纯氢长输管道与高压管束集装箱：氢气储运两条路线的工程分野Long-distance pure hydrogen pipelines and high-pressure tube bundle containers: the engineering divide between the two routes of hydrogen storage and transportation

From the production of hydrogen to its use, this intermediate stage is the longest and most uncertain part of the entire chain. On November 5, 2026, the National Energy Administration released the "China Hydrogen and Green Fuel Pilot Typical Cases (2026)" at a sub-forum of the 9th Hongqiao International Economic Forum, organized by the Science and Technology Department of the National Energy Administration and compiled by the China Hydrogen Alliance. It selected 15 representative cases from the first batch of hydrogen and green fuel pilots. Two projects were included in the direction of low-cost storage and transportation: the Damao Banner to Baotou urban area long-distance hydrogen pipeline project in Inner Mongolia, with a total length of about 195 kilometers and a designed annual hydrogen transport capacity of 100,000 tons; and the long-distance, low-cost, high-efficiency gaseous hydrogen transport project in Guangzhou, Guangdong, which developed 30 MPa bundle-type hydrogen transport containers with a single transport capacity of 650 kilograms of hydrogen. When these two projects are looked at together with the three hydrogen pipeline standards implemented in the same period, the main engineering line of the storage and transportation stage becomes clear: storing hydrogen is not the most difficult part; the challenge is whether hydrogen running in the pipeline for two years will cause problems, and whether defects in each welded seam can be reliably detected. Pipeline route: for a distance of 195 kilometers, the issues to solve are materials and weld seams.

The technical differences between pipelines and containers do not lie in the hydrogen itself, but in the three variables of pressure, material, and welding. The publicly disclosed research directions for the long-distance hydrogen pipeline project from Damao Banner in Inner Mongolia to the urban area of Baotou City are “hydrogen embrittlement-resistant pipeline steel,” welding technology, deep burial in permafrost, and directional drilling. These four aspects happen to constitute all the challenges of long-distance pure hydrogen pipelines. The mechanism of hydrogen embrittlement is not complicated: hydrogen atoms accumulate at lattice defects in steel, reducing the material's ductility and fracture resistance, macroscopically manifesting as delayed cracking of the pipe under pressure. The service life of the pipeline spans several decades, and the residence time of hydrogen in the network is measured in months. Therefore, the compatibility between the material and hydrogen cannot be proven by a one-time test; it requires a reproducible evaluation procedure.

Permafrost burial and directional crossing are entirely a coupling of geography and engineering. The Inner Mongolia section of the route crosses permafrost, and the burial depth in relation to frost heaving and thaw settlement determines the stress state of the pipeline; directional crossing is used to avoid certain construction-restricted sections and reduce ecological disturbance caused by surface excavation. These two items themselves do not fall within the scope of hydrogen energy technology, but they determine the investment intensity and construction period of long-distance pipelines, and the construction period directly determines whether the unit hydrogen transportation cost can fall within a feasible range. The experience publicly disclosed by the project is that after scaled operation, the hydrogen transportation cost can be reduced to below 1 yuan per kilogram.

The scale of the project determines the economic characteristics of this route. The design annual hydrogen transport volume of 100,000 tons is the design limit for this pipeline. Once the network is laid, the marginal costs are almost limited to compressor electricity consumption and routine maintenance, so the larger the scale, the lower the unit cost. This is exactly the opposite of the economic logic of containerized routes: for the latter, every shipment incurs costs for loading and unloading, round trips, transshipment, and returning empty containers, making it only cost-effective when the single shipment volume is large enough or the distance between origin and destination is short enough. Comparing the two routes side by side, the conclusion is not about which replaces the other, but a division of labor between scale and flexibility.

Bundle pipe route: What does it mean to raise the pressure level by one tier?

In Guangzhou, Guangdong, a long-distance, low-cost, and efficient gaseous hydrogen transport project has developed a 30 MPa tubular hydrogen transport container, with a single transport capacity of up to 650 kilograms. This promotes the regional high-pressure gaseous hydrogen transport to leap from a pressure level of 20 MPa to 30 MPa, effectively reducing long-distance hydrogen transport costs. Publicly available information mentions a 50% decrease in unit transport cost. Although increasing the pressure from 20 MPa to 30 MPa seems like just a numerical change, it actually affects the mechanical boundaries of the entire storage and transport hardware. Hydrogen storage density is approximately proportional to absolute pressure, so the amount of hydrogen that can be loaded in a container of the same volume increases with pressure. This is the physical basis for raising the single transport capacity from several hundred kilograms to 650 kilograms.

