Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative Risk Assessment of a Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers-Based Hydrogen Refueling Station

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The demand for hydrogen, a carbon–neutral fuel, is expected to increase in the coming decades. However, the current storage efficiency of gaseous hydrogen is poor. Liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs), which store hydrogen in liquid form under ambient conditions, show promise for on-site hydrogen refueling stations. Toluene-methylcyclohexane is one of the LOHC, it has advantages cost-effect and environmentally to large-scale hydrogen transportation, but it should be evaluated risk assessment based on the chemicals, because there is inherent harm from the properties like toxicity or flammability. Herein, quantitative risk assessment (QRA) results for worst-case scenarios, individual risk (IR), and societal risk (SR) for a methylcyclohexane-based on-site hydrogen refueling station (MHRS) are compared with those a gaseous hydrogen refueling stations (GHRS). The latter is more likely to have explosion-related accidents, while the former is more likely to have had fire-related accidents. Both show similarly high societal risks. The rupture of the MCH storage tank poses the most significant risk, but installing a dike reduces by 86%, thereby placing it within acceptable limits. Thus, the key risk factors for future on-site hydrogen refueling stations are identified and insights into mitigating them are offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AHRS :

Ammonia-based hydrogen refueling station

ALARP :

As low as reasonably practicable

EIHP-2 :

European Integrated Hydrogen Project 2

ERPG :

Emergency response planning guide

ESD :

Emergency shutdown

ETA :

Event tree analysis

F-N :

Frequency of events which causes at least N fatalities

FCEV :

Fuel-cell electronic vehicles

GHRS :

Gaseous hydrogen refueling station

H2 :

Hydrogen

HMB :

Heat and mass balance

HRS :

Hydrogen refueling station

IR :

Individual risk

LOHC :

Liquid organic hydrogen carrier

MCH :

Methylcyclohexane

MHRS :

MCH-based hydrogen refueling station

PFD :

Process flow diagram

PSA :

Pressure swing adsorption

QRA:

Quantitative risk assessment

SNL:

Sandia National Laboratory

SR:

Societal risk

References

  1. Special report- global wawrming of 1.5°C. 2018, IPCC

  2. IRENA, Global Energy Transformation: A roadmap to 2050. 2018

  3. Net Zero by 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. 2021, IEA

  4. G. Gowrisankaran, S.S. Reynolds, M. Samano, Intermittency and the value of renewable energy. J. Polit. Econ. 124(4), 1187–1234 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. D. Reiche, M. Bechberger, Policy differences in the promotion of renewable energies in the EU member states. Energy Policy 32(7), 843–849 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. T. He et al., Hydrogen carriers. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1(12), 16059 (2016)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. M. Aziz, Liquid hydrogen: a review on liquefaction, storage, transportation, and safety. Energies 14(18), 5917 (2021)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Z.J. Wan et al., Ammonia as an effective hydrogen carrier and a clean fuel for solid oxide fuel cells. Energy Convers. Manage. 228, 113729 (2021)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. P.M. Modisha et al., The prospect of hydrogen storage using liquid organic hydrogen carriers. Energy Fuels 33(4), 2778–2796 (2019)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. M. Niermann et al., Liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC) - assessment based on chemical and economic properties. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44(13), 6631–6654 (2019)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. J.-S. Lee et al., Large-scale overseas transportation of hydrogen: comparative techno-economic and environmental investigation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 165, 112556 (2022)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Institute, W.R. Climate Watch Historical GHG Emissions. 2022; Available from: https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions

  13. (LBST), L.-B.-S., Another record number of newly opened hydrogen refuelling stations in 2021, In: 14th Annual assessment of H2stations.org by LBST, H2Stations.org, Editor. 2022

