8]
Welder, L., et al. (2018).
“Spatio-temporal optimization of a future energy system for power-to-hydrogen applications.”
Energy, 158, 1130–1149. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.059
[9]
Salmon, N., & Bañares-Alcántara, R. (2021).
“Green ammonia as a spatial energy vector: A review.”
Sustainable Energy & Fuels, 5(11), 2814–2839. doi:10.1039/D1SE00345C
[10]
IEA. (2023).
Global Hydrogen Review 2023.
International Energy Agency. iea.org/ghr-2023
In-browser solver runs a simplified 5-producer 4-demand assignment MILP. Production HSC tools (COMPOSE, METIS, H2A) scale to continental networks with multi-period investment phasing.