Subscribe to daily information updates from CleanTechnica via email. Or follow us on Google News!
Recently, I published a summary of quite disappointing hydrogen marine trial initiatives, concluding with a request for others to contribute if they were aware of more. A few additional examples surfaced, along with minor corrections and helpful additions. I urge anyone who hasn’t read the previous piece to do so through the link provided above before perusing this article.
Let’s revisit the focus of much of the assessment in the latest piece, the MF Hydra. To recap, it sources its hydrogen from 1,300 kilometers distant in Germany. It’s actually a slightly longer journey than Google Maps suggested because you cannot transport liquid hydrogen vehicles through most tunnels in Europe due to safety risks, necessitating a detour around Hamburg. The combination of four truckloads traveling at least two days in each direction — ferries impose strict requirements and restrictions on liquid hydrogen vehicles, making delays a real possibility — the higher carbon electricity utilized to produce hydrogen in Germany, and the leakage of high global warming potential hydrogen throughout the supply chain means that the ferry emits twice as much greenhouse gas overall as the diesel ferry it replaces, and at around ten times the energy cost compared to the approximately 80 battery electric ferries that are already traversing Norway’s fjords.
However, a commenter highlighted another amusing observation, noting that the fuel cells cannot generate as much power as the batteries in an electric ferry that operates on exactly the same triangular route connecting three small ports in western Norway. Consequently, it completes the same journey but at a slower pace. Ten times the expense, about 40 times the emissions, and it cannot even perform the same task. Typical for hydrogen based on my evaluation of fleets around the world. They’re marketed as being comparable to fossil fuels with no operational alterations required and possessing superior characteristics compared to batteries, which is simply untrue.
Nevertheless, the Hydra wasn’t Norway’s inaugural venture into bedragssløsing (a Norwegian compound term I had ChatGPT create for me fusing deception and waste). The Beffen hydrogen ferry initiative in Bergen, Norway — a city a few hundred kilometers, six ferry rides, and 37 hours north of the Hydra’s setbacks, was launched in 2009. It aimed to integrate hydrogen fuel cell technology into one of the city’s historical passenger ferries. The initiative faced the usual significant obstacles, including inadequate refueling infrastructure, storage and safety concerns, and fuel cell durability. These hurdles, along with high operational expenses and technological restrictions that continue to affect hydrogen transportation endeavors today due to their systemic nature and impracticality to overcome, led to the project’s abandonment in 2016. Despite its failure, Norway squandered more funds on the MF Hydra, which is expected to be abandoned for the same reasons in the not-too-distant future.
Next is the 30-meter, solar-powered, wind-driven, kite-sail equipped, and electrolyzer-bearing Power Observer catamaran. It completed a seven-year expedition around the globe recently. Launched in 2017 and retrofitted from a former racing catamaran, the vessel journeyed through 50 countries and visited 101 ports. It generated some hydrogen from seawater through onboard electrolysis. Now back in its home port of Saint-Malo, France, the vessel continues to serve as an educational platform — in other words, it’s moored, with no plans to move, and schoolchildren visit it for field trips.
You might notice I used the qualifier “some” before hydrogen earlier. Their grand claim is that over seven years, they generated 1.3 tons of hydrogen on board from seawater. That averages to half a kilogram daily. Under perfectly calm conditions and optimal scenarios without hull fouling and with ideal propellers, that might yield a range of 5 kilometers. That’s hardly a significant contribution. More likely it was utilized for onboard systems such as the radio and induction cooktop. Naturally, it was also equipped with batteries, specifically 112 kWh of lithium-ion batteries. That half kilogram of hydrogen could have been stored as electrical energy without the considerable losses associated with it, leaving 95 kWh to spare.
If they had removed the electrolyzer, compressors, hydrogen storage tanks, and fuel cells, which weighed 1.5 tons and occupied 5 cubic meters, they could have replaced it with an additional 300 kWh of storage for weight and enjoyed 4.4 extra cubic meters of space, which would have been far more beneficial. Assuming they could have charged the batteries, they might have traveled around 180 kilometers on the 300 kWh. In spite of this glaring mass, volume, energy, and stability distance, people continue to point out the Power Observer as being hydrogen-powered, when in reality, it merely wasted a considerable amount of generated electrical energy creating hydrogen and didn’t gain much in return.