  14. (IEA), I.E.A., The Future of Hydrogen. 2019

  15. Hydrogenius, Hydrogen stored as an oil. 2020

  16. L. Lin et al., Techno-economic analysis and comprehensive optimization of an on-site hydrogen refuelling station system using ammonia: hybrid hydrogen purification with both high H 2 purity and high recovery. Sustain. Energy Fuels 4(6), 3006–3017 (2020)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. H.R. Gye et al., Quantitative risk assessment of an urban hydrogen refueling station. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44(2), 1288–1298 (2019)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Z.Y. Li, X.M. Pan, J.X. Ma, Quantitative risk assessment on 2010 Expo hydrogen station. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36(6), 4079–4086 (2011)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. K. Tsunemi et al., Quantitative risk assessment of the interior of a hydrogen refueling station considering safety barrier systems. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44(41), 23522–23531 (2019)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. T. Suzuki et al., Quantitative risk assessment using a Japanese hydrogen refueling station model. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46(11), 8329–8343 (2021)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. B.H. Yoo et al., Comparative risk assessment of liquefied and gaseous hydrogen refueling stations. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46(71), 35511–35524 (2021)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. S.H. Bae et al., Design-based risk assessment on an ammonia-derived urban hydrogen refueling station. Int. J. Energy Res. 46(9), 12660–12673 (2022)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. J. Nakayama et al., Preliminary hazard identification for qualitative risk assessment on a hybrid gasoline-hydrogen fueling station with an on-site hydrogen production system using organic chemical hydride. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41(18), 7518–7525 (2016)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. J. Nakayama et al., Simulation-based safety investigation of a hydrogen fueling station with an on-site hydrogen production system involving methylcyclohexane. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42(15), 10636–10644 (2017)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. J. Nakayama et al., Thermal hazard analysis of a dehydrogenation system involving methylcyclohexane and toluene. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 133(1), 805–812 (2018)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. J. Nakayama et al., Security risk analysis of a hydrogen fueling station with an on-site hydrogen production system involving methylcyclohexane. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44(17), 9110–9119 (2019)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. K. Tsunemi et al., Screening-level risk assessment of a hydrogen refueling station that uses organic hydride. Sustainability 10(12), 4477 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. K. Reddi, A. Elgowainy, E. Sutherland, Hydrogen refueling station compression and storage optimization with tube-trailer deliveries. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39(33), 19169–19181 (2014)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. S. Sircar, T.C. Golden, Purification of hydrogen by pressure swing adsorption. Sep. Sci. Technol. 35(5), 667–687 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. J.K. Ali, D.W.T. Rippin, Comparing mono- and bimetallic noble-metal catalysts in a catalytic membrane reactor for methylcyclohexane dehydrogenation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 34, 722 (1995)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. J.K. Ali, D.W.T. Rippin, A. Baiker, Improving methylcyclohexane dehydrogenation with ex-situ hydrogen separation in a reactor-interstaged membrane system. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 34, 2940 (1995)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. H.H. Funke et al., Separations of cyclic, branched, and linear hydrocarbon mixtures through silicalite membranes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 36, 137 (1997)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. K. Oda et al., Dehydrogenation of methylcyclohexane to produce high-purity hydrogen using membrane reactors with amorphous silica membranes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49, 11287 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. G. Li et al., Methylcyclohexane dehydrogenation in catalytic membrane reactors for efficient hydrogen production. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52(37), 13325–13332 (2013)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. E.E. Wolf, E.E. Petersen, Kinetics of deactivation of a reforming catalyst during methylcyclohexane dehydrogenation in a diffusion reactor. J. Catal. 46(2), 190–203 (1977)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Y. Okada et al., Development of dehydrogenation catalyst for hydrogen generation in organic chemical hydride method. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 31(10), 1348–1356 (2006)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. M.S. Akram et al., An exclusive kinetic model for the methylcyclohexane dehydrogenation over alumina-supported Pt catalysts. Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 52(7), 415–449 (2020)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Performance of 10,000 hours of operation in Chiyoda’s demo plant. 2020 [cited 2020 June 8]; Available from: https://www.chiyodacorp.com/en/service/spera-hydrogen/demo-plant/

