Correction: Energy efficiency of future hydrogen-based fuel supply chain routes for Germany’s maritime demand

A Correction on
Energy efficiency of future hydrogen-based fuel supply chain routes for Germany’s maritime demand

by Dave Y, Márquez Torres JS, Kazemi Esfeh S,Baetcke L and Ehlers S (2025). Front. Energy Res. 13:1600803.doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2025.1600803

“In the abstract, Line 24 The analysis showed that the efficiency of import varies from 44.6% to 53.9% between the analyzed countries. This has been corrected to read: The analysis showed that the efficiency of import varies from 42.17 % to 50.02% between the analyzed countries.”

There was a mistake in Figure 4 as published. In order to plot the graphs, unlike stated, the higher heating value of methanol was taken (22.9 MJ/kg) instead of the lower heating value, i.e. 19.9 MJ/kg. The corrected Figure 4 appears below.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Energy consumption and efficiency of supply chain 1 – Norway.

There was a mistake in Figure 5 as published. In order to plot the graphs, unlike stated, the higher heating value of methanol was taken (22.9 MJ/kg) instead of the lower heating value, i.e. 19.9 MJ/kg. The corrected Figure 5 appears below.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Energy consumption and efficiency of supply chain 2 – Namibia.

There was a mistake in Figure 6 as published. In order to plot the graphs, unlike stated, the higher heating value of methanol was taken (22.9 MJ/kg) instead of the lower heating value, i.e. 19.9 MJ/kg. The corrected Figure 6 appears below.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Energy consumption and efficiency of supply chain 3 – Algeria.

There was a mistake in Figure 7 as published. In order to plot the graphs, unlike stated, the higher heating value of methanol was taken (22.9 MJ/kg) instead of the lower heating value, i.e. 19.9 MJ/kg. The corrected Figure 7 appears below.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis of the energy efficiency of supply chain 1 (hydrogen import from Norway) in 2030 (left) and 2050 (right) considering a blue hydrogen only and green hydrogen only supply chain.

There was a mistake in Figure 8 as published. In order to plot the graphs, unlike stated, the higher heating value of methanol was taken (22.9 MJ/kg) instead of the lower heating value, i.e. 19.9 MJ/kg. The corrected Figure 8 appears below.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis of the energy efficiency of supply chain 3 (ammonia and methanol import from Algeria) in 2030 (left) and 2050 (right) considering a blue hydrogen only and green hydrogen only supply chain.

Equation 3 in 4.3 Transport, 4.3.2 Ship-based transport, was erroneously given as:

$No.ofshipsrequired=\frac{V_{Methanolperday}*voyageduration}{V_{Methanolpership}}$

The correct equation is:

$No.ofshipsrequired=\frac{V_{fperday}*voyageduration}{V_{fpership}}$

Equation 4 in 4.3 Transport, 4.3.2 Ship-based transport, was erroneously given as:

$No.ofvoyagesperyear=\frac{V_{Methanolperyear}}{V_{Methanolpership}}$

The correct equation is:

$No.ofvoyagesperyear=\frac{V_{fperyear}}{V_{fpership}}$

There was an error in the explanation of Equation 4. A correction has been made to Section 4.3 Transport, 4.3.2 Ship-based transport, paragraph 2:

“Where f stands for fuel (ammonia or methanol), V_{f per day} represents the volume of fuel produced per day, V_{f per ship} the volume of fuel transported per ship, V_{f per year} the volume of fuel produced per year and the voyage duration is the sum of the round trip.”

There was an error in the percentages. A correction has been made to Section 5 Results and discussion, paragraph 2:

“The power-to-fuel efficiencies obtained in this study for 2030 range between 44.51% in Namibia and 44.88% in Algeria, while in 2050 they increase to 47.56% for both countries, primarily due to the anticipated improvement of electrolyzer efficiency. This is lower compared to the 52.4% and 54.7% figures found by (Rahmat et al., 2023) when considering a VDB kinetic model and a GRF model respectively.”

There was an error in the percentages. A correction has been made to section 5 Results and discussion, 5.1 Import from Norway, paragraph 3:

“The overall efficiency of the supply chain is approximately 48% and 44% in 2030 and 50% and 46% in 2050 for ammonia and methanol respectively.”

There was an error in the percentages. Corrections have been made to section 5 Results and discussion, 5.4 Sensitivity analysis for 100% blue hydrogen and 100% green hydrogen scenarios:

Paragraph 2:

“In the case of supply chain 1- Norway to Germany, when considering a 100% green hydrogen scenario, the energy efficiency in 2030 decreases by approximately 0.40% for ammonia and 0.36% for methanol (lower whisker bars on the left side of Figure 7), while for 2050 it increases by 0.61% and 0.55% respectively (upper whisker bars on the right side).”

Paragraph 3:

“This observation is further corroborated by the results of the 100% blue hydrogen scenario: in 2030, the supply chain efficiency increases marginally (by 0.01%) for both ammonia and methanol, while in 2050 it decreases by approximately 2.28% in the case of ammonia and 2.06% in the case of methanol (lower whisker bars on the right side of Figure 7).”

Paragraph 4:

“A comparable phenomenon is observed in the case of supply chain 3- Algeria to Germany, wherein considering a 100% green hydrogen scenario, the energy efficiency in 2030 decreases by approximately 0.38% for ammonia and 0.35% for methanol (lower whisker bars on the left side of Figure 8). For the year 2050, supply chain efficiency remains constant, as a 100% green scenario had previously been considered. In contrast, for the 100% blue scenario, efficiency increases marginally (by 0.01%) for both ammonia and methanol in 2030, while for 2050 it decreases by 2.80% and 2.59% respectively (lower whisker bars on the right side of Figure 8).”

There was an error in the percentages. Corrections have been made to section 6 Conclusion.

Paragraph 2:

“As observed from the results, the technical efficiency of import varies from 42.17% to 50.02% between the analyzed countries.”

Paragraph 3:

“And for methanol, the average supply chain efficiency of Norway is 44.40% and Algeria 43.90%.”

The original article has been updated.

Generative AI statement

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.