ArticleScientific reports2025
Technoeconomic analysis of hydrogen versus natural gas considering safety hazards and energy efficiency indicators.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hydrogen ([Formula: see text]) is emerging as a key alternative to fossil fuels in the global energy transition. This study presents a comparative techno-economic analysis of [Formula: see text] and natural gas (NG), focusing on safety hazards, energy output, [Formula: see text] emissions, and cost-effectiveness aspects. Our analysis showed that, compared to NG and other highly flammable gases like acetylene ([Formula: see text]) and propane ([Formula: see text]), [Formula: see text] has a higher hazard potential due to factors such as its wide flammability range, low ignition energy, and high flame speed. In terms of energy output, 1 kg of NG produces 48.60 MJ, while conversion to liquefied natural gas (LNG), grey [Formula: see text], and blue [Formula: see text] reduces energy output to 45.96 MJ, 35.45 MJ, and 31.21 MJ, respectively. Similarly, while unconverted NG emits 2.72 kg of [Formula: see text] per kg, emissions increase to 3.12 kg for LNG and 3.32 kg for grey [Formula: see text]. However, blue [Formula: see text] significantly reduces [Formula: see text] emissions to 1.05 kg per kg due to carbon capture and storage. From an economic perspective, producing 1 kg of NG yields a profit of $0.011. Converting NG to grey [Formula: see text] is most profitable, yielding a net profit of $0.609 per kg of NG, while blue [Formula: see text], despite higher production costs, remains viable with a profit of $0.390 per kg of NG. LNG conversion also shows profitability with $0.061 per kg of NG. This analysis highlights the trade-offs between energy efficiency, environmental impact, and economic viability, providing valuable insights for stakeholders formulating hydrogen and LNG implementation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.