The Power Observer isn’t the only attempt to approach this. The Race for Water is a 35-meter-long hydrogen-powered catamaran retrofitted from the PlanetSolar, transforming it into a hybrid renewable energy vessel that combines solar panels, a hydrogen fuel cell system, and a kite sail for wind propulsion. It encountered the usual challenges such as limited hydrogen infrastructure, storage limitations, and complex maintenance demands, which hindered its efficiency during several global expeditions. The Race for Water Foundation is wisely transitioning to the MODX 70, a zero-emission vessel powered by advanced hydrogeneration and wind propulsion systems, completely abandoning hydrogen in favor of a more streamlined and sustainable power design. Plenty of batteries, no hydrogen — typical for those who try it.
Lastly, we have the MARANDA project, funded with $3.1 million from the EU’s Horizon 2020 program, which aimed to showcase the feasibility of hydrogen fuel cell systems in maritime applications. Installed aboard the research vessel Aranda, the system provided 165 kW of power for auxiliary systems and dynamic positioning, replacing conventional diesel generators. The project faced the usual significant difficulties, including inadequate refueling infrastructure, the durability of proton exchange membrane fuel cells in harsh marine conditions, and the high cost of hydrogen production and storage. The MARANDA initiative concluded in 2022, demonstrating yet again that hydrogen is indeed unsuited for this use case, yet they claim success.
Next on the list is the Viking Neptune cruise ship, delivered in November 2022. It features a small 100 kW fuel cell intended to power some auxiliary systems like lighting and ventilation. This setup is explicitly experimental, as once again they have overlooked all the previous experiments that reveal that batteries are vastly superior in nearly every aspect.
Then there are ongoing endeavors by individuals who refuse to learn from history. There’s the With Orca, a bulk carrier developed through a collaboration between HeidelbergCement and Felleskjøpet Agri. The 88-meter bulk carrier might have compressed hydrogen stored on board and incorporates two rotor sails for wind-assisted propulsion. Interestingly, they at least recognized that fuel cells and ocean air don’t mix, so they are opting for even less efficient internal combustion engines instead. It was scheduled to enter service early
this year, yet it’s evident that there’s no means to replenish this asset, hence governments have stepped in with $9.3 million to construct infrastructure that will ultimately be left behind as costs rise and the reality of hydrogen’s leakage rates and high greenhouse gas impact become evident. They will certainly proclaim achievements regardless.
Returning to Norway and its ferries. Norway is committing $550 million to construct and operate two hydrogen-fueled ferries on the 100 kilometer, open seas, Vestfjorden route over 15 years, with construction costs estimated at approximately $276 million USD per vessel—up to four times higher than the $60–100 million USD typical for diesel or LNG ferries. In comparison, battery electric ferries usually incur 30% to 40% more than fossil fuel-powered counterparts. These ferries will be supplied with 5–6 tons of green hydrogen daily from GreenH AS under a 15-year agreement, with the hydrogen created through electrolysis powered by renewable energy. Given the remote location in far northwest Norway, the hydrogen will likely need to be transported at significant expense. Major government subsidies, including Enova SF’s $68.3 million for hydrogen infrastructure, aim to mitigate the higher costs of hydrogen vessels and their refueling systems. Essentially, they will be squandering two-thirds of the electricity that could have been fed into much more reliable batteries, all in the name of providing more dependable transportation. I doubt this will conclude favorably. Anticipate reports of missed sailings, elevated costs, failed refueling efforts, and high hydrogen greenhouse gas emissions.
In the strange chronicles of hydrogen on the high seas, it’s time for a dictator’s yacht. The Hydrogen Viking is a reported endeavor to convert a 28-meter Sunseeker Predator 95 yacht, previously owned by Muammar Gaddafi and named Che Guevara, into a hydrogen-powered craft. After being stranded in Malta and left to decay, the yacht was taken over by Norwegian shipbuilder Green Yacht. Three years post-announcement, it appears to still be deteriorating somewhere. I’m not holding my breath for it.
The Finnøy Hydrogen Ferry Project is — or maybe was — an initiative by Norwegian operator Norled to replace biodiesel with hydrogen fuel on a ferry servicing the Finnøy route, northeast of Stavanger. The project is part of the EU-funded FLAGSHIPS initiative — more funds squandered by the EU trying to make hydrogen suitable for transportation — intending to deploy two hydrogen-powered vessels: one in Stavanger, Norway, and another in Lyon, France. Naturally, obtaining hydrogen has proven difficult. In January 2020, Enova, a Norwegian government entity, allocated $1.3 million to assist this transition and an additional $2.2 million for developing a hydrogen production and bunkering facility at Fiskå. This facility is planned to yield approximately one ton of hydrogen daily, with half allocated for the ferry’s operations. As of December 2024, the ferry is operating on biodiesel, with the hydrogen conversion awaiting further technical and financial assessments, making it unlikely that it will ever happen given the reality of costs.
