The Hydrogen Hurdle

The Status of and Pathways to a Safe, Feasible, and

Sustainable Fuel Infrastructure for the Hydrogen Fuel Cell

Vehicle via Public Policy and Codes and Standards

Sean Murray

ASME International

August 14, 2003

Table of Contents

Foreward............................................................................................................................3 About the WISE Program .........................................................................................3 About the Author ......................................................................................................3 Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................3

Executive Summary............................................................................................................4 Introduction.........................................................................................................................6 Framing the Issue......................................................................................................6 Fuel Cell Vehicle Basics...........................................................................................9 Legislative and Program Overview ........................................................................11 Imperative Infrastructure ........................................................................................14 Safety and Liability Issues ...............................................................................................19 Abnormally Dangerous Liability ............................................................................19 Products Liability....................................................................................................24 Negligence Liability................................................................................................27 Popular Acceptance ................................................................................................29 Economic and Logistics Issues.........................................................................................33

Existing Stations and Infrastructure........................................................................33 Distribution .............................................................................................................36 Building New Stations ............................................................................................39 Continuum to Commercial Use ..............................................................................43

Production and Sustainability Issues ..............................................................................45 Hydrocarbon reforming ..........................................................................................45 Nuclear Production .................................................................................................50 Renewables .............................................................................................................51 Other Issues.............................................................................................................53 Policy Recommendations and Conclusions ....................................................................54 Action on Pending Legislation................................................................................54 Future RD&D and Incentives .................................................................................55 Other Policies..........................................................................................................56

Appendices.........................................................................................................................57 1: Hydrogen Flammability Limits ..........................................................................57

2: Fuel Combustion Properties................................................................................58 3: Gas Properties/NFPA Group Ratings .................................................................59 4: Well-to-Wheel Vehicle Efficiencies...................................................................60 5: Thermochemical Water Splitting Cycles............................................................61

About the WISE Program

The Washington Internships for Students of Engineering (WISE) program annually

provides a 10-week internship in Washington, D.C. for up to 16 outstanding engineering

students entering their final year of undergraduate study or their first year of graduate

school. Through meetings with prominent public officials and non-governmental

organizations, the WISE interns explore how government officials make decisions on

complex technical issues and how engineers can contribute to the public policy making

process.

The American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES) manages the WISE program

in conjunction with the Steering Committee comprised of AIChE, ANS, ASCE, ASME,

IEEE, NSPE and SAE. The seven engineering societies each host at least one intern and

provide them with a mentor to guide them through their summer. Each intern writes a

research paper on a prominent policy issue that is important to their sponsoring society

and their self. Research is done via literature review, presentations, committee hearings

and personal discussions with engineers and government officials. The project

culminates with a presentation of the research paper at the end of the summer.

About the Author

Sean Murray is a mechanical engineering major, a university honors student, and a

varsity baseball player at the University of New Mexico. He will graduate in December

of 2004 with his B.S. and intends to pursue a career in engineering, public policy, or

both. He can be contacted at smurray@unm.edu.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Francis Dietz, Allian Pratt, Dr. Jim Dennison and all those

who contributed to this paper.

Executive Summary

In 1839, Sir William Grove discovered that energy is produced when hydrogen and

oxygen combine to make water, a property that has more fundamental potential than

Grove could have ever imagined. Engineers have developed hydrogen fuel cells to

harness the power of this reaction, which combines oxygen from the air and hydrogen

from any number of feedstocks to produce electricity that can run an electric motor. The

hydrogen fuel cell is advantageous because hydrogen can be produced from domestic,

sustainable sources and because the only bi-product of the fuel cell reaction, water, is

environmentally harmless. The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle has garnered much attention

since its inclusion in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, but in many

circles, the infrastructure needed to conveniently deliver fuel to the vehicle has been

overlooked. Americans will not drive a vehicle that cannot be conveniently and safely

refueled; and the purpose of a fuel cell car is to have pollution free transportation.

Therefore, development of a safe, feasible, and sustainable hydrogen fuel infrastructure is

essential.

The hydrogen infrastructure presents many difficulties. First, hydrogen can be a liability

because of its odorless, clandestine nature coupled with its flammable properties, and the

few people that are trained to handle it safely. Second, a hydrogen infrastructure presents

economic problems because trillions of dollars are needed to build it and logistics

troubles because inconvenient setback distances are required between bulk stores of

hydrogen and people, roads, and buildings. Third, hydrogen fuel produced from non-

renewable, environmentally harmful sources such as natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy

is problematic because hydrogen is intended to be a sustainable transportation fuel.

Though valuable work will be required by many entities to develop a hydrogen

infrastructure, proper public policies and codes and standards are critical. In order to

make the hydrogen infrastructure liability-free, government research and development in

safety technologies, coupled with tort reforms in the event of un-insurability at the point

of commercial hydrogen use, are required. These policies, along with new setback

distance codes and standards, and bulk storage technologies will overcome the logistics

dilemmas. For the infrastructure to be economically feasible, the federal government

must provide vehicle-purchasing incentives to increase demand and tax incentives for

energy companies to produce and distribute hydrogen when 2% of the U.S. fleet is

hydrogen powered. Finally, sustainability will only be achieved if government research

and development bring the cost of renewable energy sources down, or if portfolio

standards for hydrogen production are enforced.

Introduction

Framing the Issue

It has made millionaires, bankrupted the rich, increased living standards, started wars, has

been compared with gold and with death. It was at the heart of the industrial revolution

and drives much of the world economy today, but it is running out. It is oil. Petroleum is

a fossil fuel (along with coal and natural gas), which means it is derived from living

matter from a previous geologic time. It takes millions of years for fossil fuels to form;

and they therefore are considered finite in nature.

Many geologists and scientists feel global oil production will decrease in the near future1

because the natural resource is being consumed at a much faster rate than it was

produced.

Figure 1 Hubbert’s peak

The curve shown in Figure 1 represents the 100-yr span when almost all oil has been and

will be harvested. On this scale one would have to extend the line five miles to the left to

represent the geologic time in to the form the oil.2 Some believe we can stave off oil

drought by drilling deeper into the earth, drilling in new places, creating new petroleum

excavation technologies or by speeding up the time it takes explore an oil site.3

However, science and logic say otherwise.

1 Deffeyes, Kenneth S. Hubbert’s Peak. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.

World supply shortage is the overarching issue, but future oil shortage in the U.S. could

be harmful. The U.S. has had a love for petroleum products since the Drake well was

drilled in 1859.4 Oil has done many great things for the U.S. since the industrial

revolution: it has given its people the freedom of transportation, high standards of living,

and many conveniences. In fact, it has provided the U.S. with requisite energy to account

for around 25% of the world’s economy. Yet currently, the U.S. uses a quarter of the

world’s petroleum, but has just 3% of known world oil reserves.5 The future for U.S. oil

production doesn’t look much better. U.S. oil production has been decreasing since 1970

and will likely continue to do so.6 The gap between supply and demand has forced the

U.S. to import oil to a gross extent. The U.S. imports more than half of its oil each day7

and without major changes that number is expected to rise to 65% by 2020.

Approximately $200,000 is sent oversees each minute to meet the U.S.’s demand for oil.8

Foreign dependence has caused economic crises like the 1970’s oil embargo, and more

recently the Venezuelan oil strike led to price spikes of $40 per barrel and close to $2 per

gallon.9 Other than the economic disadvantage of net exporting, dependence on foreign

nations can create political complications.

Foreign policy is convoluted as is, but oil dependence on other countries can throw an

even larger wrench into the picture. The Persian Gulf has been at the heart of recent

conflicts and it doesn’t help that one-fifth of imported oil comes from that region, costing

the U.S. around $20 billion a year.10 In fact, 500,000 barrels per day come from Iraq and

1.5 million barrels per day (MBD) from Saudi Arabia.11 The U.S. need for imports is a

factor that affects many foreign policy decisions, eliminating that need could provide the

U.S. with political leverage and added national security.

4 Ibid. 5 National Resources Defense Council. “Dangerous Addiction 2003.” March 2003 6 Deffeyes, Kenneth S. Hubbert’s Peak. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. 7 National Resources Defense Council. “Dangerous Addiction 2003.” March 2003 8 Friedman, David. Union of Concerned Scientists. “Hydrogen, Fuel Cell Vehicles and the Transportation Sector.” Presentation, 10 June 2003. 9 National Resources Defense Council. “Dangerous Addiction 2003.” March 2003 10 Ibid. 11 Friedman, David. Union of Concerned Scientists. “Hydrogen, Fuel Cell Vehicles and the Transportation Sector.” Presentation, 10 June 2003.

The U.S. need for oil has also led to devastating effects on the environment. Most

scientists agree that global climate change from green house gas (GHG) emissions is real.

Current gasoline emits close to 11 kg of GHG’s per gallon from tailpipe CO2 and around

8 kg from upstream production. Any visitors to Mexico City or Los Angeles would

quickly report that air pollution is a problem, much of which comes from oil production

and use. Oil use in the transportation sector releases chemicals such as NOx, HC, CO,

Particulate Matter and SOx into the environment. Air toxics are also a problem with

benzene, diesel particulates, butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde invading the

atmosphere. It is estimated that 1,400 in 1,000,000 (.14%) of Los Angeles area residents

are directly at risk for cancer because of air toxics. There are also concerns about water

pollutants and solid waste caused by internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and

infrastructure.12 Clearly, the U.S must eliminate its thirst for oil and a great place to start

is in transportation.

Pure physics demands that we must develop alternative energy sources in all the energy

sectors to achieve sustainability: but in the short term, conversion of the transportation

sector is crucial. Alternative transportation energy carriers would alleviate the majority

of U.S. energy dependence, as two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption is for transportation.13

There are many ways to produce cleaner and more sustainable forms of transportation

energy: the steam engine, electric car, turbine engine, sterling cycle engine, natural gas

engine, and alcohol engine (ethanol and methanol),14 to name a few. The U.S. has

explored all of these options. The electric car didn’t have a great enough range, the

natural gas vehicle was too “wimpy,”15 and the marketplace did not accept the other

options. Even with fairly substantial programs, the United States has failed to progress to

an independent transportation energy sector.

12 Ibid. 13 World Resources Institute. “WRI Study Reveals Oil from Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge will not Alleviate Increasing U.S. Dependence on Foreign Sources.” [on line] http://www.wri.org/press/oil_anwr.html [2nd July 2003] 14 Flint, Jerry. Hydrogen Bomb. Forbes.com, 4 March 2002. [on line] http://www.forbes.com/global/2002/0304/034_print.html. [28th October 2002]. 15 Personal Interview: Neil Rossmeissl, DOE Office of Power Technologies Program Manager, June 17, 2003

The U.S. has also attempted to promulgate more stringent emissions standards, and have

considered efficiency standards, in order to ease dependence on oil. Regulations like the

Tier II standards have helped to reduce pollution, but no matter how tough the regulations

there are scientific limitations to how efficient and emissions free ICEs can be. Even the

most efficient ICEs convert less than 20% of gasoline chemical energy into mechanical

energy16 and all gasoline ICE vehicles on the road produce GHGs. Real efficiency and

environmental gains demand a new energy approach, which fuel cells are.17

Fuel Cell Vehicle Basics

Fuel cells have been around for decades and can be powered by a number of different

energy carriers. Hydrogen has emerged as the most likely energy source for fuel cells.

Hydrogen has been an attractive energy carrier since Sir William Grove discovered in

1839 that hydrogen gas when combined with oxygen gas in the presence of a catalyst

could generate electricity.18 The energy that is produced in the 2H2 + O2 2H2O

produces electricity and heat, which is different than energy development in ICEs.

Combustion engines burn fuel in the presence of oxygen to produce heat and mechanical

energy, which is eventually transferred to the wheels of the car.19 The 20% efficiency of

ICEs is limited by the Carnot principle, and pales in comparison to the 40-60% efficiency

that fuel cells can muster.20

The basic workings of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle begin by retrieving H2 gas from a

hydrogen-rich fuel.

16 Department of Energy. “Just the Basics: Fuel Cells.” January 2002. 17 Garman, David. 2003, “The Hydrogen Energy Economy.” Hearing before subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. 20 May 2003. 18 Preli, Dr. Francis R. 2003, “The Hydrogen Energy Economy.” Hearing before subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. 20 May 2003. 19 Department of Energy. “Just the Basics: Fuel Cells.” January 2002. 20 Ibid.

Figure 2 A working hydrogen fuel cell21

Figure 2 shows the pure gas that is than fed into a platinum-coated fuel cell anode (-),

which helps separate the hydrogen gas into protons (H+ ions) and electrons. The

electrons are then fed into a circuit that runs an electric motor, while the protons enter the

proton exchange membrane (PEM). The PEM is cellophane-like membrane between the

cathode (+) and the anode that allows only the protons to pass to the cathode. As the

protons across the PEM, oxygen from the air flows to the platinum cathode that aids in

the recombination of the electrons, protons, and oxygen to form water and heat, the only

bi-products of the fuel cell reaction. Each cell is then put into a layered “stack”

formation to increase the energy output. The number of cells in the stack determines the

stack voltage, while the individual cell surface areas determine the current. Total electric

21 Drawing courtesy of www.newmango.com/ info_fuel.html

power is then calculated as the current times the voltage, which is on the magnitude

required to power an automobile.22

Fuel cells are attractive as transportation power systems for a number of reasons. First,

the efficiency of fuel cells aid conservation. Second, fuel cells are light enough to be

stored on a vehicle. Third, they can be run on hydrogen that can be retrieved from a

number of diverse energy sources. Fourth and foremost, the bi-products of fuel cells are

environmentally friendly and allow at least the possibility of sustainable transportation

energy. Fuel cells can also be used in stationary power systems and even to power

cellular phones23, but it’s their potential to power our vehicles that is most attractive.

Legislation and Program Overview

Hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles are not yet cost competitive with conventional

vehicles and heavy investment into them is quite risky. Therefore the federal government

has been the main source of research and development (R&D) funding for them. The

government has been conducting research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of

hydrogen fuel cells for a number of years as has used fuel cells to power some

spacecrafts. However, using hydrogen fuel cells in commercial transportation didn’t

become a popular idea until President George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union

address.

In early 2002, the Bush administration said it would stop funding the Partnership for a

New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) and instead replaced it with its own vision of

transportation future: FreedomCAR. The PNGV was a 10-year research partnership

between the federal government and the U.S. auto industry. It cost $1.5 billion and failed

to produce the 80-mile per gallon (mpg) family vehicle it set out to develop.24

22 UTC Fuel Cells. How Does a Fuel Cell Work? [on line] http://www.utcfuelcells.com/fuelcell/how_fl.shtml. [28th October 2003]. 23 Overton, Rick. The Fuel Cell Writ Small. Business 2.0. August 2002 [on line]. http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/print/0,1643,42190,00.html. [4th June 2003]. 24 Flint, Jerry. Hydrogen Bomb. Forbes.com, 4 March 2002. [on line] http://www.forbes.com/global/2002/0304/034_print.html. [28th October 2002].