The cost of increasing pressure falls on materials, valves, seals, and safety distances. 30 MPa falls into the category of high-pressure gaseous hydrogen, and the corresponding container wall thickness, stress rating, and inspection frequency requirements are all higher than the 20 MPa level. The supporting refueling and venting equipment also need to be redesigned. This means that pressure upgrades are not just about slightly thickening the existing container; the entire chain of material standards, testing procedures, and safety regulations must be raised simultaneously. In comparison, the tube-trailer container approach has another often underestimated advantage: it allows the hydrogen storage unit to be made into replaceable standard components. When a container reaches the end of its service life, it can be replaced as a whole, rather than having to stop supply and excavate like a fixed pipeline.

From the perspective of engineering feasibility, the combination logic of these two routes is quite clear. For scenarios with long distances, large scale, and stable flow, pipelines are used, treating the network as a one-time investment in exchange for long-term marginal costs; for scenarios with short distances, intermittent flow, and dispersed demand, containers are used, trading replaceability for scheduling flexibility. Public information has not disclosed the complete unit cost comparison of these two projects under the same conditions, so the boundary position of the two can currently only be qualitatively judged based on the variables of scale and distance, and precise critical points cannot yet be given.

Layering of hydrogen storage forms: gaseous, liquid hydrogen, solid, and organic liquids.

To broaden the discussion on pressure dimensions, there are actually four forms of hydrogen storage competing simultaneously. The gaseous high-pressure route has the highest maturity, but the trade-off is low hydrogen storage density and high electricity consumption during compression. The liquid hydrogen route has a clear advantage in storage density, corresponding to three high-threshold components: low-temperature containers, insulation layers, and liquefaction equipment. Solid-state hydrogen storage stores hydrogen through adsorption or chemical means, with safety and energy density as its selling points, but the technology is still in the early stages of maturity. Organic liquid hydrogen storage reacts hydrogen with a liquid carrier and then dehydrogenates it, involving a long process chain and high system complexity, but the storage and transportation medium itself is already a liquid at normal temperature and pressure, making the transportation stage relatively simple.

This stratification has already shown clear endpoints on the equipment side. On November 2, 2026, the National Energy Administration issued Announcement No. 5 of 2026, revealing the sixth batch of major technical equipment in the energy sector, totaling 90 items. Among them, 13 items in the hydrogen energy field were selected, covering all core segments of the hydrogen energy industry. Two items directly related to storage and transportation are the 'hundred-kilogram-level high-pressure/solid composite hydrogen storage system' and the '30-ton/day hydrogen liquefaction equipment.' The fact that the hundred-kilogram-level high-pressure and solid composite are listed under the same equipment name itself indicates that the current engineering choice is no longer dominated by a single pathway, but is a combination according to scenarios. Also selected are hydrogen production-side equipment such as the 5-megawatt alkaline and proton exchange membrane hybrid hydrogen production system, the megawatt-level anion exchange membrane electrolysis hydrogen production device integrated with a 200-kilowatt stack, and the 500-kilowatt single-stack anion exchange membrane electrolysis hydrogen production device. The appearance of both storage/transportation and hydrogen production equipment lists in the same announcement reflects that the industry has entered a stage of overall chain coordination.

Lightweighting is the most specific technical proposition in the liquid hydrogen heavy truck sector. Tian Jianguang, Assistant General Manager of Rongcheng New Energy Group, introduced that the group is working with more than ten leading companies in the industrial chain to advance a full-chain demonstration project for liquid hydrogen, covering all aspects of hydrogen liquefaction, cryogenic storage and transportation, refueling, and hydrogen heavy truck vehicle applications. The core equipment supplier, Beijing Tianhai Industrial, will provide liquid hydrogen tanks for the liquid hydrogen heavy trucks. The cooperation between the two parties started at the end of 2024, and they will be the first in the industry to use Type IV hydrogen storage tanks in mass production to replace the traditional Type III storage tanks. The inner liner of the Type III tanks is made of aluminum and has a relatively heavy weight, whereas the Type IV tanks have a plastic inner liner, which offers a clear advantage in lightweighting. Tian Jianguang explained that for long-haul logistic heavy trucks, every ton of weight reduced means that one more ton of cargo can be carried per trip. Replacing the aluminum liner of the hydrogen storage tank with a plastic one may seem like just a material substitution, but in reality, it changes the distribution between a vehicle's load capacity and energy consumption.

Standard point: Which sections are covered by each of the three hydrogen pipeline standards.

The transportation and storage sector truly began to be regulated on October 21, 2026, when the National Energy Administration issued Announcement No. 4 of 2026. Among the 287 energy industry standards and 19 foreign language versions released this time, six involve hydrogen energy, with three directly related to hydrogen pipelines, each covering different stages. NB/T 12113-2026 "Steel Plates and Coils for Hydrogen Transmission Pipelines," led by Hefei General Machinery Research Institute Co., Ltd., specifies the grade designation, order content, dimensions, shape, weight, technical requirements, test methods, inspection rules, packaging, markings, and quality certificates of steel plates used for hydrogen pipelines, covering the material stage from ordering to warehousing.

