Cited by 60Spacecraft and Cryogenic TechnologiesThermodynamic and Exergetic Analyses of Power and Cooling SystemsProcess Optimization and Integration

Comparative design, thermodynamic and techno‐economic analysis of utilizing liquefied natural gas cold energy for hydrogen liquefaction processes

Open access
Noh, Wonjun, Park, Sihwan, Kim, Junghwan, Lee, Inkyu·2022·International Journal of Energy Research

Abstract

This study mainly focuses on determining the optimal configuration that efficiently utilizes liquefied natural gas (LNG) cold energy in hydrogen precooling for liquid hydrogen production. To achieve this goal, two different configurations are designed: (a) adding LNG cold energy to the existing hydrogen precooling cycle and (b) replacing the existing hydrogen precooling cycle with LNG cold energy. An equilibrium hydrogen model is developed to reflect the thermodynamic property of ortho-para conversion of hydrogen. Bayesian optimization is performed to determine the optimal operating conditions which minimize the specific energy consumption for all configurations. The specific energy consumption of the configuration involving hydrogen precooling with only LNG is 5.613 kWh/kg-LH2, and it is reduced by 8.13% and 3.19% from the base case design and the configuration involving hydrogen precooling with both LNG and a mixed refrigerant cycle, respectively. In addition, a techno-economic analysis is conducted. Compare to the base case design, the capital cost and operating cost of the design replacing hydrogen precooling with LNG are reduced by 31.76% and 11.55%, respectively. This study shows that the proposed design of replacing the hydrogen precooling cycle with an LNG stream can save energy consumption, moreover, it is highly effective for capital investment saving due to its simple configuration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/er.8064

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Noh et al. found that the SEC in the first and second LNG cold recovery structures decreased by 5.14% and 8.13%, respectively, compared to the basic cycle.

    “Similar results demonstrated that the SEC in the first and second structures has decreased by 5.14% and 8.13%, respectively, compared to the basic cycle.”

    From Strategies To Improve the Performance of Hydrogen Storage Systems by Liquefaction Methods: A Comprehensive Review (2023) · cites this paper as [223]

    The SEC comparison in the paper’s “Parameter Value” passage reports reductions of 5.11% for Design 1 and 8.13% for Design 2 relative to the base case. The citing sentence matches the second figure but gives 5.14% rather than 5.11% for the first; no page number is provided for this passage. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Kuendig A, Loehlein K, Kramer GJ, Huijsmans J. Large scale hydrogen liquefaction in combination with LNG re-gasifica- tion. Paper presented at: 16th World Hydrog Energy Conf 2006, WHEC 2006 2006;4:3326-33.
  2. Neittaanmäki P, Repin S, Tuovinen T. Math Model Optimiza- tion Complex Struct. 2016. 10.1007/978-3-319- 52. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, 5th Ed. McGraw-Hill; 2003 · DOI
  3. Connelly E, Penev M, Elgowainy A, et al. Current Status of Hydrogen Liquefaction Costs. Department of Energy of the United States of America: Washington, DC, USA. 2019. How to cite this article: Noh W, Park S, Kim J, Lee I. Comparative design, thermodynamic and techno-economic analysis of utilizing liquefied natural gas cold energy for hydrogen liquefaction processes. Int J Energy Res. 2022;46(9):12926-12947. doi:10.1002/er.8064

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Noh, W., Park, S., Kim, J., & Lee, I.
Affiliations
  • Pusan National University (KR)
  • Korea Institute of Industrial Technology (KR)
Corresponding author
  • Kim, Junghwan
  • Lee, Inkyu
Venue
International Journal of Energy Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-05-06
Volume
46
Issue
9
Pages
12926-12947
ISSN
  • 0363-907X (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-114X
OpenAlex
W4229044029
Cited by
60
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 2
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International Journal of Energy Research (publishedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (20214000000140)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Spacecraft and Cryogenic Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Thermodynamic and Exergetic Analyses of Power and Cooling Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Process Optimization and Integration
Keywords
liquefied natural gas, hydrogen liquefaction, liquid hydrogen production, ortho-para hydrogen conversion, mixed refrigerant cycle, specific energy consumption, techno-economic analysis, capital costs, operating costs, Bayesian optimization, cold energy utilization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review