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

Changsoo Kim, Younggeun Lee and Kyeongsu Kim ()
Additional contact information
Changsoo Kim: Clean Energy Research Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul 02792, Republic of Korea
Younggeun Lee: System Research Center, Wezon Co., Ltd., Seoul 06245, Republic of Korea
Kyeongsu Kim: Division of Energy and Environmental Technology, KIST School, Korea University of Science and Technology (UST), Seoul 02792, Republic of Korea

Energies, 2023, vol. 16, issue 6, 1-13

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.

Keywords: quantitative risk assessment; hydrogen carrier; formic acid; liquefied hydrogen; hydrogen refueling station (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 (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/6/2613/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/6/2613/ (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:6:p:2613-:d:1093183

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 ().