FreedomCAR was a $500 million, 5-year, budget request by the administration to

develop technologies for an affordable, hydrogen-powered, fuel cell vehicle.

FreedomCAR was complemented by a $1.2 billion request for the Hydrogen Fuel

Initiative (HFI). $720 million of the $1.2 billion for the HFI is “new money.”25 The HFI

has four main goals: (1) to make cheap, durable, and efficient power systems, (2)

transportation fuel cell systems with high efficiency, low cost, and low emissions, (3)

efficient and gas-price-level refueling stations, and (4) on-board hydrogen storage with

high density and low cost. Most of the funds for these programs are allotted in the

Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.26 It should also be noted that the

funds for FreedomCAR and HFI were made available through reduction in other budget

programs, such as the Clean Cities program.

Hydrogen fuel cell and infrastructure RD&D involves many government agencies, but

the Department of Energy (DOE) has taken the lead. Most R&D on hydrogen fuel is

overseen by DOE’s office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), while

the office of Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies (HFCIT) coordinates

research on fuel production, delivery, and storage. Other agencies involved in fuel cell

R&D include the National Automotive Center (NAC), the Tank Automotive Research,

Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC), the Department of Transportation

(DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Along with their R&D duties, DOE and DOT have also been charged with convening

parties to develop necessary codes and standards for hydrogen vehicles and

infrastructure. Codes and standards will be just as vital as government RD&D in the

commercialization of hydrogen fuel cells. 27 Safety codes and standards must be

developed to enable an insurable and reliable hydrogen infrastructure. Also,

manufacturing codes must also be developed so that economies of scale can more readily

25 Garman, David. 2003, “The Hydrogen Energy Economy.” Hearing before subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. 20 May 2003. 26 Yacobucci, Brent D. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR, and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, (Congressional Research Service: Report for Congress, 17 April 2003). 27 Garman, David. 2003, “The Hydrogen Energy Economy.” Hearing before subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. 20 May 2003.

come to fruition. Many hydrogen actions were set into motion in the President’s 2003

State of the Union, but there is still much work to be done and there is much activity.

Current pending legislation in the 108th Congress that directly affects hydrogen includes

comprehensive energy bills in both the House and Senate. The House’s version,

H.R. 6—the Omnibus Energy Bill, passed in April 2003, while the Senate is, as of this

writing, trying to complete work in its version, S.14—the Energy Policy Act of 2003.

Title XIII of S.14, also referred to as the “George E. Brown, Jr. and Robert S. Walker

Hydrogen Future Act of 2003” houses the provisions for hydrogen RD&D. The bill

would amend the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and

Demonstration Act of 199028 by requiring DOE to share 20% of R&D costs and 50% of

fuel cell vehicle demonstration programs with non-Federal sources. It would also

authorize appropriations of $105 million in FY2004 steadily increasing to $225 million in

FY2008. Another pertinent fuel cell vehicle prevision in Title VIII is a mandate that 20%

of all Federal fleet vehicles shall be hydrogen powered by 2012, providing the economic

availability of hydrogen vehicles. Lastly, the bill would authorize appropriations of $100

million for hydrogen vehicle technologies and $125 million for HFI in FY2004.29 These

pieces of legislation would give the President much of what he requested if the

appropriations committees take heed.

Other legislation that is pertinent to hydrogen in the 108th Congress includes the

reauthorization of TEA-21, the mammoth transportation bill that funds demonstration

programs of alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure.30 There are many initiatives

underway, but the government is currently concentrating on solving three major near

term problems: the economic task of reducing the cost of producing and delivering

hydrogen by a factor of four; resolving the sustainability issue to lower the cost of

28 42 U.S.C 12401 et seq. 29 Senate. Energy Policy Act of 2003, S.14. 30 April 2003. 30 Yacobucci, Brent D. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR, and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, (Congressional Research Service: Report for Congress, 17 April 2003).

carbon-capture and sequestration processes, and reduce potential liability problems by

developing materials to maximize hydrogen safety.31

Imperative Infrastructure

Much attention has been paid to developing a hydrogen vehicle that is clean, affordable

and efficient that can still do zero to 60 in less than a decade, while less thought has been

directed to how one would fuel such a car. A “poultry paradox” has emerged in the

hydrogen fuel cell community. The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the poultry in this case,

must find its way to the market place, but it cannot arrive without an infrastructure, the

proverbial egg. Many romanticize the fuel cell vehicle; the “sex appeal” of a great

vehicle can be a highly attractive force. Circles have grown around the car itself,

idealistic leaders envisioning themselves at the wheel of the newest car in the showroom,

while engineers and scientists dream about etching their names in the history of what

might be man’s next great toy. What’s not as much fun to write, talk about, and plan for

are the underground pipelines that nobody can see, the underground storage that is

oblivious to the public and the gas stations that people will visit only out of necessity: the

hydrogen infrastructure.

The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle infrastructure will be at least as important as, but probably

more difficult to develop than the vehicle itself. The hydrogen infrastructure is defined as

“the equipment, systems, or facilities used to produce, distribute, deliver, or store

hydrogen.”32

31 Garman, David. 2003, “The Hydrogen Energy Economy.” Hearing before subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. 20 May 2003. 32 House of Representatives. To provide for the establishment at the DOE of a program for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure, and for other purposes, H.R. 1777. 11 April 2003.

Figure 3 Simplified schematic of a hydrogen fuel infrastructure33

Figure 3 illustrates some specific objects that entail the hydrogen infrastructure including:

the production sites, reforming systems, pipes and trucks and storage tanks. The DOE

says the commercialization of fuel cells will be “highly difficult” with respect to

transportation infrastructure, and have called for more emphasis to be placed on delivery

and production infrastructure research, and codes and standards.34 Eli Hopson, who

serves on the staff of the House Science Committee says, “infrastructure issues are being

overlooked.”35 The government itself recognizes that it can do more and that it must set

the scene for future hydrogen infrastructure development. DOE also notes that a public-

private cooperative program similar to the FreedomCAR plan could help accomplish this

task and would make hydrogen production and delivery systems clean and economical. It

would also help form the needed safety practices, and codes and standards, at the

refueling interface for the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.36

33 Schematic courtesy of www.jxj.com/magsandj/cospp/2002_01/ images/source_574.gif 34 Department of Energy. “Fuel Cell Report to Congress.” February 2003. 35 Eli Hopson. House Science Committee. Personal Interview. 24 June 2003. 36 Ibid.

Building the hydrogen infrastructure will be expensive and will be at least partially

funded by the public. The hydrogen fueling infrastructure will have to be extensive

because no one will drive a hydrogen car off the lot unless they know they can get fuel

when and where they want it. The Bush plan of $1.2 billion is a pittance compared to

what it will cost to build the hydrogen infrastructure. Skeptics of the administration’s

proposal feel a $100-billion, Apollo-style effort is need to replace hydrocarbons with

hydrogen.37 It must be noted that an Apollo-sized effort would greatly accelerate the

construction of the infrastructure to within a couple of decades, but the Bush

administration’s plan is establishment of a fully functioning infrastructure by 2040 at the

earliest.38 With tightening budgets and a growing deficit, it is unlikely that the federal

government will by itself be able to fund the development of the hydrogen fuel cell

vehicle infrastructure. However, if the auto and petroleum industries see profit potential

in hydrogen, they are more likely to make the infrastructure investment.

Private spending on hydrogen infrastructure initiatives and demonstration programs in the

last few years have been a good first step, but investment of a much greater magnitude

will be required to actually build the infrastructure. Mary Tolan of Accenture consulting

has estimated that it would take a $280 billion investment from oil and gas companies

into infrastructure to wean the U.S. off imported oil by 2015. For this to happen, oil

companies would have to install hydrogen systems at 30,000 fueling stations to make the

fuel cell vehicle remotely convenient.39 Spending from private enterprise at this juncture

of development is highly risky and unlikely, but Tolan estimates it could save the nation

$200 billion a year, not to mention all of the other advantages that oil independence

would yield. Tolan’s idea is only one amongst a host of plans and visions, but to give

one an idea of how the investment would be allocated, Tolan proposes: $70 billion

investment to increase the natural gas and ethanol supply, $40 billion the build new

pipelines, $40 billion to transport fuel with pipelines or trucks to stations, and $130

37 Schwartz, Peter and Randall, Doug. “How Hydrogen Can Save America.” Wired. April 2003. 38 King, Ralph. Mary Tolan’s Modest Proposal. Business2.0. June 2003 [on line] http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/print/0,1643,49464,00.html.n [4th June 2003]. 39 Ibid.

billion to retrofit filling stations. Her estimates for the cost to build the infrastructure are

an order of magnitude higher than what it will cost to develop the vehicle, and Tolan’s

estimates aren’t conservative. John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum

Institute (API), predicts it would cost 10 times what Tolan predicts40 and her plan doesn’t

even take into account hydrogen production from non-hydrocarbon feedstocks.

Regardless, it is clear that replacing a gasoline infrastructure that took almost a century to

build, with a hydrogen infrastructure, would be a mountainous task.

The hydrogen infrastructure will not be needed for a number of years, but proper

investment now would avoid a crisis-motivated program. Many of the major actions the

U.S. government undertakes are due to crises or national security. For example, the

Eisenhower National Defense Highway Act spent $300 billion of today’s dollars to build

the Interstate Highways System. The project was funded by a gas tax and was motivated

because the Germans had established a military advantage over the U.S. because they

could more easily move troops across the country.41 The hydrogen infrastructure could

also be built in one massive shot if crises prompt it. However, projects of this scale are

rare, and are more easily complete progressively.

The prospects for ultimate development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the

corresponding infrastructure are disputable, but even the most cynical hydrogen skeptics

will admit there is some possibility with proper government action. The hydrogen fuel

cell vehicle is not a panacea, nor is it a doomed descendent of the Hindenburg. It is a

difficult undertaking that could either change the lives of U.S. citizens or go the way of

PNGV.

If the poultry paradox is ever to be solved one thing is clear: a hydrogen infrastructure

won’t be a direct creation of the federal government, in the near term. Rather, policy

makers must attempt to create an environment where a hydrogen infrastructure will be

accepted as profitable by industry, safe by the public, and sustainable for the future.

40 Ibid. 41 Schwartz, Peter and Randall, Doug. “How Hydrogen Can Save America.” Wired. April 2003.

Though much of the legwork and investment will occur in the private sector, proper

government involvement in the early stages of infrastructure development will be crucial.

In order to sow the fields of prosperity for a hydrogen fueling infrastructure the U.S.

must establish policies that aid in: (1) Developing technologies, a workforce, and

insurable systems that make it safe, (2) Establishing codes and standards and an

economic climate that make it feasible, and (3) Promulgating production methods that

make it sustainable.

Note to the Reader: This paper is presented in a problem solution format. The author’s

goal is to present the major problems of a hydrogen fuel infrastructure in each of three

areas (safety, feasibility and sustainability) and then to pose possible solutions to the

problems in each respective section. Finally, recommendations are made to policy

makers on the practical pathways to those solutions.

Safety and Liability Issues

No matter how affordable infrastructure technologies are, they must also be safe to a

reasonable degree and insurable enough to sustain a mass market. Proper technology,

relevant safety codes, and possible tort protection would make hydrogen stable ground

for energy companies, insurance corporations, and the courts.

Abnormally Dangerous Liability

Gaseous hydrogen’s flammable properties make it a safety hazard that demands careful

attention and redundant safety systems. If hydrogen is leaked into the open air, it is more

prone to fires than conventional fuels. In fact, hydrogen has an extremely low ignition

energy whereby it can light as with a low as .02 milli-joules (mj) of energy,42 depending

on its concentration in air. The ignition energy is so low that static electricity and

lightning strikes from miles away can cause hydrogen flames.43∗ Facts like these are

troubling, but less so when one considers hydrogen isn’t much different from gasoline in

that static discharge with gasoline is a problem, which has been effectively dealt with for

a number of years.44 Hydrogen doesn’t always light at .02 mj, but it still has a broad

range of flammability. Hydrogen is flammable from 4.1 volume percentage in air to 75

percent. The range is staggering compared to hydrogen’s more familiar fuel counterpart,

gasoline, which has a range from 1 percent by volume to 7.8 percent.45 Besides the

intense damaging heat from a hydrogen fire, it is also disconcerting that hydrogen can

produce shockwaves if it’s detonated.46

The fire dangers of hydrogen transcend those of other fuels, but leakage prone. The

hydrogen molecule is diatomic in its natural state, making it more voluminous and

42 Appendix 1 43 Russell Moy. National Academies of Science. Personal Interview. 19 June 2003 ∗ Russell Moy is a Professional Engineer who designed a hydrogen fueling station for Ford Motor Co. His views don’t necessarally represent Ford’s or the NAS’s. 44 Rossmeissl, Neil. Department of Energy. Presentation, 5 June 2003. 45 Appendix 2

massive than the hydrogen atom that sits atop the periodic table. Even so, the hydrogen

gas molecule is extremely small and often escapes through gaskets.47 The miniscule

nature of hydrogen, along with its flammable characteristics, have led the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) to assign it an OSHA/NFPA 497 group B hazard rating48,

which identifies it as more dangerous than other transportation fuels. Unfortunately,

hydrogen leaks don’t just occur because the size of its molecules.

Hydrogen also escapes confinement because of a reaction called hydrogen embrittlement.

The reaction of hydrogen with many metallic materials can cause cracking and eventually

brittle failure under stress below the yield stress, especially at high pressures.49

Hydrogen embrittlement can occur with a number of metals, but high-strength steels and

aluminums, which are used in many conventional fuel storage and transportation systems,

are most susceptible.50 Though natural gas pipes sometimes leak or rupture, and gasoline

has been known to seep into ground water, the nature of hydrogen makes ubiquitous

leaks a safety hazard.

The unforgiving nature of hydrogen having been stated, it is also important to note that

hydrogen has been used safely in the United States for some time. Nine million tons of

“town gas,” which had approximately 50% gaseous hydrogen concentration and used to

light American’s lamps and heaters, was used annually in the U.S. without any major

accidents. Hydrogen has been used in industry for a number of years and has become as

common as jet fuel.51 In fact, it was first used by NASA for the Manned Orbital Lab

(MOL) and is still used to thrust rockets into space.52 At the same time, safety

precautions with hydrogen have been extensive and often times redundant in these uses

because of its natural properties. It is manageable, but uniquely dangerous.