Havila Voyages runs four hybrid cruise vessels—Havila Capella, Havila Castor, Havila Polaris, and Havila Pollux—that combine LNG engines with large battery banks, allowing for up to four hours of zero-emission operation in sensitive fjords. The ships are designed for future conversion to hydrogen fuel as part of the FreeCo2ast project, financed by Norwegian bodies, including Enova and the Research Council. Havila aims to shift to renewable biogas by 2028 and hydrogen by 2030 to comply with Norway’s 2026 prohibition on fossil-fuel-powered vessels in protected fjords. What’s likely to transpire is that they will transition to biogas, but they will undoubtedly install much larger batteries. Hydrogen? Unlikely. Of course, luxury cruise ships have much higher margins than most maritime applications, so perhaps they’ll waste the funds.
Ulstein, a Norwegian shipbuilding enterprise recognized for its innovative hull design with its X-Bow, has introduced the ULSTEIN SX190 Zero Emission design, a theoretical 99-meter-long offshore construction support craft powered by hydrogen fuel cells. As of December 2024, the vessel remains in the design stage, with no reports indicating that construction has begun. Ulstein had anticipated that sea trials could commence as soon as 2022. Clearly, that did not transpire and is improbable to ever occur. As a reminder, hydrogen is not zero emission due to its leakage at various points along the value chain, and it possesses a high global warming potential.
To be fair to Ulstein, a company I admire greatly for the X-Bow, the leakage rates have been theoretical until recently when peer-reviewed studies began quantifying them, and the high global warming potential is also relatively new information, with the Nature paper revealing 13 to 37 times the impact of carbon dioxide over 100 and 20-year time frames only being published in 2023. With a bit of luck and some careful effort from rational energy players, these studies and their implications will reach investment firms so that hydrogen can be placed back where it belongs, in industrial facilities as a carefully managed feedstock.
The Østensjø Rederi Offshore Wind Service Vessel (OWSP) is another reported Norwegian hydrogen-powered ship intended to aid offshore wind farm operations. Currently, specific details regarding the vessel’s construction status, operational timeline, and technical specifications have not been publicly disclosed. The development of hydrogen infrastructure and technology will be crucial for the project’s progress, suggesting it’s unlikely to ever reach the water either. The transport sector is just like every other green hydrogen for energy market, filled with announcements that never advance to final investment decisions. Those advocating for hydrogen fill their agendas with announcements, yet never mention that they don’t and likely won’t materialize.
Samskip, a European logistics company, is advancing with two hydrogen-powered shipping projects despite uncertainties stemming from the financial issues of its partner, TECO 2030. The SeaShuttle project involves establishing two 135-meter container vessels with 3.2 MW hydrogen fuel cells, intended to operate between Oslo and Rotterdam by late 2025. Separately, the HyEkoTank project plans to retrofit the multipurpose vessel Samskip Kvitnos with hydrogen fuel cells to comply with EU and Norwegian “zero-emission” regulations. However, TECO 2030, responsible for providing the hydrogen technology, filed for bankruptcy in November 2024, raising concerns about project timelines.
Moss Maritime, a division of Saipem, has developed a liquefied hydrogen containment system inspired by its established spherical LNG tank design. The company has received Approval in Principle from DNV for its LH₂ containment system. However, no vessels utilizing this technology have been constructed or entered operational service to date. And none likely will, as everyone now recognizes what was clear to anyone who had calculated with real figures years earlier—that energy costing ten times more than LNG is not economically viable for any nation.
In November 2020, DFDS revealed plans to develop a hydrogen-powered ferry, Europa Seaways, for the Oslo–Frederikshavn–Copenhagen route. The vessel, designed to accommodate 1,800 passengers and up to 120 vehicles or 380 cars, would feature a 23 MW hydrogen fuel cell system, with fuel sourced from a wind-powered electrolyzer in Copenhagen. Initially slated to enter service by 2027, there have been no significant updates on construction or financial progress as of December 2024, leaving the project’s status uncertain. Dead in the water, more likely, as cost realities emerged.
The trend, by the way, is very evident, with a quite overwhelming majority of hydrogen shipping initiatives based in Norway. Strange how a fossil fuel giant is working so hard to leverage molecules for energy, especially when they already have 80 electric ferries operating cheaply, efficiently, and reliably in their waters.
Contribute a few dollars a month to help support independent cleantech journalism that helps accelerate the cleantech revolution!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to recommend a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Reach out to us here.
Subscribe to our daily newsletter for 15 new cleantech stories daily. Or sign up for our weekly one if daily is too frequent.
CleanTechnica utilizes affiliate links. See our policy here.
CleanTechnica’s Comment Policy
