Experimental Comparison of Hydrogen Refueling with Directly Pressurized vs. Cascade Method

Matteo Genovese (), David Blekhman (), Michael Dray, Francesco Piraino and Petronilla Fragiacomo
Additional contact information
Matteo Genovese: Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende, 87036 Cosenza, Italy
David Blekhman: Department of Technology, Hydrogen Research and Fueling Facility, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90032, USA
Michael Dray: Hydrogen Research and Fueling Facility, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90032, USA
Francesco Piraino: Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende, 87036 Cosenza, Italy
Petronilla Fragiacomo: Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende, 87036 Cosenza, Italy

Energies, 2023, vol. 16, issue 15, 1-14

Abstract: This paper presents a comparative analysis of two hydrogen station configurations during the refueling process: the conventional “directly pressurized refueling process” and the innovative “cascade refueling process.” The objective of the cascade process is to refuel vehicles without the need for booster compressors. The experiments were conducted at the Hydrogen Research and Fueling Facility located at California State University, Los Angeles. In the cascade refueling process, the facility buffer tanks were utilized as high-pressure storage, enabling the refueling operation. Three different scenarios were tested: one involving the cascade refueling process and two involving compressor-driven refueling processes. On average, each refueling event delivered 1.6 kg of hydrogen. Although the cascade refueling process using the high-pressure buffer tanks did not achieve the pressure target, it resulted in a notable improvement in the nozzle outlet temperature trend, reducing it by approximately 8 °C. Moreover, the overall hydrogen chiller load for the two directly pressurized refuelings was 66 Wh/kg and 62 Wh/kg, respectively, whereas the cascading process only required 55 Wh/kg. This represents a 20% and 12% reduction in energy consumption compared to the scenarios involving booster compressors during fueling. The observed refueling range of 150–350 bar showed that the cascade process consistently required 12–20% less energy for hydrogen chilling. Additionally, the nozzle outlet temperature demonstrated an approximate 8 °C improvement within this pressure range. These findings indicate that further improvements can be expected in the high-pressure region, specifically above 350 bar. This research suggests the potential for significant improvements in the high-pressure range, emphasizing the viability of the cascade refueling process as a promising alternative to the direct compression approach.

Keywords: hydrogen refueling station; hydrogen compressor; hydrogen refueling; cascade refueling; direct refueling (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/15/5749/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/15/5749/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:15:p:5749-:d:1208443

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().