46 Hydrogen: Fuel to the Future, Safety in Liquid Ground Based Hydrogen Logistics. Videocassette. 37 min. 47 Russell Moy. National Academies of Science. Personal Interview. 19 June 2003 48 Appendix 3 49 Bob Mauro. National Hydrogen Association. Personal Interview. 10 July 2003. 50 Corrosion Doctors. Hydrogen Embrittlement [on line]. http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Forms/embrittlement.htm [21st July 2003] 51 Hydrogen: Fuel to the Future, Safety in Liquid Ground Based Hydrogen Logistics. Videocassette. 37

The dangerous nature of hydrogen is a socially troubling issue, but the economic

difficulties incurred by liability and insurance costs of hydrogen systems could also be

very troublesome. Abnormally dangerous liability is one of the three well-known torts in

American law. A product is considered abnormally dangerous when risk cannot be

eliminated with reasonable care. Because of the safety issues discussed above, that could

be problematic if the general public uses hydrogen. Abnormally dangerous liability is

particularly troubling because it is a strict liability, meaning the courts don’t conduct

negligence or fault analysis, they just rule against the party that provided the liability.

Some examples of court-classified abnormally dangerous activities include the piping of

gasoline under residential neighborhoods and blasting with explosives. Even if hydrogen

were classified this way, it is possible that it could be lowered to a normally dangerous

product as aviation fuel was after it had been subject to 2035 pages of federal

regulations.53

The classification of hydrogen as abnormally dangerous is disputable. Kipp Coddington,

a lawyer and engineering graduate says, “You would have to store explosives near

hydrogen, in an elementary school, to say hydrogen is abnormally dangerous.”54 He also

feels that instead of heavy regulation it is more likely that as the United States public will

grow used to hydrogen and so, ultimately will the courts.55 Nonetheless, it is a concern

that must be addressed and has yet to be tested in court.

Hydrogen will always have some degree of liability attached to it. The issue is not the

presence of liability, but rather the coverage of the liability by insurance. There are three

types of insurance needed to establish a hydrogen infrastructure: property, mechanical

breakdown and liability insurance. Liability insurance is the driver for insurance

companies.56 Even though liabilities surround the public everyday--natural gas delivery

to houses and pipelines that run across the country, for example, they are of prime

52 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Presentation. 5 June 2003. 53 Moy, Russell. Liability and the Hydrogen Economy. Unpublished. 54 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003. 55 Ibid. 56 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003.

economic importance to insurance companies. For instance, two people were recently

killed in a liquid oil pipeline explosion near the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

because of a pipeline failure.

Figure 4 smoke towers from Washington pipeline explosion57

Figure 4 illustrates the amount of damage that can occur in a pipeline accident because of

the amount of combustible fuel that is present. The accident cost the energy supplier and

others upwards of $200 million and counting in fines and lawsuits58, much of which the

insurance industry had to cover.

It is possible that insurance companies could decide to insure a hydrogen-refueling

infrastructure on their own, but even if they couldn’t, public policy could solve the

problem. Insurance companies define risk as the probability of accident times its

consequences.59 The easy leakage of hydrogen could increase the probability of

accidents, and its flammability could make the consequences severe. Yet, The Hartford

57 Photo courtesy of news.bellinghamherald.com/explosion/ images/fire%20copy.jpg 58 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 59 Ibid.

Steam Boiler Insurance Company has said that it could insure a hydrogen infrastructure

on the Mechanical Breakdown side,60 and DOE is currently engaged in talks with Factory

Mutual Insurance Company about liability insurance. That company says it doesn’t have

a problem because the technology is proven.61 Nonetheless, if in the future insurance

companies see a liability problem on the horizon, the government could step in and help.

For instance, it could protect hydrogen suppliers by limiting their liability by establishing

an award ceiling as Congress did with the SAFETY Act, which protects manufacturers

who make and sell anti-terror technologies.62 The government could also cover part of

the claim. Legislation of this sort was enacted through The Price Anderson Act, under

the provisions of which the federal government covers half of a liability judgment, the

insurance company the other half.63 The American taxpayer would likely have a problem

with huge government backing of this sort, but it remains an option if insurance

companies prove to be an obstacle to creation of a hydrogen infrastructure.

Beyond tort reform, there are also technical solutions to the safety and liability that come

with the abnormally dangerous (not in the legal sense, necessarily) properties of

hydrogen. Basic research is under way at the University of Miami to explore the true

flammability limits of hydrogen. The established lower limit of 4% was proposed in

1961, but Miami researchers have good reason to believe the lower limit could be closer

to 6%,64 which would be higher than those for natural gas and ethanol.65 Research is also

ongoing in applicable safety codes and standards.

Safety codes and standards are vital to the establishment of a safe and liability-free

hydrogen-fueling infrastructure. According to Neil Rossmeissl of the DOE Office of

Power Technologies, “safety standards development is the issue with respect to

liability.”66 Codes and standards are important to insurance companies because they

60 Ibid. 61 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Presentation. 5 June 2003. 62 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003. 63 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 64 ASME-DOE Meeting. “Hydrogen Infrastructure-ASME Role.” 13 November 2002. 65 Appendix 3 66 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Personal Interview. 17 June 2003.

generally insure that products incorporate safety measures that often reduce accidents.67

However, it is important to note that compliance with federal and local regulations

doesn’t immunize a party from liability.68 Safety standards are already well established

for current uses of hydrogen, but they are undergoing dynamic changes as the fueling

infrastructure looks to move into urban areas. Issues such as setback distance and the

“foot print” of fueling stations are vital to this discussion and are discussed specifically in

the economics and logistics section of this report because of their impact on those two

categories.

Hydrogen is familiar, but not in commercial situations in urban areas. For this reason,

demonstration of the magnitude of hydrogen danger is needed. Amongst his other duties,

Neil Rossmeissl is attempting to list “every scenario that is unsafe”69 and testing and

demonstrating it. These demonstrations include making sure that if a hydrogen hose were

to disconnect, that an entire city block would not explode.

Product Liability

Gaseous hydrogen is not only a danger because of its flammable characteristics, but also

because of its clandestine characteristic of being difficult to detect. In its natural state

hydrogen is odorless, as is natural gas.70 However, unlike natural gas, hydrogen cannot

be odorized because all known odorizers ‘poison’ the catalyst (usually platinum) in the

hydrogen fuel cell.71 The odorless property of hydrogen is not shared by gasoline. The

potent smell of gas actually makes it inherently safe, as the human nose is one of the best

and most versatile known detectors: it has the ability to detect even the slightest of leaks

and can distinguish between many types of gaseous odors.

67 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 68 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003. 69 Ibid. 70 Appendix 3 71 Moy, Russell. Liability and the Hydrogen Economy. Unpublished.

The undetectable properties of hydrogen go beyond smell and include the hydrogen flame

and vapor cloud. Hydrogen flames appear orange at night, but are clear in the daylight.72

The invisibility is a real threat, even though the fire gives off extreme heat.

Figure 5 A clear hydrogen fire and orange flame from a broom conflagration73

In fact, people have unintentionally walked through hydrogen flames in the past.74 To

illustrate the clear flame, the NASA employee in Figure 5 passes a broom through what

seems to be open space, but actually sets the broom ablaze. Gaseous hydrogen leaks can

also be invisible. The vapor cloud is noticeable in humid climates, but fails to appear in

dry ones. The elimination of two primary senses (sight and smell) in the case of

hydrogen leaks and flames is another in the list of hydrogen liabilities.

Product liability is an issue with hydrogen because its un-detectability could prove it to

be a defective product in court. The legal issue here is a product that caused injury

because of an unsafe defect and that the provider did not adequately warn the user. The

72 Hydrogen: Fuel to the Future, Safety in Liquid Ground Based Hydrogen Logistics. Videocassette. 37 min. 73 Photo courtesy of www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/ spinoff1997/ps1.html 74 Russell Moy. National Academies of Science. Personal Interview. 19 June 2003.

lack of odor was argued successfully as an unsafe defect in the Colorado Supreme Court

in the case of unodorized propane.75 Though one could argue against it, product liability

could be a vulnerable tort for the hydrogen-fueling infrastructure.76 If, like abnormally

dangerous liability, product liability scared insurance companies, Congress could step in

and resolve the issue.

If hydrogen became commercial, as it would by the time an infrastructure were

established, Congress could avoid product liability issues with hydrogen by declaring it

ineligible for that tort. Congress is currently pursuing a similar measure in the case of

methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). MTBE is an oxygenate gasoline additive that aids

combustion and reduces pollution. Unfortunately, it has also been an environmental

menace because it has poisoned ground water all over the country. Hundreds of tort suits

have filed and, in response, Congress is now debating a provision that would shield

MTBE from liability because it is working as designed.77 Legislation of this sort may

have to be enacted in the case of hydrogen, but only in the event that insurance

companies couldn’t handle the liability alone.

Technology development is another way that the undetectability and product liability of

hydrogen could be mitigated. Specifically, useful sensors that would take the place of

human senses could greatly enhance the safety of a hydrogen infrastructure. Basic ultra-

violet hydrogen sensors are already in use78, but would not be practical in the public

domain. The difficulty in developing useful sensors lies in the fact that the exhaust in a

fuel cell vehicle consists of approximately 2% hydrogen and periodically fuel cell cars

would have to purge their systems (100% hydrogen given off). If a hydrogen sensor were

fairly sensitive to the volumetric percentage of hydrogen in air, which it would have to be

because of lower flammability limits, sensors would constantly be blaring.79 The ability

for a sensor to distinguish a hydrogen leak from a normal hydrogen purging would be

75 Moy, Russell. Liability and the Hydrogen Economy. Unpublished. 76 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003. 77 Ibid. 78 Hydrogen: Fuel to the Future, Safety in Liquid Ground Based Hydrogen Logistics. Videocassette. 37 min 79 Bob Mauro. National Hydrogen Association. Personal Interview. 10 July 2003.

difficult. It is one of the very issues being addressed by researchers at the National

Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) is working on. In one new development, Chevron

Corporation says it has an answer to the sensor problem.80

Negligence Liability

A few, very well trained, people have handled hydrogen in the past. Finding an

abundance of workers who can use hydrogen safely in the working environment will be

difficult. Hydrogen has been handled in the past by employees of large companies like

Air Products and PraxxAir and by government employees who work for NASA. A

hydrogen trained workforce is well established, but not to the degree as workers in the

petroleum and natural gas industries.

Hydrogen truckers♣ and handlers have to possess a wide array of knowledge about

hydrogen to handle it safely. They have to know how to operate an anti-pull away

system when hydrogen is being unloaded, how to ground the trailer and enable the fire

detection system, remove air from containers for maintenance, release nitrogen, and

handle hydrogen fires if they break out (one can’t use water as it will freeze on contact

with the liquid hydrogen).81 Gasoline truckers and handlers have similar training, but the

potential dangers of hydrogen require additional specialization.

Along with the small hydrogen safety-trained workforce is a proportionately small

emergency response network. In the past, energy suppliers have had to train their own

emergency responders. For instance, Russell Moy had to inform local fire officials of the

danger of hydrogen on behalf of Ford Motor Company when he led the building of their

hydrogen refueling station82 and Venki Raman had to internally train his safety personnel

for Air Products when building a demonstration refueling site in Las Vegas, Nevada.83

80 Eli Hopson. House Science Committee. Personal Interview. 24 June 2003. ♣ Truckers of liquid hydrogen. Gaseous hydrogen tube trailors are not used commericially at this time. 81 Hydrogen: Fuel to the Future, Safety in Liquid Ground Based Hydrogen Logistics. Videocassette. 37 min 82 Russell Moy. National Academies of Science. Personal Interview. 19 June 2003 83 Venki Raman. Air Products. Phone Interview. 11 July 2003.

Carl Rivkin of the NFPA is in the planning phases of establishing a safety-training

program for code officials and fire personnel.84 The government is also getting involved

with hydrogen training and education programs at the HAMMER facility in southeastern

Washington. Yet, a few programs will not fit the bill and undoubtedly, any

comprehensive hydrogen legislation would have to “have a paragraph on training a

hydrogen safety workforce.”85

A newly trained and fully prepared workforce might still not absolve energy companies

and those involved in building the hydrogen fuel infrastructure from liability. Negligence

liability “attaches when an injury results from an actor’s breach of a duty of care.”86

When establishing what “the reasonable standard of care is,” the courts would likely refer

to the past history of reasonable professionals. Those professionals include those select

few who are trained to double and triple check safety measures and that use safety

systems that are often expensive and redundant.87 If a commercial hydrogen

infrastructure were ever to practically exist, safety standards and practices would have to

be relaxed. It would be the burden of the defense to prove in court why reasonable

professionals handled hydrogen in a more liberal manner now, and why the past four

decades of published practices were wrong.88

Protection from negligence liability would lie in the integrity of new standards that will

evolve if a hydrogen-fueling infrastructure were ever created. If the courts found

hydrogen was deployed in an unsafe manner, the standards developing organizations

(SDOs) and not the energy companies could be held liable.89 Those specific standards,

including the reduction of setback distance, must be based on sound empirical evidence

and must also demonstrate why the old standards were too conservative. Other protection

from negligence liability includes setting awards ceilings and backing insurance

companies in some form with federal dollars. Early hydrogen training projects would

84 Carl Rivkin. National Fire Protection Association. 10 July 2003. 85 Eli Hopson. House Science Committee. Personal Interview. 24 June 2003. 86 Moy, Russell. Liability and the Hydrogen Economy. Unpublished. 87 Russell Moy. National Academies of Science. Personal Interview. 19 June 2003 88 Moy, Russell. Liability and the Hydrogen Economy. Unpublished. 89 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003.

also be important in preparing companies to insure the hydrogen infrastructure, because

insurance companies must create data warehouses to properly assess risk levels and

thereby establish appropriate insurance premiums.90

Popular Acceptance

Engineers could establish infallible hydrogen safety systems, but if the public were

fearful, almost no technology or legislation would be powerful enough to establish public

approval. The hydrogen safety issues discussed above have caused fear amongst some,

but many of today’s energy fuels have as well. People were worried when they were first

told there would be a flammable gas (NG) in every home in America, and citizens

mocked the idea that new buggies would soon ride down the street with tanks of

explosive gasoline onboard.91 The hydrogen infrastructure would also reduce

scaremongers and fearful people if it were to be commercialized like NG or gasoline. It

is an imperative issue. Bernie Selig, formerly of The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance

Company, says, “Public perception of risk is huge. Even if insurance companies can

tolerate the dangers, public opinion moves industry.”92

The greatest public perception hurdle for hydrogen would be getting over the Hindenburg

stereotype. The Hindenburg was a zeppelin airship that used hydrogen to provide lift, but

unlike fuel cell cars, not as fuel. The German vessel had carried 2,600 passengers in its

life before its infamous trip in May of 1937, when 35 people were killed after the ship

burst into flames during landing at Lakehurst, New Jersey. For 60 years the crowd that

gathered to watch the ship land, but instead saw it burn, believed the accident was caused

by hydrogen gas escaping, mixing with air and igniting.93 Some experts, including

NASA scientist Addison Bain who performed more than nine years of research on the

Hindenburg disaster, believe hydrogen had nothing to do with the disaster. Bain’s

90 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 91 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003. 92 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 93 Department of Energy. “The Hindenburg Myth.” [on line]

research concluded it was the chemical and electrical properties of the paint on the

zeppelin in combination with the weather during the ship’s landing that caused the vessel

to catch fire.94♦ Regardless if Bain is right or wrong, the public’s belief that hydrogen’s

to blame for the Hindenburg has made public perception of hydrogen an important issue.

