Hydrogen Newsletter Fall 1996: Hydrogen Progress

Progress Made in October Workshops

by Robert L. Mauro, Executive Vice President, National Hydrogen Association

Over the past two years, two themes have driven the NHA: bridging the gap between research and commercialization, and developing codes and standards to assure safe hydrogen use. Each serves the purpose of commercialization. An industry-produced commercialization plan does this by shaping the direction of technology development toward meeting commercial market needs. The development of codes and standards facilitate the deployment of hydrogen technology in ways that win public acceptance. Two workshops were conducted by the NHA the second week of October under the DOE Cooperative Agreement: Strategic Planning for the Hydrogen Economy: The Hydrogen Commercialization Plan and the Hydrogen Safety, Codes, and Standards Workshop.

The Hydrogen Commercialization Plan

At the NHA industry workshop, held October 8-9, 1996, Chairman Keith Prater told 19 NHA members and invited members of HTAP and industry that the workshop was the beginning of a process to develop a plan and commitment for a hydrogen future. The plan must have credible goals that can be achieved in manageable steps. For significant industry buy-in, there must be a niche market or some other financial inducement as a result of achieving each step along the commercialization path. Over time, we will be seeking buy-in from NHA members and others important to the success of the plan. For example, there is no auto infrastructure, but the auto industry is needed to manufacture hydrogen-fueled cars. The NHA must then create a roadmap that shows a believable path to selling hydrogen cars. The NHA Executive Committee—Keith Prater, Sandy Thomas, and Frank Lynch—has created a straw man plan that will be updated and refocused at each annual meeting.

In Frank Lynch’s presentation, “Identifying Prime Locations for Market Entry,” he said that we must first identify where there is a need that hydrogen can meet. He presented a series of marketing maps, that, when overlayed, show potential market entry areas for hydrogen technologies. The maps showed non-attainment areas, states with alternative fuel definitions and incentives, installed renewable energy sites (wind, biomass, and photovoltaics), hydrogen production facilities, and hydrogen projects.

In the discussion of the draft plan and its focus, it was suggested that an economic analysis is needed, and that a market scenario analysis be developed that would link goals together on the path to a more credible commercialization story. Some participants felt that there was a need for a separate document that spoke to DOE and the public. There was consensus that the plan should be complimentary to DOE’s and HTAP’s plans.

In Sandy Thomas’s presentation on transportation, he opened by saying that the ground rules for his work with Ford Motor Company was that the driver should not know the difference between a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle and a conventional one. Thomas described the hydrogen vehicle demonstration projects, and the hydrogen bus and hydrogen vehicle goals. In the discussion, some participants indicated that they did not see a compelling reason for fuel cells. It was agreed that public demonstrations are a good idea, and an accumulation of projects with a clean safety record will help lead to market acceptance. The issue of on-board reforming was raised, and the prevailing view was that, while the NHA acknowledges that on-board reforming may be a path to gaining market acceptance of hydrogen-related technology, the NHA does not endorse on-board sources of fuels other than hydrogen.

In the discussion on stationary sources, the group felt that there is a future for remote power at a neighborhood level, and that price and performance goals are needed. The draft section on opportunities for remote power needs to be expanded.

The group split up into two groups the second day: Infrastructure and Transitioning from Demonstration to Commercialization. In the Infrastructure group, a series of systems analysis action items, primary action items and potential solutions to the hydrogen infrastructure/hydrogen vehicle dilemma were identified. The first step to developing an infrastructure would be central refueling locations for fleets at sites where there is inexpensive, excess merchant hydrogen or existing by-product hydrogen available. Small-scale electrolyzers and steam methane reformers for on-site hydrogen production could be added to form refueling corridors to provide additional range for hydrogen vehicles. Eventually, a nationwide system of hydrogen refueling stations would be established.

The broad topics of discussion in the group, Transitioning from Demonstration and Commercialization, were financing and insurance. Lack of insurance has caused delays for some hydrogen demonstration projects, and it was suggested that government should help underwrite early hydrogen projects. As a result of the discussion, a questionnaire on insurance, risks, and liabilities has been drafted for distribution to NHA members.

The key to financing hydrogen projects is to convince investors that hydrogen is safe. One participant offered that a company will make an investment in a project or technology for one of three reasons: for public relations ($1 million), to buy an option on a technology that might be successful ($5 million), and because of an attractive return on investment ($100 million).