NB/T 12116-2026 "Guidelines for Hydrogen Compatibility Evaluation of Materials for Hydrogen Transmission Pipelines" is led by the China Special Equipment Inspection and Research Institute. It stipulates the evaluation procedures for the hydrogen compatibility of materials used in hydrogen transmission pipelines, including technical requirements such as terminology definitions, basic principles, preliminary preparations, routine performance evaluation, special technical evaluation, and additional performance evaluation. This part concerns whether the materials will have problems when serving in a hydrogen environment for a long time. SY/T 7889-2026 "Technical Specification for Welding of Hydrogen Transmission Pipelines" is led by the China Petroleum & Natural Gas Pipeline Science Research Institute Co., Ltd. It applies to the welding of pipe girth welds in hydrogen pipeline lines where the hydrogen gas volume fraction is not less than 10%, and it specifies the materials, welding procedure qualification, and on-site welding quality technical requirements for shielded metal arc welding, tungsten inert gas welding, submerged arc welding with solid and flux-cored electrodes, and combinations of the above welding methods. This part concerns the girth welds.

The division of labor among the three is quite clear. Material standards address whether the steel pipe itself can be used, hydrogen compatibility guidelines address whether the steel pipe can still be used after being exposed to hydrogen for a period of time, and welding specifications address whether the weld that joins two pipe sections together can be used. The reason welding has its own separate specification is that circumferential welds are the only part of the entire pipeline completed on-site, with the largest variation in quality, low automation, complex environmental conditions, and inspection results that are most dependent on personnel. This is also why the "Technical Specification for Hydrogen Pipeline Welding" specifically stipulates on-site welding quality technical requirements, and not just standards for welding materials and procedure qualification.

Analysis: Where do the technical thresholds lie in the storage and transportation stages?

Looking at the standards together with engineering cases allows for a clear judgment: the technical barrier in the storage and transportation stage lies not in hydrogen storage density, but in the long-term reliability of materials and welds. Hydrogen storage density determines how much can be transported at one time, but whether this chain can operate continuously is another matter—whether each weld and each section of steel pipe can maintain its design lifespan under the long-term combined effects of hydrogen exposure and pressure cycling. This judgment also explains why the investment structure in storage and transportation differs from traditional gaseous hydrogen storage: more funds go into material research, testing capabilities, and welding process assessment, rather than simply increasing hydrogen storage volume.

Another noteworthy direction is the publicization of testing capabilities. According to a typical case released on November 5, 2026, the Inner Mongolia Hydrogen Energy Equipment Demonstration Experimental Platform project focuses on four main functions: equipment testing, technology pilot, standard verification, and practical training. It has already conducted tests on eight kiloton-level alkaline electrolyzers and three megawatt-level proton exchange membrane electrolyzers, and has innovatively implemented a mechanism of one test with multiple certifications to connect with international certification. In a forum speech on the same day, Bian Guangqi, Deputy Director of the Science and Technology Department of the National Energy Administration, introduced that China possesses the world's largest renewable energy system and a complete manufacturing system, with significant advantages in green hydrogen supply, technology equipment manufacturing, and application market cultivation. For the storage and transportation sector, the significance of a public testing platform lies in turning the materials and welding verification experiences scattered across individual projects into public infrastructure that can be reused by the industry.

Finally, a judgment on the industrial stage. By the time this batch of typical cases was released, China's renewable energy hydrogen production capacity in operation had exceeded 350,000 tons per year, and green ammonia and methanol production capacity had exceeded 1.3 million tons per year. The scale on the production side has been established, the standard system for storage and transportation has just been completed, and the list of 13 first-of-their-kind equipment has laid out the technical routes. The maturity of the three links is not synchronous: hydrogen production is competing on cost and load adaptability, storage and transportation is addressing gaps in material and welding standards, and green hydrogen fuel is waiting for international certification and long-term agreements. This determines the direction of technological investment in the near future — not to continue expanding single-point indicators, but to standardize each interface along the chain, allowing equipment from different manufacturers to be mutually recognized under the same set of methods.

This article's reference materials are sourced from the National Energy Administration, the China Hydrogen Alliance's publicly released typical hydrogen energy pilot cases, and energy industry standard announcements; the long-distance hydrogen pipeline project from Damao Banner in Inner Mongolia to Baotou City, the long-distance low-cost high-efficiency gaseous hydrogen transport project in Guangzhou, Guangdong, and the publicly released engineering and equipment information from Beijing Tianhai Industrial and Rongcheng New Energy Group; as well as public reports from industry media such as China Energy News, China Energy News Network, and China Economic Net.