The connection of hydrogen with weapons of mass destruction is also a public perception

issue that must be fought. Of course hydrogen on board a vehicle could never start an

uncontrolled fission reaction like that used for the bomb, unless of course a fission

detonator and certain hydrogen isotopes were nearby.95 But even hydrogen proponents

such as Richard Tuso, an Electrical Technician at Daimler-Chrysler, admit, "some people

think we have a hydrogen bomb back here (on board the fuel cell vehicle)."96 The public

perception of the danger of hydrogen might even mitigate growth of the hydrogen-fueling

infrastructure more than the enormous capital costs of building it.97 It must be overcome;

the nuclear industry has proven this.

The nuclear industry carries with it enormous energy potential, but public perception

from one major accident terminated additional construction of the nuclear energy

infrastructure, much as one accident could do to hydrogen. In the spring of 1979, the

Three-Mile Island nuclear power plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania released radiation to

the public after the reactor’s fuel core became uncovered and the nuclear fuel melted.

Even though the Pennsylvania Department of Health failed to find any unusual health

trends in the surrounding area over the next 18 years, the public outcry from the event has

deeply damaged the nuclear power industry.98 Three-Mile Island in effect crippled the

future of the nuclear industry even it has an otherwise enviable safety record. One

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/codes/safety_features.html [7 July 2003] 94 Ibid. ♦ Bain’s research has not yet been thoroughly refereed 95 Princeton Chm333. “Fuel Storage.” [on line] http://www.princeton.edu/~dcahan/fuelcells/H_storage.shtml [22 July 2003] 96 Rind, Ed. “Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars.” Ecoworld Upward Trend. 4 December 2000. [on line] http://www.ecoworld.org/Articles/Hydrogen_fuel_cars_EW.htm [22 July 2003] 97 Ibid. 98 World Nuclear Associatoin. “Three Mile Island: 1979.” May 2001. [on line] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf36.htm [22 July 2003]

hydrogen accident in the first few days of installing a commercial hydrogen fueling

stations could have the same consequences.99

One way to avoid the possible damaging effects of negative public opinion would be to

educate the public about the dangers of hydrogen and to prepare them for the risk

involved. The public knows of the danger involved in the gasoline and oil pipeline

infrastructure. There are approximately 18 deaths per year from pipeline accidents alone,

not to mention gasoline fires or natural gas explosion.100 The dangers of hydrogen won’t

just be accepted, though. They will have to be taught because “not enough people

assume risk in this country.”101 Public education programs about the dangers of

hydrogen and the safety precautions involved would prepare the public for fatal accidents

with hydrogen. Much like hydrogen handlers, the public must “have respect for

hydrogen, not fear,”102 even though “hydrogen tends to be more unforgiving of mistakes

than other fuels.”103 A swarm of these campaigns have recently developed, including

projects on the web like The Hydrogen News Letter104 and presentations at energy

conferences by industry advocacy groups like Hydrogen Now!.105 Larger projects have

also begun at the DOE. A hydrogen education initiative implemented by the Hydrogen,

Fuel Cells and Infrastructure technologies program itself received $2M in FY2003.106

Along with valid education, there is a need for an overall more positive presentation of

hydrogen if the Hindenburg/H-bomb stigma with hydrogen is to be overcome.

99 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 100 Ibid. 101 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Personal Interview. 17 June 2003. 102Hansel, James G. “Safety Considerations for Handling Hydrogen.” Air Products, 12 June 1998. 103 Ibid. 104 www.hydrogenus.com 105 www.hydrogennow.org 106 Cooper, Christy. “Education.” Department of Energy [on line] http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/pdfs/cooper_ee_education.pdf [22 July 2003]

Safety and Liability Issues

No matter how affordable infrastructure technologies are, they must also be safe to a

reasonable degree and insurable enough to sustain a mass market. Proper technology,

relevant safety codes, and possible tort protection would make hydrogen stable ground

for energy companies, insurance corporations, and the courts.

Abnormally Dangerous Liability

Gaseous hydrogen’s flammable properties make it a safety hazard that demands careful

attention and redundant safety systems. If hydrogen is leaked into the open air, it is more

prone to fires than conventional fuels. In fact, hydrogen has an extremely low ignition

energy whereby it can light as with a low as .02 milli-joules (mj) of energy,107 depending

on its concentration in air. The ignition energy is so low that static electricity and

lightning strikes from miles away can cause hydrogen flames.108∗ Facts like these are

troubling, but less so when one considers hydrogen isn’t much different from gasoline in

that static discharge with gasoline is a problem, which has been effectively dealt with for

a number of years.109 Hydrogen doesn’t always light at .02 mj, but it still has a broad

range of flammability. Hydrogen is flammable from 4.1 volume percentage in air to 75

percent. The range is staggering compared to hydrogen’s more familiar fuel counterpart,

gasoline, which has a range from 1 percent by volume to 7.8 percent.110 Besides the

intense damaging heat from a hydrogen fire, it is also disconcerting that hydrogen can

produce shockwaves if it’s detonated.111

107 Appendix 1 108 Russell Moy. National Academies of Science. Personal Interview. 19 June 2003 ∗ Russell Moy is a Professional Engineer who designed a hydrogen fueling station for Ford Motor Co. His views don’t necessarally represent Ford’s or the NAS’s. 109 Rossmeissl, Neil. Department of Energy. Presentation, 5 June 2003. 110 Appendix 2 111 Hydrogen: Fuel to the Future, Safety in Liquid Ground Based Hydrogen Logistics. Videocassette. 37 min.

The fire dangers of hydrogen transcend those of other fuels, but leakage prone. The

hydrogen molecule is diatomic in its natural state, making it more voluminous and

massive than the hydrogen atom that sits atop the periodic table. Even so, the hydrogen

gas molecule is extremely small and often escapes through gaskets.112 The miniscule

nature of hydrogen, along with its flammable characteristics, have led the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) to assign it an OSHA/NFPA 497 group B hazard

rating113, which identifies it as more dangerous than other transportation fuels.

Unfortunately, hydrogen leaks don’t just occur because the size of its molecules.

Hydrogen also escapes confinement because of a reaction called hydrogen embrittlement.

The reaction of hydrogen with many metallic materials can cause cracking and eventually

brittle failure under stress below the yield stress, especially at high pressures.114

Hydrogen embrittlement can occur with a number of metals, but high-strength steels and

aluminums, which are used in many conventional fuel storage and transportation systems,

are most susceptible.115 Though natural gas pipes sometimes leak or rupture, and

gasoline has been known to seep into ground water, the nature of hydrogen makes

ubiquitous leaks a safety hazard.

The unforgiving nature of hydrogen having been stated, it is also important to note that

hydrogen has been used safely in the United States for some time. Nine million tons of

“town gas,” which had approximately 50% gaseous hydrogen concentration and used to

light American’s lamps and heaters, was used annually in the U.S. without any major

accidents. Hydrogen has been used in industry for a number of years and has become as

common as jet fuel.116 In fact, it was first used by NASA for the Manned Orbital Lab

(MOL) and is still used to thrust rockets into space.117 At the same time, safety

precautions with hydrogen have been extensive and often times redundant in these uses

because of its natural properties. It is manageable, but uniquely dangerous.

112 Russell Moy. National Academies of Science. Personal Interview. 19 June 2003 113 Appendix 3 114 Bob Mauro. National Hydrogen Association. Personal Interview. 10 July 2003. 115 Corrosion Doctors. Hydrogen Embrittlement [on line]. http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Forms/embrittlement.htm [21st July 2003] 116 Hydrogen: Fuel to the Future, Safety in Liquid Ground Based Hydrogen Logistics. Videocassette. 37

The dangerous nature of hydrogen is a socially troubling issue, but the economic

difficulties incurred by liability and insurance costs of hydrogen systems could also be

very troublesome. Abnormally dangerous liability is one of the three well-known torts in

American law. A product is considered abnormally dangerous when risk cannot be

eliminated with reasonable care. Because of the safety issues discussed above, that could

be problematic if the general public uses hydrogen. Abnormally dangerous liability is

particularly troubling because it is a strict liability, meaning the courts don’t conduct

negligence or fault analysis, they just rule against the party that provided the liability.

Some examples of court-classified abnormally dangerous activities include the piping of

gasoline under residential neighborhoods and blasting with explosives. Even if hydrogen

were classified this way, it is possible that it could be lowered to a normally dangerous

product as aviation fuel was after it had been subject to 2035 pages of federal

regulations.118

The classification of hydrogen as abnormally dangerous is disputable. Kipp Coddington,

a lawyer and engineering graduate says, “You would have to store explosives near

hydrogen, in an elementary school, to say hydrogen is abnormally dangerous.”119 He also

feels that instead of heavy regulation it is more likely that as the United States public will

grow used to hydrogen and so, ultimately will the courts.120 Nonetheless, it is a concern

that must be addressed and has yet to be tested in court.

Hydrogen will always have some degree of liability attached to it. The issue is not the

presence of liability, but rather the coverage of the liability by insurance. There are three

types of insurance needed to establish a hydrogen infrastructure: property, mechanical

breakdown and liability insurance. Liability insurance is the driver for insurance

companies.121 Even though liabilities surround the public everyday--natural gas delivery

117 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Presentation. 5 June 2003. 118 Moy, Russell. Liability and the Hydrogen Economy. Unpublished. 119 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003. 120 Ibid. 121 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003.

to houses and pipelines that run across the country, for example, they are of prime

economic importance to insurance companies. For instance, two people were recently

killed in a liquid oil pipeline explosion near the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

because of a pipeline failure.

Figure 4 smoke towers from Washington pipeline explosion122

Figure 4 illustrates the amount of damage that can occur in a pipeline accident because of

the amount of combustible fuel that is present. The accident cost the energy supplier and

others upwards of $200 million and counting in fines and lawsuits123, much of which the

insurance industry had to cover.

It is possible that insurance companies could decide to insure a hydrogen-refueling

infrastructure on their own, but even if they couldn’t, public policy could solve the

problem. Insurance companies define risk as the probability of accident times its

consequences.124 The easy leakage of hydrogen could increase the probability of

122 Photo courtesy of news.bellinghamherald.com/explosion/ images/fire%20copy.jpg 123 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 124 Ibid.

accidents, and its flammability could make the consequences severe. Yet, The Hartford

Steam Boiler Insurance Company has said that it could insure a hydrogen infrastructure

on the Mechanical Breakdown side,125 and DOE is currently engaged in talks with

Factory Mutual Insurance Company about liability insurance. That company says it

doesn’t have a problem because the technology is proven.126 Nonetheless, if in the future

insurance companies see a liability problem on the horizon, the government could step in

and help. For instance, it could protect hydrogen suppliers by limiting their liability by

establishing an award ceiling as Congress did with the SAFETY Act, which protects

manufacturers who make and sell anti-terror technologies.127 The government could also

cover part of the claim. Legislation of this sort was enacted through The Price Anderson

Act, under the provisions of which the federal government covers half of a liability

judgment, the insurance company the other half.128 The American taxpayer would likely

have a problem with huge government backing of this sort, but it remains an option if

insurance companies prove to be an obstacle to creation of a hydrogen infrastructure.

Beyond tort reform, there are also technical solutions to the safety and liability that come

with the abnormally dangerous (not in the legal sense, necessarily) properties of

hydrogen. Basic research is under way at the University of Miami to explore the true

flammability limits of hydrogen. The established lower limit of 4% was proposed in

1961, but Miami researchers have good reason to believe the lower limit could be closer

to 6%,129 which would be higher than those for natural gas and ethanol.130 Research is

also ongoing in applicable safety codes and standards.

Safety codes and standards are vital to the establishment of a safe and liability-free

hydrogen-fueling infrastructure. According to Neil Rossmeissl of the DOE Office of

Power Technologies, “safety standards development is the issue with respect to

125 Ibid. 126 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Presentation. 5 June 2003. 127 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003. 128 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 129 ASME-DOE Meeting. “Hydrogen Infrastructure-ASME Role.” 13 November 2002. 130 Appendix 3

liability.”131 Codes and standards are important to insurance companies because they

generally insure that products incorporate safety measures that often reduce accidents.132

However, it is important to note that compliance with federal and local regulations

doesn’t immunize a party from liability.133 Safety standards are already well established

for current uses of hydrogen, but they are undergoing dynamic changes as the fueling

infrastructure looks to move into urban areas. Issues such as setback distance and the

“foot print” of fueling stations are vital to this discussion and are discussed specifically in

the economics and logistics section of this report because of their impact on those two

categories.

Hydrogen is familiar, but not in commercial situations in urban areas. For this reason,

demonstration of the magnitude of hydrogen danger is needed. Amongst his other duties,

Neil Rossmeissl is attempting to list “every scenario that is unsafe”134 and testing and

demonstrating it. These demonstrations include making sure that if a hydrogen hose were

to disconnect, that an entire city block would not explode.

Product Liability

Gaseous hydrogen is not only a danger because of its flammable characteristics, but also

because of its clandestine characteristic of being difficult to detect. In its natural state

hydrogen is odorless, as is natural gas.135 However, unlike natural gas, hydrogen cannot

be odorized because all known odorizers ‘poison’ the catalyst (usually platinum) in the

hydrogen fuel cell.136 The odorless property of hydrogen is not shared by gasoline. The

potent smell of gas actually makes it inherently safe, as the human nose is one of the best

and most versatile known detectors: it has the ability to detect even the slightest of leaks

and can distinguish between many types of gaseous odors.

131 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Personal Interview. 17 June 2003. 132 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 133 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003. 134 Ibid. 135 Appendix 3

The undetectable properties of hydrogen go beyond smell and include the hydrogen flame

and vapor cloud. Hydrogen flames appear orange at night, but are clear in the daylight.137

The invisibility is a real threat, even though the fire gives off extreme heat.

Figure 5 A clear hydrogen fire and orange flame from a broom conflagration138

In fact, people have unintentionally walked through hydrogen flames in the past.139 To

illustrate the clear flame, the NASA employee in Figure 5 passes a broom through what

seems to be open space, but actually sets the broom ablaze. Gaseous hydrogen leaks can

also be invisible. The vapor cloud is noticeable in humid climates, but fails to appear in

dry ones. The elimination of two primary senses (sight and smell) in the case of

hydrogen leaks and flames is another in the list of hydrogen liabilities.

