LOHC systems bind hydrogen into organic carrier molecules—such as dibenzyltoluene—via exothermic hydrogenation, and release it via endothermic dehydrogenation at the destination. The liquids are non-cryogenic, often non-flammable, and compatible with existing liquid fuel infrastructure, but the energy and cost penalties of hydrogenation/ dehydrogenation are substantial.
- LOHC is most competitive as a transport and buffering vector for hydrogen between hubs, rather than as a pure grid storage solution.
- Round-trip energy efficiency from power-to-hydrogen-to-power via LOHC is typically <30–40%, once electrolysis, hydrogenation, dehydrogenation, and power conversion are accounted for.
- Indicative logistics costs for LOHC shipping can be competitive per kg of H2 moved, but CAPEX for hydrogenation and dehydrogenation plants is significant and site-specific.
- Best-fit applications combine long-distance transport with intra-hub buffering, especially where ammonia or liquefied hydrogen are constrained.
1. Technology benchmarks: how LOHC works and how it compares
LOHC concepts involve three main building blocks: hydrogen production (often via electrolysis), hydrogenation units at the exporting hub, and dehydrogenation units at the importing hub, plus logistics using tankers, barges, or pipelines.
| Parameter | LOHC (dibenzyltoluene-type) | Ammonia (NH3) | Liquefied hydrogen (LH2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrogen content (wt%) | 5–7% | 17–18% | 100% |
| Operating conditions | Ambient T, mild pressure (liquid) | Ambient T, modest pressure | -253 °C, near-atmospheric |
| Typical energy penalty (H2 ↔ carrier) | 10–20% of H2 energy per step | 5–10% (synthesis/cracking if needed) | 20–30% (liquefaction/boil-off) |
| Hazard profile | Non-cryogenic, often non-flammable | Toxic, pungent, flammable | Very low temperature cryogenic |
| Infrastructure compatibility | High with oil-like logistics | Moderate (dedicated tanks/piping) | Low (cryogenic-specific) |
LOHC’s core advantage is logistical: it behaves like a conventional liquid fuel and can leverage existing storage and shipping infrastructure. Its main disadvantage is the energy and cost overhead of repeated hydrogenation and dehydrogenation.
2. Economics: CAPEX, OPEX, and levelized transport cost
Evaluating LOHC economics requires looking at both capital-intensive plants and recurring logistics costs. The table below summarizes indicative cost components per kg of hydrogen delivered ex-import terminal.
| Cost element | LOHC | Ammonia | Liquefied H2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrogenation / synthesis CAPEX | High (dedicated reactors, ~500–1,000 USD/kWH2) | High (ammonia plants, large scale) | High (liquefaction plants, cryogenic) |
| Dehydrogenation / cracking CAPEX | High (dehydrogenation units) | Moderate to high (if cracking to H2 required) | Moderate (regasification) |
| Shipping cost per 1,000 km | Moderate (liquid fuel tankers) | Moderate | High (cryogenic ships) |
| Indicative levelized transport & conditioning cost | 2–4 EUR/kg H2 (depending on scale & distance) | 1.5–3 EUR/kg | 3–6 EUR/kg |
Because most LOHC concepts require substantial heat input for dehydrogenation, siting them near industrial heat sources or CHP plants can improve economics. However, for pure power-to-power applications, the combined losses often make LOHC less attractive than alternatives.
Model LOHC vs. ammonia and pipelines with Energy Solutions tools
Our tools help compare LOHC chains to ammonia, liquefied hydrogen, and hydrogen pipelines across distances, volumes, and hub configurations, highlighting break-even points and risk factors.
3. Use cases: when LOHC is a rational choice
LOHC is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It can be compelling under specific conditions:
- Brownfield liquid fuel terminals where existing tanks, ports, and safety regimes can be reused.
- Medium-distance shipping where ammonia is constrained (e.g., due to toxicity concerns) and LH2 infrastructure is not yet available.
- Hub-to-hub links between industrial clusters that can host hydrogenation/dehydrogenation plants and valorize waste heat.
Developer tip: treat LOHC as a logistics and hub integration decision, not a generic storage technology. Its value depends heavily on local infrastructure, regulation, and heat integration options.
4. Constraints, risks, and sustainability considerations
Key concerns around LOHC include:
- Chemical stability and degradation of carrier molecules over many cycles.
- Catalyst lifetime and replacement costs in hydrogenation/dehydrogenation units.
- Environmental footprint and toxicity profiles of specific carriers.
- Integration complexity for dehydrogenation units near load centers or industrial plants.
Sustainability warning: not all LOHC chemistries are equal. Due diligence on toxicity, degradation products, and end-of-life handling is essential before committing to large-scale deployment.
5. Global perspective: where LOHC pilots are emerging
Early LOHC pilots and demonstration projects are concentrated in:
- Europe: focusing on imports from future hydrogen exporters and integrating with refining and chemical clusters.
- Japan and Korea: exploring LOHC as one of several vectors to import hydrogen from overseas renewables.
- Middle East and Australia: examining LOHC as an export option alongside ammonia and LH2.
6. Outlook to 2035: LOHC in the energy transport portfolio
By 2035, LOHC is likely to be one of several hydrogen carriers rather than the dominant option. Its success will depend on:
- Achieving reliable carrier stability and catalyst lifetimes over many cycles.
- Demonstrating safe, scalable operations at multiple hubs.
- Clear policy signals and standards for hydrogen trade and carriers.
7. Implementation guide: evaluating an LOHC corridor
For utilities, traders, and industrial players considering LOHC, a structured evaluation should include:
7.1 Screening questions
- Do you have access to suitable hubs for hydrogenation and dehydrogenation with available land and heat integration options?
- How does LOHC compare to ammonia or pipeline options for the same corridor?
- Are regulators and port authorities familiar with the chosen LOHC chemistry?
7.2 Quantitative steps
- Model delivered hydrogen cost (EUR/kg) for LOHC vs. alternatives across distances and volumes.
- Evaluate CAPEX and OPEX of plants and logistics separately, then combine into a levelized transport cost.
- Stress-test for carrier price volatility, catalyst replacement, and downtime.
8. FAQ: questions energy teams ask about LOHC
Is LOHC primarily a storage or transport solution?
LOHC is best thought of as a transport and buffering solution for hydrogen between hubs. While it does allow storage over weeks or months, the energy penalties make it less attractive as a pure stationary storage option compared with batteries or cavern storage.
How does LOHC compare to ammonia for hydrogen shipping?
Ammonia generally carries more hydrogen per unit mass and has a longer industrial track record, but it is toxic, pungent, and requires care in handling. LOHC carriers can be less hazardous and more familiar to the oil and chemicals industry but carry less hydrogen per unit and require significant energy for dehydrogenation.
Can LOHC be used directly as a fuel without dehydrogenation?
Some research is exploring direct use of LOHCs in combustion or fuel cells, but most current concepts envision releasing hydrogen and then using it. Direct use could simplify systems but faces separate technical and regulatory hurdles.
What are realistic deployment timelines for LOHC corridors?
From concept to operation, expect 5–10 years for major LOHC corridors, including plant design, permitting, financing, and construction. Leveraging existing terminals and industrial clusters can shorten this timeline.
Should LOHC be included in near-term system planning?
LOHC should be treated as an emerging option alongside ammonia and LH2. It can be included in scenario analysis for hydrogen supply and trade, but near-term infrastructure decisions may focus on more mature vectors unless specific local advantages justify LOHC.