IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i6p2613-d1093183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Risk Assessment of a Hydrogen Refueling Station Using Gaseous Hydrogen and Formic Acid as the Hydrogen Carrier

Author

Listed:
  • Changsoo Kim

    (Clean Energy Research Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul 02792, Republic of Korea
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Younggeun Lee

    (System Research Center, Wezon Co., Ltd., Seoul 06245, Republic of Korea
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Kyeongsu Kim

    (Division of Energy and Environmental Technology, KIST School, Korea University of Science and Technology (UST), Seoul 02792, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

To realize a hydrogen economy, many studies are being conducted regarding the development and analysis of hydrogen carriers. Recently, formic acid has been receiving attention as a potential hydrogen carrier due to its high volumetric energy density and relatively safe characteristics. However, hydrogen refueling systems using formic acid are very different from conventional hydrogen refueling stations, and quantitative risks assessments need to be conducted to verify their safe usage. In this study, a comparative safety analysis of a formic acid hydrogen refueling station (FAHRS) and a gaseous hydrogen refueling station (GHRS) was conducted. Since there is no FAHRS under operation, a process simulation model was developed and integrated with quantitative risk assessment techniques to perform safety analysis. Results of the analysis show that the FAHRS poses less risk than the GHRS, where the vapor cloud explosion occurring in the buffer tank is of greatest consequence. A GHRS poses a greater risk than an FAHRS due to the high pressure required to store hydrogen in the tube trailer. The mild operating conditions required for storage and dehydrogenation of formic acid contribute to the low risk values of an FAHRS. For risk scenarios exceeding the risk limit, risk mitigation measures were applied to design a safe process for GHRS. The results show that the installation of active safety systems for the GHRS allow the system to operate within acceptable safety regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Changsoo Kim & Younggeun Lee & Kyeongsu Kim, 2023. "Comparative Risk Assessment of a Hydrogen Refueling Station Using Gaseous Hydrogen and Formic Acid as the Hydrogen Carrier," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:6:p:2613-:d:1093183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/6/2613/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/6/2613/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Byoungjik Park & Yangkyun Kim & Kwanwoo Lee & Shinwon Paik & Chankyu Kang, 2021. "Risk Assessment Method Combining Independent Protection Layers (IPL) of Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA) and RISKCURVES Software: Case Study of Hydrogen Refueling Stations in Urban Areas," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-13, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jongbeom Kwak & Haktae Lee & Somin Park & Jaehyuk Park & Seungho Jung, 2023. "Risk Assessment of a Hydrogen Refueling Station in an Urban Area," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-18, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jongbeom Kwak & Haktae Lee & Somin Park & Jaehyuk Park & Seungho Jung, 2023. "Risk Assessment of a Hydrogen Refueling Station in an Urban Area," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-18, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:6:p:2613-:d:1093183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.