Product liability is an issue with hydrogen because its un-detectability could prove it to

be a defective product in court. The legal issue here is a product that caused injury

because of an unsafe defect and that the provider did not adequately warn the user. The

136 Moy, Russell. Liability and the Hydrogen Economy. Unpublished. 137 Hydrogen: Fuel to the Future, Safety in Liquid Ground Based Hydrogen Logistics. Videocassette. 37 min. 138 Photo courtesy of www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/ spinoff1997/ps1.html

lack of odor was argued successfully as an unsafe defect in the Colorado Supreme Court

in the case of unodorized propane.140 Though one could argue against it, product liability

could be a vulnerable tort for the hydrogen-fueling infrastructure.141 If, like abnormally

dangerous liability, product liability scared insurance companies, Congress could step in

and resolve the issue.

If hydrogen became commercial, as it would by the time an infrastructure were

established, Congress could avoid product liability issues with hydrogen by declaring it

ineligible for that tort. Congress is currently pursuing a similar measure in the case of

methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). MTBE is an oxygenate gasoline additive that aids

combustion and reduces pollution. Unfortunately, it has also been an environmental

menace because it has poisoned ground water all over the country. Hundreds of tort suits

have filed and, in response, Congress is now debating a provision that would shield

MTBE from liability because it is working as designed.142 Legislation of this sort may

have to be enacted in the case of hydrogen, but only in the event that insurance

companies couldn’t handle the liability alone.

Technology development is another way that the undetectability and product liability of

hydrogen could be mitigated. Specifically, useful sensors that would take the place of

human senses could greatly enhance the safety of a hydrogen infrastructure. Basic ultra-

violet hydrogen sensors are already in use143, but would not be practical in the public

domain. The difficulty in developing useful sensors lies in the fact that the exhaust in a

fuel cell vehicle consists of approximately 2% hydrogen and periodically fuel cell cars

would have to purge their systems (100% hydrogen given off). If a hydrogen sensor were

fairly sensitive to the volumetric percentage of hydrogen in air, which it would have to be

because of lower flammability limits, sensors would constantly be blaring.144 The ability

for a sensor to distinguish a hydrogen leak from a normal hydrogen purging would be

139 Russell Moy. National Academies of Science. Personal Interview. 19 June 2003. 140 Moy, Russell. Liability and the Hydrogen Economy. Unpublished. 141 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003. 142 Ibid. 143 Hydrogen: Fuel to the Future, Safety in Liquid Ground Based Hydrogen Logistics. Videocassette. 37 min

difficult. It is one of the very issues being addressed by researchers at the National

Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) is working on. In one new development, Chevron

Corporation says it has an answer to the sensor problem.145

Negligence Liability

A few, very well trained, people have handled hydrogen in the past. Finding an

abundance of workers who can use hydrogen safely in the working environment will be

difficult. Hydrogen has been handled in the past by employees of large companies like

Air Products and PraxxAir and by government employees who work for NASA. A

hydrogen trained workforce is well established, but not to the degree as workers in the

petroleum and natural gas industries.

Hydrogen truckers♣ and handlers have to possess a wide array of knowledge about

hydrogen to handle it safely. They have to know how to operate an anti-pull away

system when hydrogen is being unloaded, how to ground the trailer and enable the fire

detection system, remove air from containers for maintenance, release nitrogen, and

handle hydrogen fires if they break out (one can’t use water as it will freeze on contact

with the liquid hydrogen).146 Gasoline truckers and handlers have similar training, but

the potential dangers of hydrogen require additional specialization.

Along with the small hydrogen safety-trained workforce is a proportionately small

emergency response network. In the past, energy suppliers have had to train their own

emergency responders. For instance, Russell Moy had to inform local fire officials of the

danger of hydrogen on behalf of Ford Motor Company when he led the building of their

hydrogen refueling station147 and Venki Raman had to internally train his safety

personnel for Air Products when building a demonstration refueling site in Las Vegas,

144 Bob Mauro. National Hydrogen Association. Personal Interview. 10 July 2003. 145 Eli Hopson. House Science Committee. Personal Interview. 24 June 2003. ♣ Truckers of liquid hydrogen. Gaseous hydrogen tube trailors are not used commericially at this time. 146 Hydrogen: Fuel to the Future, Safety in Liquid Ground Based Hydrogen Logistics. Videocassette. 37 min 147 Russell Moy. National Academies of Science. Personal Interview. 19 June 2003

Nevada.148 Carl Rivkin of the NFPA is in the planning phases of establishing a safety-

training program for code officials and fire personnel.149 The government is also getting

involved with hydrogen training and education programs at the HAMMER facility in

southeastern Washington. Yet, a few programs will not fit the bill and undoubtedly, any

comprehensive hydrogen legislation would have to “have a paragraph on training a

hydrogen safety workforce.”150

A newly trained and fully prepared workforce might still not absolve energy companies

and those involved in building the hydrogen fuel infrastructure from liability. Negligence

liability “attaches when an injury results from an actor’s breach of a duty of care.”151

When establishing what “the reasonable standard of care is,” the courts would likely refer

to the past history of reasonable professionals. Those professionals include those select

few who are trained to double and triple check safety measures and that use safety

systems that are often expensive and redundant.152 If a commercial hydrogen

infrastructure were ever to practically exist, safety standards and practices would have to

be relaxed. It would be the burden of the defense to prove in court why reasonable

professionals handled hydrogen in a more liberal manner now, and why the past four

decades of published practices were wrong.153

Protection from negligence liability would lie in the integrity of new standards that will

evolve if a hydrogen-fueling infrastructure were ever created. If the courts found

hydrogen was deployed in an unsafe manner, the standards developing organizations

(SDOs) and not the energy companies could be held liable.154 Those specific standards,

including the reduction of setback distance, must be based on sound empirical evidence

and must also demonstrate why the old standards were too conservative. Other protection

from negligence liability includes setting awards ceilings and backing insurance

companies in some form with federal dollars. Early hydrogen training projects would

148 Venki Raman. Air Products. Phone Interview. 11 July 2003. 149 Carl Rivkin. National Fire Protection Association. 10 July 2003. 150 Eli Hopson. House Science Committee. Personal Interview. 24 June 2003. 151 Moy, Russell. Liability and the Hydrogen Economy. Unpublished. 152 Russell Moy. National Academies of Science. Personal Interview. 19 June 2003 153 Moy, Russell. Liability and the Hydrogen Economy. Unpublished.

also be important in preparing companies to insure the hydrogen infrastructure, because

insurance companies must create data warehouses to properly assess risk levels and

thereby establish appropriate insurance premiums.155

Popular Acceptance

Engineers could establish infallible hydrogen safety systems, but if the public were

fearful, almost no technology or legislation would be powerful enough to establish public

approval. The hydrogen safety issues discussed above have caused fear amongst some,

but many of today’s energy fuels have as well. People were worried when they were first

told there would be a flammable gas (NG) in every home in America, and citizens

mocked the idea that new buggies would soon ride down the street with tanks of

explosive gasoline onboard.156 The hydrogen infrastructure would also reduce

scaremongers and fearful people if it were to be commercialized like NG or gasoline. It

is an imperative issue. Bernie Selig, formerly of The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance

Company, says, “Public perception of risk is huge. Even if insurance companies can

tolerate the dangers, public opinion moves industry.”157

The greatest public perception hurdle for hydrogen would be getting over the Hindenburg

stereotype. The Hindenburg was a zeppelin airship that used hydrogen to provide lift, but

unlike fuel cell cars, not as fuel. The German vessel had carried 2,600 passengers in its

life before its infamous trip in May of 1937, when 35 people were killed after the ship

burst into flames during landing at Lakehurst, New Jersey. For 60 years the crowd that

gathered to watch the ship land, but instead saw it burn, believed the accident was caused

by hydrogen gas escaping, mixing with air and igniting.158 Some experts, including

NASA scientist Addison Bain who performed more than nine years of research on the

154 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003. 155 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 156 Kipp Coddington. Alston and Bird Attorneys at Law. Personal Interview. 17 July 2003. 157 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 158 Department of Energy. “The Hindenburg Myth.” [on line] http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/codes/safety_features.html [7 July 2003]

Hindenburg disaster, believe hydrogen had nothing to do with the disaster. Bain’s

research concluded it was the chemical and electrical properties of the paint on the

zeppelin in combination with the weather during the ship’s landing that caused the vessel

to catch fire.159♦ Regardless if Bain is right or wrong, the public’s belief that hydrogen’s

to blame for the Hindenburg has made public perception of hydrogen an important issue.

The connection of hydrogen with weapons of mass destruction is also a public perception

issue that must be fought. Of course hydrogen on board a vehicle could never start an

uncontrolled fission reaction like that used for the bomb, unless of course a fission

detonator and certain hydrogen isotopes were nearby.160 But even hydrogen proponents

such as Richard Tuso, an Electrical Technician at Daimler-Chrysler, admit, "some people

think we have a hydrogen bomb back here (on board the fuel cell vehicle)."161 The public

perception of the danger of hydrogen might even mitigate growth of the hydrogen-fueling

infrastructure more than the enormous capital costs of building it.162 It must be

overcome; the nuclear industry has proven this.

The nuclear industry carries with it enormous energy potential, but public perception

from one major accident terminated additional construction of the nuclear energy

infrastructure, much as one accident could do to hydrogen. In the spring of 1979, the

Three-Mile Island nuclear power plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania released radiation to

the public after the reactor’s fuel core became uncovered and the nuclear fuel melted.

Even though the Pennsylvania Department of Health failed to find any unusual health

trends in the surrounding area over the next 18 years, the public outcry from the event has

deeply damaged the nuclear power industry.163 Three-Mile Island in effect crippled the

future of the nuclear industry even it has an otherwise enviable safety record. One

159 Ibid. ♦ Bain’s research has not yet been thoroughly refereed 160 Princeton Chm333. “Fuel Storage.” [on line] http://www.princeton.edu/~dcahan/fuelcells/H_storage.shtml [22 July 2003] 161 Rind, Ed. “Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars.” Ecoworld Upward Trend. 4 December 2000. [on line] http://www.ecoworld.org/Articles/Hydrogen_fuel_cars_EW.htm [22 July 2003] 162 Ibid. 163 World Nuclear Associatoin. “Three Mile Island: 1979.” May 2001. [on line] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf36.htm [22 July 2003]

hydrogen accident in the first few days of installing a commercial hydrogen fueling

stations could have the same consequences.164

One way to avoid the possible damaging effects of negative public opinion would be to

educate the public about the dangers of hydrogen and to prepare them for the risk

involved. The public knows of the danger involved in the gasoline and oil pipeline

infrastructure. There are approximately 18 deaths per year from pipeline accidents alone,

not to mention gasoline fires or natural gas explosion.165 The dangers of hydrogen won’t

just be accepted, though. They will have to be taught because “not enough people

assume risk in this country.”166 Public education programs about the dangers of

hydrogen and the safety precautions involved would prepare the public for fatal accidents

with hydrogen. Much like hydrogen handlers, the public must “have respect for

hydrogen, not fear,”167 even though “hydrogen tends to be more unforgiving of mistakes

than other fuels.”168 A swarm of these campaigns have recently developed, including

projects on the web like The Hydrogen News Letter169 and presentations at energy

conferences by industry advocacy groups like Hydrogen Now!.170 Larger projects have

also begun at the DOE. A hydrogen education initiative implemented by the Hydrogen,

Fuel Cells and Infrastructure technologies program itself received $2M in FY2003.171

Along with valid education, there is a need for an overall more positive presentation of

hydrogen if the Hindenburg/H-bomb stigma with hydrogen is to be overcome.

Figure 6 Two ways to present the H2 filled Hindenburg: as majestic or catastrophic172

164 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 165 Ibid. 166 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Personal Interview. 17 June 2003. 167Hansel, James G. “Safety Considerations for Handling Hydrogen.” Air Products, 12 June 1998. 168 Ibid. 169 www.hydrogenus.com 170 www.hydrogennow.org 171 Cooper, Christy. “Education.” Department of Energy [on line] http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/pdfs/cooper_ee_education.pdf [22 July 2003] 172 Left image courtesy of www.sunlight.de/x-plane/ aircraft.htm. Right picture courtesy of www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ homs/hindenburg.jpg

For instance, when pictures of the Hindenburg are shown they can be ones demonstrating

the majesty of the Zepplin as in Figure 6, left, rather than the traditional image shown in

Figure 6, right.♠

♠ (See DOE website)

Economic and Logistics Issues

The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle must have a commensurate infrastructure where hydrogen

piping, storage systems and fueling stations are not prohibited by cost and unfeasible

codes and standards. A fully functioning hydrogen infrastructure will most likely cost

trillions of dollars and even on that scale decreasing systems costs is imperative.

Overcoming the safety issues stated in prior section will also be a major hurdle in

building a convenient fueling infrastructure. These two issues will have two fundamental

solutions. First, there must be enough market demand for huge investment by energy

companies. Second, codes and standards must be established that make safe and

convenient fueling possible and that promote the successful commercialization of

hydrogen.

Existing Stations and Infrastructure

A substantial hydrogen infrastructure already exists, but not on the scale of the oil-gas

infrastructure. The current petroleum fuel infrastructure handles a domestic load of 4.8

million barrels per day (MBD) and 9.3 MBD of imported petroleum in the U.S. There

are 86,000 miles of pipeline to refineries, 133 refineries (16.6 MBD capability), 91,000

miles of pipes to 1,400 regional terminals and 100,000 trucks to transport 350 million

gallons per day to 170,000 fueling stations.173 The less than 1000 miles of existing

hydrogen pipelines and 7 demonstration refueling stations174 are pittance in comparison

to the over $1 trillion investment that the petroleum infrastructure represents.

Hitherto, most available hydrogen refueling stations in the U.S. have been completed

with some government funding and look much different than typical gas stations.

Refueling station projects are ongoing, but major projects have been completed in Las

Vegas, rural California, Dearborn, Michigan and Chicago. Government involvement in

these demonstration sites include basic funding and limiting liability agreements that

173 Exxon Mobil Corporate Planning. “Infrastructure Challenges of Hydrogen as a Transportation Fuel.” Presentation, May 2003.

keep public access to a minimum.175 Current hydrogen refueling stations also differ from

gas stations because if hydrogen is present in bulk it must be handled in an unconfined

outdoor work area.176 Accordingly, even stations like the one built in urban Las Vegas

have to be formed on large areas of real estate177 because of regulations on the built

environment primarily established by the International Code Council (ICC) and NFPA.178

Despite the caveats of pragmatism, these fueling stations are quite extensive.