  39. J.W. Ren et al., Review on processing of metal-organic framework (MOF) materials towards system integration for hydrogen storage. Int. J. Energy Res. 39(5), 607–620 (2015)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. I. Dincer, Environmental and sustainability aspects of hydrogen and fuel cell systems. Int. J. Energy Res. 31(1), 29–55 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. M. Niermann et al., Liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs) - techno-economic analysis of LOHCs in a defined process chain. Energy Environ. Sci. 12(1), 290–307 (2019)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Z.Y. Li, X.M. Pan, J.X. Ma, Quantitative risk assessment on a gaseous hydrogen refueling station in Shanghai. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35(13), 6822–6829 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. TNO Purple Book, Guideline for Quantitative Risk Assessment. 1999, Committee for the Prevention of Disasters: The Netherlands

  44. Askarian, A., et al., Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment in Two Gas Refinery Units. Health Scope, 2018. 7(1).

  45. R.L. Dehart, Canadian-center-for-occupational-health-and-safety Ccinfodisc. Jama-J Am. Med. Assoc. 265(18), 2415–2416 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jeffrey LaChance, W.H., Bobby Middleton, Larry Fluer, Analyses to Support Development of Risk-Informed Separation Distances for Hydrogen Codes and Standards. 2009, Sandia National Laboratories.

  47. TNO Green Book, Methods for the determination of possible damage to people and objects resulting from release of hazardous materials. 1992, Committee for the Prevention of Disasters: The Netherlands

  48. NA, E., Vulnerability model a simulation system for assessing damage resulting from marine spills. 1975

  49. Zhang, M., et al., Accident consequence simulation analysis of pool fire in fire dike. In: 2014 International Symposium on Safety Science and Technology, 2015. 84: 565–577.

  50. Association, N.F.P., NFPA 704 Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response. 2020: National Fire Protection Association.

  51. National Fire Codes, 7. 1985, National Fire Protection Association: Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA.

  52. Crowl, D.A. and J.F. Louvar, Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with Applications. 2011: Pearson education international.

  53. Norske Hydro ASA and Det Norske Veritas AS for WP5.2 & Risk acceptance criteria for hydrogen refueling stations. 2003, European Integrated Hydrogen Project 2 [EIHP-2]

  54. Y.D. Jo, B.J. Ahn, A method of quantitative risk assessment for transmission pipeline carrying natural gas. J. Hazard. Mater. 123(1–3), 1–12 (2005)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. C.H. Shin, Improvement in the risk reduction of dikes of storage tanks handling hazardous chemicals. Crisisonomy 12, 83–89 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Human Resources Development (No.20214000000280) of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the Korea government Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, and the Chung-Ang University Graduate Research Scholarship in 2022. This research was also supported by the H2KOREA funded by the Ministry of Education (2022Hydrogen fuel cell-003, Innovative Human Resources Development Project for Hydrogen Fuel Cells).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hye-Jin Chae and Hye-Ri Gye have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Chung-Ang University, 84, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Hye-Jin Chae, Hye-Ri Gye, Joo-Sung Lee, Arash Esmaeili, Ga-Young Lee, Taeksang Yoon, Junyoung Im & Chul-Jin Lee

  2. Department of Intelligent Energy and Industry, Chung-Ang University, 84, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Chul-Jin Lee

  3. School of Chemical Engineering, Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju, 61186, Republic of Korea

    Daesung Song

Authors
  1. Hye-Jin Chae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hye-Ri Gye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joo-Sung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arash Esmaeili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ga-Young Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Taeksang Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Junyoung Im
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daesung Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Chul-Jin Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chul-Jin Lee.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chae, HJ., Gye, HR., Lee, JS. et al. Quantitative Risk Assessment of a Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers-Based Hydrogen Refueling Station. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 41, 1311–1327 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-024-00124-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-024-00124-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation