% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Reuss:825993,
      author       = {Reuss, Markus and Grube, Thomas and Robinius, Martin and
                      Preuster, Patrick and Wasserscheid, Peter and Stolten,
                      Detlef},
      title        = {{S}easonal storage and alternative carriers: {A} flexible
                      hydrogen supply chain architecture model},
      journal      = {Applied energy},
      volume       = {200},
      issn         = {0306-2619},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2017-00265},
      pages        = {290 - 302},
      year         = {2017},
      abstract     = {A viable hydrogen infrastructure is one of the main
                      challenges for fuel cells in mobile applications. Several
                      studies have investigated the most cost-efficient hydrogen
                      supply chain structure, with a focus on hydrogen
                      transportation. However, supply chain models based on
                      hydrogen produced by electrolysis require additional
                      seasonal hydrogen storage capacity to close the gap between
                      fluctuation in renewable generation from surplus electricity
                      and fuelling station demand. To address this issue, we
                      developed a model that draws on and extends approaches in
                      the literature with respect to long-term storage. Thus, we
                      analyse Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers (LOHC) and show
                      their potential impact on future hydrogen mobility. We
                      demonstrate that LOHC-based pathways are highly promising
                      especially for smaller-scale hydrogen demand and if storage
                      in salt caverns remains uncompetitive, but emit more
                      greenhouse gases (GHG) than other gaseous or hydrogen ones.
                      Liquid hydrogen as a seasonal storage medium offers no
                      advantage compared to LOHC or cavern storage since lower
                      electricity prices for flexible operation cannot balance the
                      investment costs of liquefaction plants. A well-to-wheel
                      analysis indicates that all investigated pathways have less
                      than $30\%$ GHG-emissions compared to conventional fossil
                      fuel pathways within a European framework},
      cin          = {IEK-3 / IEK-11},
      ddc          = {620},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-3-20101013 / I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-11-20140314},
      pnm          = {134 - Electrolysis and Hydrogen (POF3-134) / ES2050 -
                      Energie Sytem 2050 (ES2050)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-134 / G:(DE-HGF)ES2050},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000403418200024},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.050},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825993},
}