The most well publicized U.S. refueling station was built as part of the California Fuel

Cell Partnership. The Fuel Cell Partnership involves private companies such as British

Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, Shell Hydrogen, Chevron Texaco, Air Products and Chemicals

and PraxxAir. Goals of the partnership include promotion of the hydrogen vehicle and

refueling station. The completed refueling station has a 4,500-gallon cryogenic tank that

stores hydrogen at –423 oF (-253 oC) and a vaporizer that converts the liquid to hydrogen

to gaseous hydrogen. Once the hydrogen is vaporized it is compressed to 6,250 psig in

order to maintain reasonable energy density and it’s stored in three large has gaseous

hydrogen storage tubes. The stations somewhat resembles an everyday gas station by

pumping different grades of fuel (3600 psig gaseous, 5000 psig gaseous and a liquid

hydrogen dispenser). Also, the pumps are in parallel convenience with gas stations

because refueling times average 4 minutes, though the process is fully automated unlike

current self-service stations. The station is unique because it employs doubled walled

storage tanks with a 1/2 inch stainless steel plate inner wall that has a pressure relief

valve built in if hydrogen pressure rises too high. Beyond that, UV and infrared (IR)

detectors are used to identify hydrogen leaks because of its explosive nature and

clandestine form. The California refueling station is expansive, but even larger projects

174 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Presentation, 5 June 2003. 175 Venki Raman. Air Products and Chemicals. Phone Interview. 11 July 2003. 176 Hydrogen: Fuel to the Future, Safety in Liquid Ground Based Hydrogen Logistics. Videocassette. 37 min. 177 Venki Raman. Air Products and Chemicals. Phone Interview. 11 July 2003. 178 Domestic Hydrogen Standards, Codes and Regulations: Template for Vehicle Systems and Refueling Facilities. Unpublished.

have been completed oversees that can be used as an example for commercialized U.S.

stations.179

Honda has also developed a demonstration fueling station at its headquarters in

California.

Figure 7 The Honda solar-hydrogen fueling station180

The Honda station shown in Figure 7 is part of the California Fuel Partnership, but is

unique because it generates hydrogen on-site through electrolysis with solar energy (see

production section). This site is in the experimental stages, but still has the capability of

independently producing 8,000 liters of gaseous hydrogen a year.181

U.S. policy makers can help to make new demonstration projects logistically feasible and

available to the public by using successful international demonstration projects as

examples. Stations have been constructed at an airport in Germany, 5 stations have been

completed in Japan, and Iceland has pushed massive construction. Iceland’s stations are

still novel, but are largely available to the public, which the U.S. demonstration projects

179 The California Fuel Cell Partnership. Fact Sheet: Hydrogen Fueling Station. [on line] http://www.fuelcellpartnership.org/factsheet_fuelstation.html [3 July 2003] 180 Photo courtesy of www.hfcletter.com/ letter/august01/ 181 Honda Installs Solar Hydrogen Fueling Station Near LA, First for Any Carmaker. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter, August 2001. [on line] www.hfcletter.com/ letter/august01/ [29 July 2003]

cannot claim. $10.1 million out of $28.1 million of the DOE’s technology validation

budget for FY04 has been directed to refueling infrastructure demonstration and

validation projects.182 In order for demonstration refueling sites to reach most major

cities, policy makers must shift more resources and develop larger partnerships with

private industries. If hydrogen-refueling stations ever develop beyond the demonstration

stage, there must be a reliable system to distribute hydrogen.

Distribution

Hydrogen will travel from its production site to refueling stations either as a pure gas, or

as a liquid or hydrogen rich fuel. It will most likely do so in one of three shipping

mediums: piping systems, tube trailers, or with existing gasoline and natural gas

infrastructures. The permutations of how these three infrastructures will co-exist are

voluminous; and even the DOE doesn’t plan to figure out the most ‘cost effective and

energy efficient fuel delivery infrastructure’ for long-term use until 2005.

The two largest existing systems for large-scale fuel shipment, those for oil and natural

gas, can be models for future hydrogen distribution. If hydrogen is dispensed at

commercial fueling stations, as gasoline is, it will most likely be batch-processed. Batch

processing uses tankers and pipes for distribution. In particular, oil is piped from

refineries to storage tanks and is then taken by tanker to gas stations. Natural gas, on the

other hand, is distributed continuously through pipelines from wells to process facilities

to local distribution companies to houses.183 Continuous processing would be used if

hydrogen were dispensed from garages, a possibility that DOE is examining.184

A hydrogen distribution network already exists and an expanded version could take

advantage of the extensive natural gas infrastructure. The first option for use of the

natural gas infrastructure would be to pipe the hydrogen rich gas to local sites and reform

182 Gronich, Sig. “Technology Validation.” Presentation, 11 June 2003. 183 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 184 Rossmeissl, Neil. Department of Energy. Presentation, 5 June 2003.

it on-site185 (see sustainability section for distributed reforming issues). Second, pure

gaseous hydrogen could be piped though the carbon steel natural gas pipes, 186 which

hydrogen embrittles at high pressures. However, at low pressures, around 700 psi,

natural gas pipes could be used if coated with oxygen.187 Some feel that 700 psi piping

wouldn’t be expensive,188 but Neil Rossmeissl points out that industry must pay for

volumetric flow rate and that hydrogen piping will only work at 5,000 to 10,000 psi. In

this case, new hydrogen pipes made of expensive stainless steel, incadel, or advanced

materials would have to be used.189 Around 700 miles of hydrogen pipelines exist in the

U.S., a network that could be expanded because industry and government have existing

systems to deal with hydrogen piping. For instance, the Department of Transportation’s

Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA) has experience as the controlling

authority for hydrogen pipeline safety190 and as soon as hydrogen pipelines cross state

lines the DOT’s Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) assumes jurisdiction.191 Moreover,

ASME has established applicable piping codes (B31.1,3,8 and 8S), but even those would

have to be modified if hydrogen distribution were expanded.192

Existing hydrogen infrastructure will aid in transition to a commercial infrastructure, but

new pipelines and codes and standards will have to be developed as well. Among the

many options, pipelines appear to be the best alternative for the long term.193 This is

reflected in the high percentage (30%) of the FY2004 hydrogen funding request that will

go toward piping, while less than $2 million of the $5 million budget will go to analysis,

liquefaction R&D, and compression R&D (30%, 20% and 20% respectively). The

greatest barrier for installing new hydrogen pipes is the high capital cost, which amounts

185 Garman, David. 2003, “The Hydrogen Energy Economy.” Hearing before subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. 20 May 2003. 186 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 187 Bob Mauro. National Hydrogen Association. Personal Interview. 10 July 2003. 188 Ibid. 189 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 190 Domestic Hydrogen Standards, Codes and Regulations: Template for Vehicle Systems and Refueling Facilities. Unpublished. 191 Bernie Selig. The Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Company (formerly). Personal Interview. 18 July 2003. 192 John Koehr. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Personal Interview. 9 June 2003.

to approximately $1.50 to $3.00 per kilogram of hydrogen.194 This is a huge cost because

one kg of hydrogen has the approximate energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline.195

On top of that, codes and standards barriers would have to be overcome. ASME has

formed a group, the Hydrogen Steering Committee, and charged it with addressing

pressure range issues and service requirements for metallic and composite material

piping. The steering committee is still gathering and reviewing information to identify

research and development needs in this area,196 which means these new codes are years

away from adoption. In general, the main goal of all standards developing organizations

(SDOs) with respect to hydrogen codes and standards is reflected by John Koehr of

ASME’s Codes and Standards Technology Institute (CSTI), “we just want to make sure

when [industry] needs [hydrogen codes and standards], they will be ready.”197

The primary mode for current hydrogen shipment is liquid hydrogen trucking, but

technology and codes and standards must be better developed for commercial use. Air

Products sends much of its hydrogen to NASA facilities via tankers, and The California

Fuel Partnership receive all of its hydrogen that way.198 The main function of tankers in

a widely deployed distribution network would most likely be to ship across regions, while

expensive pipes would remain regional.199 For that to happen, the U.S. would have to

make advances in storage technology. Current hydrogen tankers have 130 kg of steel per

kg of hydrogen.200 This means that tube trailers can’t hold much hydrogen because the

weight of steel is limiting. In fact, approximately 19 hydrogen tube trailers contain the

energy of one gasoline tanker truck. Liquefaction is also an expensive process at $2 to

$8/kg of hydrogen.201 Poor energy density and the cost of liquefaction mean it would

193 Paster, Mark. “Hydrogen Delivery.” Presentation, 11 June 2003. 194 Ibid. 195 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Personal Interview. 28 July 2003. 196 John Koehr. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Personal Interview. 9 June 2003. 197 Ibid. 198 The California Fuel Cell Partnership. Fact Sheet: Hydrogen Fueling Station. [on line] http://www.fuelcellpartnership.org/factsheet_fuelstation.html [3 July 2003] 199 Bob Mauro. National Hydrogen Association. Personal Interview. 10 July 2003. 200 Exxon Mobil Corporate Planning. “Infrastructure Challenges of Hydrogen as a Transportation Fuel.” Presentation, May 2003. 201 Paster, Mark. “Hydrogen Delivery.” Presentation, 11 June 2003.

require approximately the amount of energy California uses in a year to satisfy their

liquid hydrogen demand.202 Technological advances must be made to make tanker

trucking and piping feasible.

Policy makers could solve hydrogen delivery problems by developing new technology

and by aiding the codes and standards establishment process, which would spur demand.

If tanker storage is to become cheaper, and energy density to be increased, the

government must invest in R&D in this area and at a level higher than the $2 to $5

million currently requested for FY04. But federal R&D won’t create the infrastructure.

Hydrogen pipes are available and can be built all over the U.S. It’s not a matter of the

government pouring money into infrastructure investments; it’s a matter of when industry

feels it can make money.203 The DOE’s involvement in codes and standards should

continue to include keeping track of the many SDOs forming hydrogen C&S and also to

place DOE personnel on several code committees.

Building New Stations

If a hydrogen infrastructure is ever to make it past the demonstration phase, new stations

will have to be built. Constructing new hydrogen stations and a hydrogen infrastructure,

that is at least as convenient as the current petroleum one, will determine the ultimate

success of mass market penetration for fuel cell vehicles.204 Unfortunately, hydrogen

refueling stations, especially those near cities, won’t be as easy to construct as gas

dispensing stations. The greatest logistical difficulties will be to establish codes and

standards that allow for hydrogen storage along with gasoline, and those that reduce the

“foot print”♠ of the station.

202 Exxon Mobil Corporate Planning. “Infrastructure Challenges of Hydrogen as a Transportation Fuel.” Presentation, May 2003. 203 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Personal Interview. 17 June 2003 204 Garman, David. 2003, “The Hydrogen Energy Economy.” Hearing before subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. 20 May 2003. ♠ Area of land a station takes up.

The standards for the hydrogen fueling station are like any other engineering standard

and are written by technical experts “to promote safety, reliability, productivity and

efficiency.”205 In the case of hydrogen, the main function of codes and standards would

be to assuage safety and liability concerns, while fostering acceptance of a new form of

energy.206 Following development, the existing standards could become codes, which

would require adoption by one or more governmental bodies, giving them the force of

law.207 Adoption of fueling station standards by state and local governments would

establish the standards as controlling authorities over fueling facilities, along with the fact

that fueling facilities are regulated through zoning and building permits.208 The primary

hydrogen goal for many SDOs, with respect to refueling stations, is to develop general

standards that allow hydrogen to be handled like any other fuel. For instance, the

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is trying to categorize hydrogen with

general compressed gases and cryogenic fluids, and gaseous-liquid fuel separation, by

incorporating hydrogen into existing storage and utilization documents, thereby creating

one general code.209

One of the greatest logistical challenges with current domestic hydrogen station codes

and standards are the large required offset distances between hydrogen tanks and

common objects. Some sample setbacks from hydrogen tank placement include up to 50

ft. for gaseous hydrogen (GH) and 100 ft. for liquid hydrogen (LH) from buildings, up to

100 ft. from flammable liquid storage, up to 50 ft. for GH and 75 ft. for LH from

concentrations of people, and up to 75 feet from roads and property lines.210 This is

problematic if one expects to have gasoline, roads or people anywhere near a hydrogen

storage unit. These distances were chosen because of the basic hydrogen safety hazards.

However, the DOE thinks the setback distances can be decreased because there wasn’t a

205 About Codes and Standards. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. [on line] http://www.asme.org/codes/faq.html#standard [28 July 2003]. 206 Department of Energy. “Fuel Cell Report to Congress.” February 2003. 207 About Codes and Standards. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. [on line] http://www.asme.org/codes/faq.html#standard [28 July 2003]. 208 Domestic Hydrogen Standards, Codes and Regulations: Template for Vehicle Systems and Refueling Facilities. Unpublished. 209 Carl Rivkin. National Fire Protection Association. Phone Interview. 10 July 2003. 210 Moy, Russell. “Hidden Costs of Alternative Fuels and Vehicles.” Presentation, 11 June 2001.

sound empirical basis for the original distances that date back 30 to 40 years.211

Similarly, some private firms with experience in hydrogen storage and use, like Venki

Raman of Air Products and Chemicals, feel the setback in current NFPA and Compressed

Gas Association (CGA) standards are too conservative and must be reduced.212 Research

in this area is being conducted at Sandia National Laboratories and involves producing

data for risk assessment at certain offset distances.213 The DOE expects the data to be

collected by the 2006 code cycle and work completed around 2008214, at which point

SDOs, like the NFPA, would incorporate results of the setback distance study into new

codes.215 Further studies like the Sandia one must be conducted in order for reasonably

sized fueling stations to be constructed, and such studies must be empirically sound so

they will stand up in court (see Safety and Liability section.) The new and old offset

distances are measured with respect to normal, above-ground hydrogen storage, but a

new storage paradigm could make offset distances less burdensome and concurrently

reduce the “footprint” for hydrogen refueling stations.216

Currently, bulk hydrogen is stored in voluminous containers above ground, but if it is to

become an urban commodity it will have to be stored underground. Land is expensive,

which means that high-density bulk storage is a necessity. Industry has expressed a

preference for 15% to 20% by weight (70% by volume) storage, which is possible via

advanced materials and engineering. 217 Specific options include 5,000 and 10,000-psi

gaseous underground storage. The difficulty with high-pressure underground tanks is not

a lack of technology, but rather the high cost of corrosion protection and piping, a large

contributor to the $1.20 (with economies of scale) to $6.00 (more realistic) price per kg

of Hydrogen.218 The International Code Council (ICC) and other organizations are

performing needed tests and experiments to see what kind of corrosion protection would

211 Jim Ohi. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Phone Interview. 30 June 2003. 212 Venki Raman. Air Products and Chemicals. Phone Interview. 11 July 2003. 213 Carl Rivkin. National Fire Protection Association. Phone Interview. 10 July 2003. 214 Jim Ohi. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Phone Interview. 30 June 2003. 215 Carl Rivkin. National Fire Protection Association. Phone Interview. 10 July 2003. 216 Jim Ohi. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Phone Interview. 30 June 2003. 217 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Personal Interview. 17 June 2003 218 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Presentation. 5 June 2003.

be needed to use concrete vaults.219 Others working on the bulk storage problem include

the Gas Technology Institute.220 The issue will not be difficult to solve, but further

research -- and possibly the development of new alloys – is needed.221 This is reflected

by the $1.5 million DOE is allotting for compressed and liquid tanks, out of its $30

million FY04 request. The Department’s goal is to have working LH tank

demonstrations by 2006.222 Applicable complex metal hydrides and chemical hydrides

for bulk storage could also be used, but are a way off, as the DOE doesn’t even plan to

make a “best chemical hydride materials selection” until 2006. 223 Single walled carbon

nanotubes (SWNTs) could also be used as they have shown 4% by weight storage in

normal conditions, up to 8.25% at 80K and 20% with lithium doping.