A National Hydrogen Fund is being created to help fund hydrogen projects. The Fund is a five million dollar fund with 45% available for high risk projects and the rest in government securities. This is a DOE cost-shared project. Charlestown Ventures is another organization that uses DOE funds as venture capital for various projects. NHA board member Dominique Kluykens is moving to a public/private financing firm, H2T. Its principle venture will be the manufacture and marketing of advanced cryogenic containers.

Draft #4 of the straw man plan will be revised based on inputs from the meeting and will be presented at the Annual Meeting.

Hydrogen Safety, Codes, and Standards Workshop

A key theme of the Hydrogen Safety, Codes, and Standards Workshop, held October 10-11, 1996, was how to get standards organizations involved. Representatives from both the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) outlined how their organizations could participate in this process. There were also presentations by Bill Hoagland on a Manual of Recommended Practices, and Experiences in Hydrogen Safety by Mike Swain, University of Miami. The question of odorants was also raised in two of the work groups, with no resolution as to how it should be handled.

Manuel Gutierrez described the origin and structure of ASME. The standard setting process for ASME requires openness, transparency, membership balance and due process. For the ASME to get involved, a proposal must be presented to the Council on Codes and Standards for consideration.

Tony O’Neil discussed the process that the NFPA uses, which is similar to that of ASME. NFPA must be petitioned on a standard, then it sends the proposal out for comment. If there is sufficient interest, a committee is created to develop that standard.

This was the first meeting of Work Group 1: Connectors (WG-1), chaired by Matthew Fairlie of Electrolyser. Still short of adequate membership, the group met for two hours with the participation of WG-3: Service Stations. The approach to be used to develop a work plan will consist of a review of NGV1, ISO/TC22, and ASME proceedings for connector activities, and an investigation of standards process, specifications, and cost. A standard draft will be prepared before the next meeting, scheduled for June in Toronto. The group also discussed the issue of nozzle categories and if they should consider looking beyond 5000 psi for metal hydrides.

Work Group 2: Containers (WG-2), chaired by Jim Hansel of Air Products and Chemicals, reviewed the draft standard, Proposed National Hydrogen Association Guideline: Basic Requirements for Gaseous Hydrogen Vehicle (GHV) Fuel Containers. A detailed review of the standard will occur over the next six months. In the spring, a revised GHV2 draft may be brought before the ASME Council on Codes and Standards.

The use of odorants was viewed as a fundamental issue. Odorants cannot be used for all hydrogen applications because they are not compatible with fuel cell applications, chemical feedstock applications, or for use in food production. Any addition of an odorant will require public education. WG-2 will investigate when odorants are required on a case by case basis.

The draft guideline addressed compressed gas containers, but was expanded to include metal hydride containers as well. The average life of an automobile is 12 years, and the hydrogen-fueled bus being developed has an average life of 15 years. A different service life needs to be defined for hydride containers.

Other topics discussed: inspection methods for leaks, the definition of a container, service versus design pressure, design temperatures, ventilation requirements, hydrogen embrittlement of steels, permeation tests with organic wraps, welding, heat treatment, and requirements for containers in the event of a vehicle collision. The container needs to be treated as a completely integrated system.

Work Group 3: Service Stations (WG-3), chaired by Allan Coutts of Westinghouse Savannah River Company, spent the working session marking up a draft modeled on NFPA 52 and NGV4 on Natural Gas Service Stations. An alternative to a separate, stand-alone standard that addressed hydrogen specifically was the inclusion of hydrogen in the natural gas standard. It also was suggested that NFPA 30a, which covers the construction and operation of service stations for vehicles fueled by flammable and combustible liquids, should be referenced. While not making a recommendation on their use, the group recognized that a discussion on the use of odorants must be made, and that detection of leaks is an important consideration for hydrogen service stations.

The group wants to get NHA Board input on detection language to be used in a standard, collect comments, check references and numbers in the standard, update the straw man, and submit a proposal to NFPA and the straw man to the NHA membership in March. After review and comment on the straw man, a proposed standard will be submitted to NFPA in July.

The progress made in the workshops put the NHA firmly on the path to proposing three hydrogen standards in a year and launching an ISO standards effort at its next meeting in the spring.

Home Page • Return to NHA News Index