HYSTORM Explorer
Stochastic multi-criteria acceptability for hydrogen carriers on Indonesian maritime corridors
Choose a maritime corridor, adjust your priorities, and explore how five hydrogen carriers rank under uncertainty. Start with the balanced profile, then compare alternative assumptions.
Decision setup
Weight midpoints
Gate assumptions
Sampling
Preparing model…
First-rank acceptability
Rank acceptability matrix
Each cell is the share of sampled runs in which the carrier takes that rank. Rows sum to 100%.
Central weights and confidence
Central weight vector: the average of all weight draws under which the carrier ranked first. Confidence factor: with weights fixed at that vector and only scores resampled, the share of runs in which it still ranks first. A low confidence factor means a win that depends on favourable weights rather than on the data.
Loss-adjusted delivered-cost index by corridor
Index relative to the Piteå to Rotterdam reference chain (2,915 km, ammonia = 1.0). Constructed from the cost decomposition of Spatolisano et al. (2024) and the fleet-cycle scaling of Marnate and Grönkvist (2025), then divided by one minus the reconversion hydrogen loss. Comparative use only; not a price.
Carrier data
Five-gate maturity rubric
One point per gate. G1 commercial vessel class. G2 in-force carriage code. G3 global terminals. G4 Indonesian assets. G5 industrial-scale hydrogen release. The LOHC G4 point rests on a cargo-class proxy and is flagged conditional; the switch on the Run tab withdraws it.
What this tool computes
HYSTORM compares five hydrogen carriers, compressed hydrogen (CGH2), liquid hydrogen (LH2), ammonia (NH3), a liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC, perhydro-dibenzyltoluene) and methanol (MeOH), on six Indonesian maritime corridors from 442 to 5,686 km. Four criteria are used: delivered-cost index (lower is better), volumetric hydrogen density (higher), maturity score from a five-gate rubric (higher), and hazard class count (lower).
Instead of fixing one weight vector, the tool follows SMAA-2 (Lahdelma and Salminen, 2001). Each iteration draws a weight vector uniformly from a box around the chosen midpoints, normalises it to sum to one, and rejects it if any weight leaves its bound. Criteria are min-max normalised across the five carriers, a weighted sum is formed, and the carriers are ranked. Over all iterations this yields the rank acceptability index, the central weight vector of each carrier, and its confidence factor.
The paper reports the balanced base case with midpoints of 0.25 and bounds of ±35% at K = 200,000 and a fixed seed. This browser build implements the same procedure in JavaScript; the reference values from paper Table 3 are shown beside the live result when the balanced profile is selected.
What it does not do
It does not estimate absolute delivered price, project returns or life-cycle emissions. Stand-alone stationary storage selection is outside the present scope. Mandatory safety and regulatory requirements belong in a feasibility screen before any acceptability run.
Sources
Lahdelma, R. and Salminen, P. (2001). SMAA-2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Operations Research 49(3), 444–454.
Spatolisano, E. et al. (2024). Liquefied hydrogen, ammonia and LOHC for harbour-to-harbour hydrogen transport: A sensitivity study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 80, 1424.
Marnate, A. and Grönkvist, S. (2025). Fleet-cycle techno-economics of seaborne hydrogen carriers, Piteå to Rotterdam. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
Nasution, N.L. and Gultom, S.S. (2026). HYSTORM: A unified multi-criteria decision framework for evaluating hydrogen storage and transport infrastructure pathways in Indonesia's energy transition. Paper IATMI26-388, Simposium IATMI XVIII, Jakarta.