Figure 8 Hydrogen molecules stored inside of single walled carbon nanotubes224

Figure 8 illustrates how hydrogen is stored in a nanotube matrix, with the diameter of the

SWNTs only a few hydrogen molecules across. Unfortunately, these experiments have

219 Jim Ohi. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Phone Interview. 30 June 2003. 220 ASME-DOE Meeting. “Hydrogen Infrastructure-ASME role.” 13 November 2002. 221 Jim Ohi. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Phone Interview. 30 June 2003. 222 Millikan, Jo Ann. “Hydrogen Storage.” Presentation, 11 June 2003. 223 Ibid. 224 Image by Hansong Chen, courtesty of www.trincoll.edu/.../fullerenefold/ h2nanotubes.gif

only been done on the microgram scale and haven’t achieved replication.225

Breakthroughs in these technologies could revolutionize hydrogen storage and public

policy must demand continued basic, risky research in these mediums if they’re to

become viable technologies. This is reflected by the $25 million of the $30 million FY04

DOE hydrogen storage request that would be appropriated to chemical hydrides,

reversible solid-state materials and advanced concepts.226

Other than RD&D, codes and standards must be developed for underground storage. The

primary code for storage tanks is the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC).

The CSA, CGA, and NFPA have also been active SDOs.227 ASME has applicable

above ground tank codes in Sections VIII and X of the BPVC, and in code case 2390.

These areas cover recommended tank pressures, sizes, and safety factors for high-

pressure vessels; composite vessels holding up to 3650 psi; and fiber-reinforced plastic

vessels, respectively.228 However, work must progress because even some standards of

large SDOs don’t have a section for underground storage. The Compressed Gas

Association has an outer steel tank standard (341) that could be made into a new standard

for stationary storage, and two committees are looking at new composite material storage

that could be used underground. Tom Joseph of Air Products and Chemicals is a member

of one of those committees and believes there will be a working standard by 2004. 229

Code establishment in this area shouldn’t be too difficult, but the DOE must continue to

shepherd relevant SDOs, and local governments must technically analyze the written

codes to stay clear of liability.

Continuum to Commercial Use

The progression of refueling stations would most likely start with the opening of current

demonstration sites to the public and continue in stages to commercial use. As stated

225 Ogden, Joan M. “Hydrogen: The Fuel to the Future?” Physics Today, April 2002. 226 Millikan, Jo Ann. “Hydrogen Storage.” Presentation, 11 June 2003. 227 Domestic Hydrogen Standards, Codes and Regulations: Template for Vehicle Systems and Refueling Facilities. Unpublished. 228 John Koehr. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Personal Interview. 9 June 2003. 229 Tom Joseph. Air Products. Phone Interview. 10 July 2003.

before, the U.S. government has been active in contributing to demonstration refueling

sites, but it can’t stop there. Neil Rossmeissl of the DOE points out there must be an

RD&D-to-commercialization continuum where DOE is very active at the high risk stages

(basic R&D) and somewhat active in demonstrations.230

The next major step for DOE and the federal government would be to become an early

user by purchasing fleets of buses231 or military vehicles that run on hydrogen. Next, a

few centralized city stations would most likely be built to satisfy the demand of the fleet

vehicles until approximately 1,000 stations were built.232 At that point, when stations

could be opened to the public, a critical juncture would likely occur. Bob Mauro of the

National Hydrogen Association estimates that if 1 million U.S. vehicles were run on

hydrogen (2% of U.S. fleet), the U.S. would need 30,000 to 35,000 stations (25% of U.S.

stations) to be hydrogen compatible. At that point, government subsidies for energy

companies would be crucial in order to upgrade to 20% to 25% hydrogen dispensing.233

As mass hydrogen fuel cell vehicle grew, infrastructure costs would continue to rise

exponentially along with demand. An Argonne National Laboratory study estimates that

it would cost $500 billion to satisfy 40% vehicle penetration by 2030, while 2% by 2020

would only cost $60 billion. Those numbers would likely change if introduction of the

hydrogen fuel cell vehicle happened later, but the price would still be steep. Regardless,

until such time as energy industries were able to profit because of vehicle demand, policy

makers would have to provide incentives to users and energy companies in order to make

a refueling infrastructure a commercial reality.

230 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Personal Interview. 17 June 2003 231 Ibid. 232 Bob Mauro. National Hydrogen Association. Personal Interview. 10 July 2003. 233 Ibid.

Production and Sustainability Issues

The purpose of developing a hydrogen-powered vehicle was simply stated by President

George W. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union Address: Such a vehicle should be built

“so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and

pollution-free,”234 the President told Congress. It is true that the tailpipes of hydrogen

fuel cell vehicles emit no pollution, but because hydrogen doesn’t exist by itself in nature,

one has to take into account how hydrogen is produced.

Known hydrogen production procedures include methane steam reforming of natural gas,

syngas reformation from coal gasification, electrolysis, steam electrolysis, thermo

chemical water splitting, photolysis, biological and photobiological water splitting,

thermal water splitting and biomass gasification to name a few.235 Some of these

production methods (natural gas steam-methane reforming, coal gas) involved

hydrocarbon fuels and pollution.

Hydrocarbon reforming

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles yield no tailpipe emissions, but the entire well-to-wheel

process involving hydrogen production and use must be examined. For instance,

hydrogen production requires chemical processing from a primary source such as coal,

natural gas, or oil gas.

234 President George W. Bush. 2003 State of the Union Address.

Figure 9 A molecule of natural gas (methane)236

When hydrogen is extracted from methane gas, the carbon molecule represented in

Figure 9 doesn’t disappear. Rather, it mixes into the environment, and as Frank Kreith,

PhD., PE points out, “a hydrogen-powered vehicle would not be a friend to the

environment if natural gas or any other fossil fuel were used as the primary energy source

to generate hydrogen.”237 This is because the losses in efficiency in upstream production

processes cause emissions.

Hydrogen vehicles using fuels made from natural gas have poor efficiencies, which mean

they also give off high emissions. The rule of thumb is that in fossil fuel-based vehicles,

green house gases (GHGs) are generated at approximately the inverse proportion to well-

to-wheel efficiency.238 Well-to-wheel efficiency is calculated by multiplying the

efficiencies of all conversion processes that are executed from when the energy source is

taken out of the ground (well) to when it takes the form of mechanical energy by spinning

tires (wheel). For example, a certain hydrogen electrolysis process has a 59% efficiency,

235 OTT[Office of Transportation Technologies]. Just the Basics: Hydrogen [on line]. http://www.ott.doe.gov/jtb_hydrogen.shtml [25 April 2003]. 236 Image courtesty of www.lacledegas.com/products/ images/molecule.jpg 237 Kreith, Frank and West, R.E. “Gauging Efficiency, Well to Wheel.” Mechanical Engineering Power. June 2003 238 Ibid.

but if the electricity was generated from a natural gas-fired power plant with 40%

efficiency, shipped through a grid with 95% efficiency and the hydrogen is run through a

fuel cell with 40% efficiency the overall well to wheel efficiency is calculated as

09.4.95.4.59. =×××

or 9%.239 Using this method, Frank Kreith examined the well-to-wheel efficiencies of

advanced fuel/vehicle systems automobiles. He concluded that in the next 25 years

Fisher-Tropsch diesel hybrids would be far more efficient than practical hydrogen fuel

cell vehicles. Specifically, the diesel hybrids (which could be sustainable for 200-300

years240) have 30-32% efficiencies, while hydrogen vehicles using natural gas from a

central facility would yield 27% efficiency.241 Electrolysis from efficient natural gas

power plants yields even lower (13%) efficiency.242 Deriving hydrogen in this form from

natural gas yields approximately 30kg of GHGs/gallon equivalent of gasoline, which is

high compared to photovoltaic electrolysis production, which yields less than 3kg of

GHGs/gallon equivalent.243 A study from MIT’s Lab for Energy and the Environment

also concluded a hydrogen car won’t out-perform, from an efficiency perspective, a

diesel hybrid’s GHG reduction by 2020.244

Despite its efficiency drawbacks, using natural gas to produce hydrogen could be

beneficial for many reasons. First, natural gas is a relatively abundant domestic energy

source with 188 quads (quadrillion BTUs) of known reserves (97 quads of energy were

used in the United States in 2001 from all sources).245 Second, natural gas can aid in

commercialization of hydrogen as an energy carrier because of its relatively low $.60 -

239 Kreith, Frank. “The Cost of Hydrogen.” Mechanical Engineering. June 2002 [on line] http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/june02/departments/letters/letters.html [23 July 2003] 240 Frank Kreith. PhD. and Professional Engineer. Personal Interview. 9 July 2003. 241 Kreith, Frank and West, R.E. “Gauging Efficiency, Well to Wheel.” Mechanical Engineering Power. June 2003 242 See Appendix 4 243 Friedman, David. Union of Concerned Scientists. “Hydrogen, Fuel Cell Vehicles and the Transportation Sector.” Presentation, 10 June 2003. 244 Stauffer, Nancy. Hydrogen Vehicle Won’t be Viable Soon. MIT Tech Talk, 5 March 2003 [on line] http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2003/mar05/hydrogen.html [25 April 2003] 245 Paster, Mark. Department of Energy. “Hydrogen Production Feedstock and Process Considerations.” Presenation, 11 June 2003.

$1.00/kg cost when reformed at a central location. Distributed natural gas reforming is a

little more expensive at $4 to $6.00/kg,246 but the DOE feels it can reduce the cost to

$1.50/gallon of gasoline equivalent (without carbon sequestration).247 The distributed

option would be ideal because of the existing natural gas infrastructure and because it

would create a 60% reduction in GHG vs. today’s ICEs248, but the capital costs of

distributed natural gas reforming are two times too high to make it feasible in the near

term. Third, natural gas could be used as a gateway to sustainable production because

lowering the price for hydrogen fuel could spur demand for hydrogen and bring down the

cost of other production methods.

The economic advantages of production from natural gas could act as a gateway to true

sustainability if proper public policies were enacted. The first policy priority would be to

increase the natural gas supply, as virtually no natural gas has been put into storage for

the coming winter.249 Even environmental enthusiasts feel natural gas is a transition fuel

to sustainable hydrogen production if market volatility and inadequate supply inventory

challenges could be overcome.250 If natural gas supply problems were overcome by

importing liquefied natural gas (LNG), the U.S. would have to adopt policies to ensure

that a certain percentage of hydrogen production came from truly sustainable feedstocks.

This is because building LNG terminals brings concerns of terrorism, spills, and

importing from unstable geopolitical regions, which is the same road as oil251 and is

paradoxical to the purpose of hydrogen altogether.

Other hydrocarbons can be reformed into hydrogen, like coal and gasoline, but they carry

the same inherent efficiency shortcomings as natural gas. New technology from Franklin

Fuel Cells Company resulted in solid oxide fuel cells that could use the hydrocarbon fuel

of your choice: coal, gas, diesel, or even jet fuel.252 However, coal is a more likely

246 Ibid. 247 Department of Energy. “Hydrogen Production.” Presentation, 11 June 2003. 248 Paster, Mark. Department of Energy. “Hydrogen Production Feedstock and Process Considerations.” Presenation, 11 June 2003. 249 Neil Rossmeissl. Department of Energy. Personal Interview. 17 June 2003. 250 Carol Werner. Environmental and Energy Study Institute. Personal Interview. 3 July 2003. 251 Ibid. 252 Needleman, Rafe. Building the Hydrogen Economy-with Gasoline. Business 2.0, 28 March 2003.

commercial feedstock. Coal is by far the nation’s most abundant energy source, with

5,780 known recoverable quads.253 Hydrogen can be produced at $.90 to $1.80/kg from

coal at central plants or it can be use to make syngas (methanol, ethanol or FT Diesel),254

which can be reformed locally. Hydrocarbon reforming could be useful if U.S. policy

makers are careful because “if you’re not careful you’ll end up where you’re headed.”255

The only way to totally obviate GHG problems would be to use nuclear power or

renewable sources of production, or to develop carbon sequestration.256

Carbon sequestration technologies would be have to be deployed if hydrogen were to be

developed from hydrocarbons in the near- to mid-term. Carbon sequestration is the

process where carbon dioxide is impounded inside geological formations such as

depleted gas reserves or in deep saline aquifers.257 Prototypes like FutureGen, a project

of DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy, are underway, but carbon sequestration may be as far

off as hydrogen. One difficulty with sequestration is that it can’t be done unless

hydrogen is produced at a central facility, which discounts distributed production

options.258 It’s also extremely expensive; sequestration costs must be lowered by a factor

of ten to make it viable.259 For sequestration to become viable, policies would have to be

put in place to strictly limit overall carbon dioxide emissions, a political hot potato. Eli

Hopson, of the House Science Committee says, “there is too much stock in sequestration

because we don’t even have a carbon policy.”260 For carbon sequestration to be used

during hydrogen reforming there would first have to be a policy mandating reporting,

then a trading system like that outlined in the Kyoto Protocol and, finally, carbon limits.

This is because sequestration results in close to a 10% increase in the cost of producing

[on line] http://www.business2.com/articles/web/print/0,1650,48338,00.html [4 June 2003] 253 Paster, Mark. Department of Energy. “Hydrogen Production Feedstock and Process Considerations.” Presenation, 11 June 2003. 254 Ibid. 255 Carol Werner. Environmental and Energy Study Institute. Personal Interview. 3 July 2003. 256 Stauffer, Nancy. Hydrogen Vehicle Won’t be Viable Soon. MIT Tech Talk, 5 March 2003 [on line] http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2003/mar05/hydrogen.html [25 April 2003] 257 Department of Energy. FutureGen-A Sequestration and Hydrogen Research Initiative. [on line] http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/integratedprototype/futuregen_factsheet.pdf [24 July 2003] 258 Patrick Quinlan. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Personal Interview. 18 June 2003. 259 Garman, David. 2003, “The Hydrogen Energy Economy.” Hearing before subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. 20 May 2003.

power, and only a dramatic change in public policy could force energy companies to

incur that cost.261

Nuclear Production

Unsustainable forms of hydrogen are cost effective, but quasi-sustainable production

methods like electrolysis from nuclear energy could also be used. Electricity from

nuclear power plants is cost competitive with fossil sources, and hydrogen could be

produced with this electricity during “off peak” time. However, nuclear energy has its

own hurdles including waste, public perception, and the somewhat limited supply of

uranium-235.

Besides electrolysis with nuclear energy, high temperature and ultra-high temperature

water splitting can be used to convert H20 to H2. Thermo chemical water splitting

research began in the 1970’s, but is still in early development stages. High-temperature

(700 to 10000C) water splitting uses central production in the form of Generation IV

nuclear power plants and chemical cycles262 (S-I or Ca-Br).263 Alternatively, ultra-high

temperature (1000 to 30000C) or direct (>25000C) water splitting can be used can be

used. These new technologies are interesting, but would require a successful Generation

IV program, high-temperature materials advances, and intermediate heat exchanger

improvements. All of these processes have potential efficiencies of over 50%, and

DOE’s goal is to have thermo chemical hydrogen production down to $2.00/kg by 2015.

Currently, DOE has asked for $4 million for R&D in this area in FY2004 ($2 million for

thermo chemical cycles, $1 million for high-temperature electrolysis and $1 million for

balance of plants and materials).264 The 2004 Energy and Water appropriations bill in the

Senate would provide $8 million for this new Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative265, while the

260 Eli Hopson. House Science Committee. Personal Interview. 24 June 2003. 261 Department of Energy. FutureGen - A Coal-Fueled Prototype for a Hydrogen Production/ Carbon Sequestration Power Plant. [on line] http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/integratedprototype/index.shtml [24 July 2003] 262 Department of Energy. “Hydrogen Production.” Presentation, 11 June 2003. 263 See Appendix 5. 264 Department of Energy. “Hydrogen Production.” Presentation, 11 June 2003. 265 Senate. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill of 2004, S.1424. 17 July 2003.

House bill would provide $2.5 million.266 The difference must be worked out in a

Conference Committee. The government must fund this risky research if it is ever to

come to fruition. While these production methods aren’t proven, they do have potential

and they are quasi-sustainable (due to the finite nature of uranium-235). But Patrick

Quinlan of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory says it best: “Sustainability is a

mandate for the future.”267

Renewables

Sustainable, renewable sources could be used to generate electricity for electrolysis, and

in the near term only wind makes sense. Renewable sources are plentiful in nature and

produce enough energy to reproduce themselves.268 The only renewable that is cost

competitive in electricity generation is wind if hydrogen is produced centrally, because

distributed renewable electrolysis is still around $4 to $8/kg.269 When electricity is

generated from windmills, it usually is used in the grid270 where electricity demands are

higher than for transportation. That will be the case until such time as hydrogen vehicles

represent a majority of vehicles on the road. But wind has the potential to power the

transportation sector as well. If the high capital costs of wind farms could be

surmounted, wind power could be used during “off peak” hours to generate hydrogen.271

If electrolysis became the option, many different methods could be used to generate the

electricity to generate hydrogen. Natural gas and wind could be used in the areas of the

country where they are prevalent; communities in the Northwest and Northeast could rely

on biomass; and the West and Southwest could use solar power.272

266 House of Representatives. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill of 200, H.R. 2754. 16 July 2003. 267 Patrick Quinlan. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Personal Interview. 18 June 2003. 268 Frank Kreith. PhD. and Professional Engineer. Personal Interview. 9 July 2003. 269 Paster, Mark. Department of Energy. “Hydrogen Production Feedstock and Process Considerations.” Presenation, 11 June 2003. 270 Frank Kreith. PhD. and Professional Engineer. Personal Interview. 9 July 2003. 271 Friedman, David. Union of Concerned Scientists. “Hydrogen, Fuel Cell Vehicles and the Transportation Sector.” Presentation, 10 June 2003. 272 Bob Mauro. National Hydrogen Association. Personal Interview. 10 July 2003.

Solar energy could be used in one of two ways: for electrolysis or for high-temperature

water splitting. Hydrogen production from solar electrolysis, or photolysis, consists of a

silicon semi-conductor releasing an electron when sunlight hits it, whereby a cathode is

created that gives an electron to two H+ ions that create H2.273 Hitherto, photolysis has

not been cost competitive, but DOE’s goal is to have it down to $5/kg by 2015.274 Mark

Paster of DOE’s The Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies (HFCIT)

program says for the long term this production method is “a great option,”275 but would

require a major cost reduction in photovoltaic (PV) materials.276 If PV hydrogen

production were to progress, policy makers would have to invest in R&D for a new

generation of PV materials. They also would have to continue to support projects like the

SWB solar hydrogen project at Neunburg vorm Wald, Germany. This project has been

testing industrial sized systems that produce photolytic hydrogen for 13 years, but hasn’t

been significantly expanded because it’s not economically competitive.277

Biomass is another renewable source of energy that could sustainably produce hydrogen

in a number of ways, but at great economic expense. Biomass is interesting because even

though there are only 6 to 10 quads per year currently available, the number could grow

immensely depending on land supply. Biomass could produce hydrogen in a number of

ways, including sugar hydrogenization, fermentation to ethanol with further reformation,

or from bio-oil pyrolysis. Biomass also happens to be the cheapest feedstock next to

coal, but production processes make hydrogen from biomass more expensive than from

coal, at $2 to $4/kg.278 Other long-term biomass production methods include

photosynthetic organisms like algae that make hydrogen, but at $200/kg, a breakthrough

is needed here.279 Sustainable hydrogen production from biomass is at its early stages,

and the government would have to continue to fund high risk R&D if it were ever to

become a viable energy source.

273 The Solar Hydrogen Project at Neunburg vorm Wald. Videocassette. 22 min. 274 Department of Energy. “Hydrogen Production.” Presentation, 11 June 2003. 275 Paster, Mark. Department of Energy. “Hydrogen Production Feedstock and Process Considerations.” Presenation, 11 June 2003. 276 Ibid. 277 The Solar Hydrogen Project at Neunburg vorm Wald. Videocassette. 22 min. 278 Paster, Mark. Department of Energy. “Hydrogen Production Feedstock and Process Considerations.” Presenation, 11 June 2003.

In order to achieve sustainability, policy makers will eventually have to focus attention

on hydrogen and renewable energy concurrently. Much of the proposed new funding for

DOE’s hydrogen program resulted from cutbacks in spending on renewable research,

development, and demonstration projects.280 Well before gas prices rise as sources

deplete, the government must invest in renewable sources to make them viable. There is

a gap between the current state of the technologies and what is need for

commercialization and somewhere around a $10 billion investment is needed to make a

real difference.281

Other Issues

Researchers at California Institute of Technology, who have modeled the effects of a

hydrogen economy, predict that leaked hydrogen could deplete the ozone layer. They

used a model (Cal tech/JPL 2-D) of the atmospheric chemistry of hydrogen. The

research concluded there could be almost a 1 part per million (ppm) by volume increase

of water vapor in the stratosphere which, among other things, could cause stratospheric

cooling and significant ozone depletion. However, this model assumed that 20% of

hydrogen produced would leak into the atmosphere somewhere along the production,

storage, and transportation continuum.282 Many experts feel the number is closer to 2%,

and the theory has been responded to by “flustered amusement.”283 If this research is

credible, past action on CFC emissions forecasts a dismal future for hydrogen production.

279 Ibid. 280 Carol Werner. Environmental and Energy Study Institute. Personal Interview. 3 July 2003. 281 Ibid. 282 T.K. Tromp, R.L. Shia, M. Allen, J.M. Eiler and Y.L. Yung. “Potential Environmental Impacts of a Hydrogen Economy on the Stratosphere.” 13 June 2003. 283 Eli Hopson. House Science Committee. Personal Interview, 24 June 2003.

Policy Recommendations and Conclusions∗

A hydrogen fuel infrastructure will not be realized without proper action from both

private and public entities. There are many hurdles in the way, but none to large to

prevent a hydrogen infrastructure from ever existing. If the infrastructure is to ever

commercially emerge, energy companies will provide almost all of the investment in the

long term. However, investment by the federal government in the near term, and proper

policies throughout the research, development, demonstration and commercialization

continuum will be crucial for market deployment.

The obstacles to building a hydrogen infrastructure are great, and involvement at every

level of the federal government is needed. The President of the United States must

follow up on the excitement he created in the hydrogen community in his 2003 State of

the Union by requesting adequate funding for infrastructure projects. Congress must

adopt policies that mandate partnership with industry, continued funding of hydrogen

R&D, and eventually set targets for market penetration of hydrogen vehicles. State

legislatures and regulators must fund regional demonstration projects and adopt valid

hydrogen standards as codes. Finally, government agencies, primarily DOE, must

judicially direct federal dollars in order to obviate all obstructions the private sector

cannot overcome on their own. Overall, public policies that will greatly affect the

hydrogen infrastructure are RD&D spending, incentives, use of convening power, and

possibly tort reform.

Action on Pending Legislation

Passing of the comprehensive energy, which was still at conference at the time this was

written, with requisite follow up by appropriations is critical if a hydrogen infrastructure

is ever to evolve. Along with matching the President’s request for the Hydrogen Fuel

Initiative, amendments demanding that a certain percentage of government bus fleets

have to be hydrogen powered are important for infrastructure development. This is

∗ These recommendations reflect the view of the author and not those of ASME or any other entity.

because between the demonstration and commercial stages of the fuel infrastructure,

using hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will not be profitable for private fleet vehicles. Since

the market is not available, the federal government acting as an early user can fill the

market void and spur continuation to commercialization. The comprehensive energy bill

should also oblige cost sharing for DOE projects, because involvement by energy

companies at the early stages of deployment will help them the transition to

implementing large-scale projects in the future.

Future RD&D and Incentives

Basic hydrogen infrastructure RD&D funding levels should remain constant in most

areas for the next five to ten years, and drop off as energy companies begin to see profit

possibilities. Funding should not rise for most infrastructure programs because industry

can jump many of the infrastructure hurdles on their own, but it should increase in areas

of risky research. Funding should be increased in hydride and carbon nanotube storage

research as these technologies could change the storage paradigm allowing for

convenient bulk storage at refueling stations and the reduction of problematic setback

distances.

Proper incentives must also be developed along with RD&D to bolster demand. The

federal government will not build the infrastructure alone, but bolstering demand for

hydrogen fuel, which would push energy companies to create the supply. Tax incentives

must be implemented for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles at the point when they are cost

competitive with luxury cars. Incentives should be increased until those fuel cell vehicles

are cost competitive with standard automobiles, and should drop off as the market

increases. Incentives for energy companies will be vital as the fraction of hydrogen

powered vehicles increases to around 2% of the U.S. fleet. At that juncture, central-

refueling sites will not be able to handle the vehicle load and true commercialization must

commence. Huge investments by energy companies will be needed in order to increase

the portion of refueling stations that are hydrogen compliant to between 20 and 25% of

all stations, because of the demand for convenience by Americans.

Other Policies

The federal government must continue to use its convening power to ensure adequate

codes and standards are developed for the hydrogen fuel infrastructure. It is not clear

what the hydrogen infrastructure will look like, what kind of distribution system will be

used, or whether or not hydrogen will be dispensed as a gas or a liquid. New

technologies, storage devices, and deliver systems will crop up as time goes on. All of

these new technologies will need valid, safe codes and standards in order to be

shepparded into the marketplace. Though DOE and other government agencies will not

control how SDOs write their codes, they must find where new C&S need to be

developed and encourage the appropriate SDO to create them.

Finally, the government should explore the liability costs in a hydrogen infrastructure,

and should consider public policies to shield energy companies from liability. Liability

costs should be studied and estimated for negligence, abnormally dangerous, and product

torts. If the government study shows liability is an impassible impediment, tort reform

must be considered. However, tort reform should not be enacted until the hydrogen fuel

infrastructure is near commercial deployment and insurance companies waiver. At that

point, the government should consider indemnification for energy companies, liability

ceilings, and financial backing of insurance companies.

In conclusion, developing a hydrogen infrastructure to accommodate the hydrogen fuel

cell vehicle will be difficult, but not impossible. Breakthroughs must be made, leadership

must be provided, risks must be taken, and the American people must accept hydrogen

into their society. It is not a question of can, rather will.

Appendices

1: Hydrogen Flammability Limits284

284 Hansel, James G. Air Products and Chemicals. “Safety Considerations for Handling Hydrogen.” Presentation, 12 June 1998.

2: Fuel Combustion Properties285

285 Hansel, James G. Air Products and Chemicals. “Safety Considerations for Handling Hydrogen.” Presentation, 12 June 1998.

Property Hydrogen Methane Propane Gasoline Lower flammability limit for upward propagating flame (vol % in air)

4.1 5.3 2.1 1.0

Upper flammability limit (vol % in air)

75 15 10 7.8

Minimum ignition energy (mJ)

0.02 0.29 0.26 0.24

Minimum self-ignition temperature of a stoichiometric mixture (K)

858 813 760 501-744

Adiabatic flame temperature in air (K)

2,318 2,148-2,227 2,385 2,470

3: Gas Properties/NFPA Group Ratings286

286 Moy, Russell. “Hidden Costs of Alternative Fuels and Vehicles.” Presentation, 11 June 2001.

4: Well-to-Wheel Vehicle Efficiencies287

287 Chart courtesy of http://www.memagazine.org/mepower03/gauging/gauging.html

5: Thermochemical Water Splitting Cycles288

S-I Cycle

2H2SO4 2SO2 + 2H2O + O2 (Heat Input at 800o C)

2HI I2 + H2 (Heat Input at 450o C)

I2 + SO2 + 2H2O 2HI + H2SO4 (Heat Rejection at 120o C)

ZnO Cycle

ZnO(s) Zn(g) + ½ O2 (Heat Input at 2300o C)

Zn + H20 ZnO(s) + H2 (Heat Rejection at 750o C)

Ca-Br Cycle

CaBr2 + H2O CaO + 2HBr (727o C)

CaO + Br2 CaBr2 + ½ O2 (550o C)

Fe3O4 + 8HBr 3FeBr2 + 4H20 + Br2 (220o C)

3FeBr2 + 4H20 Fe3O4 + 6HBr + H2 (650o C)

Modified Ca-Br Cycle

CaBr2 + H20 CaO + 2HBr (727o C)

CaO + Br2 CaBr2 + ½ O2 (550o C)

2HBr + plasma H2 + Br2 (65oC)

288 Paster, Mark. Department of Energy. “Hydrogen Production Feedstock and Process Considerations.” Presentation, 11 June 2003.