Abstract
Renewable hydrogen is emerging as the key to a sustainable energy transition with multiple applications and uses. In the field of transport, in addition to fuel cell vehicles, it is necessary to develop an extensive network of hydrogen refueling stations (hereafter HRSs). The characteristics and properties of hydrogen make ensuring the safe operation of these facilities a crucial element for their successful deployment and implementation. This paper shows the outcomes of an analysis of hydrogen incidents and accidents considering their potential application to HRSs. For this purpose, the HIAD 2.0 was reviewed and a total of 224 events that could be repeated in any of the major industrial processes related to hydrogen refueling stations were analyzed. This analysis was carried out using a mixed methodology of quantitative and qualitative techniques, considering the following hydrogen value chain: production, storage, delivery and industrial use. The results provide general information segmented by event frequency, damage classes and failure typology. The analysis shows the main processes of the value chain allow the identification of key aspects for the safety management of refueling facilities.
1. Introduction
The reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to combat the consequences of climate change is a global imperative that was emphasized in the Paris Agreement [1]. In this context, hydrogen is likely to play a role in our future society, especially as we move towards a low-carbon strategy. This potential for hydrogen-based energy systems identified early this century is now a reality rather than a vision of the future. In fact, hydrogen technologies are being implemented in many end-use applications. In particular, in the transport sector, the introduction of fuel cell vehicles will require the development of an extensive network of Hydrogen Refueling Stations (hereinafter referred to as HRSs), which will need to have ensured operational safety in order to gain public acceptance. Therefore, the successful integration of hydrogen into industries like mobility and transportation hinges on establishing safety and efficiency throughout its entire value chain.
Some of these fundamental challenges are being tackled by the international SUSHy project [2], which seeks to face the challenges associated with the widespread deployment of emerging hydrogen technologies. These challenges arise not only from the complex technical processes involved in hydrogen production and distribution but also from the socioeconomic uncertainties affecting its safe and sustainable deployment. Given the limited availability of data and the multifaceted nature of these barriers, addressing and overcoming them demands crucial international and interdisciplinary cooperation.
Safety is emerging as a crucial element in achieving a profitable, sustainable and green hydrogen economy. Some of the challenges involved are technological, but others are linked to regulations and the precise development of safety systems linked to the entire hydrogen value chain [3]. In-depth analysis of hydrogen-related events can play a pivotal role in addressing this challenges. Fuyuan Yang et al. [4], in a review of 120 hydrogen safety incidents, studied precise aspects of leakage and diffusion ignition and explosion. They concluded that failures of pipes, valves, and filters within the hydrogen system accounted for the majority of abnormal process occurrences. Their statistical approach can be complemented by a more qualitative approach, such as that of Youhyun Lee [5], which addresses safety based on lessons learned from three relevant events in South Korea. Both approaches can provide relevant information for HRSs. As noted by Yuxuan Xing [6] (p. 415), “a comprehensive risk identification of multiple typical accident including hydrogen and non-hydrogen accidents at HRSs is necessary”. From this wide perspective, it is worth emphasizing the significance of conducting analyses considering the comparison between the different components of the hydrogen value chain.
Before presenting the methodology and the results of the study, two aspects considered within the hydrogen value chain and the importance of the events analysis are defined. Firstly, the term “hydrogen value chain” is often used to refer to broad categories that can range from hydrogen plant design to end-user applications. In this research, four categories have been considered: production, storage, delivery, and applications (Table 1).
Table 1.
Hydrogen value chain description [7,8,9,10].
These value chain categories can be clearly extrapolated to HRSs. Thus, an HRS requires a process of hydrogen production (on-site or off-site), storage (tanks or cylinders), delivery (when hydrogen is produced off-site) and hydrogen handling (during refueling activities).
Secondly, this study is based on the information available in the Hydrogen Incidents and Accidents Database (HIAD) 2.0. The database was requested on the 15 June 2022 via the Odin portal (https://odin.jrc.nl, accessed on 15 June 2022). This database is a repository of systematic data describing hydrogen-related accidents, incidents or near misses. HIAD 2.0 was developed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission as part of the Hydrogen Safety Network of Excellence (HySafe) during 2004–2009 with the aim of learning lessons and preventing future events. The richness of its information has allowed general descriptive studies in the field of safety [15]. Its information also permits targeted analyses, such as the Campari study [16], which, with the aim to prevent hydrogen-related material failures, uses business analytics to identify lessons learned related to inspection and maintenance processes. Therefore, valuable knowledge for the improvement of the safety of HRSs can be generated from the exploitation of HIAD 2.0 information.
In line with these research approaches, the present study analyzes hydrogen-related events compiled in the HIAD 2.0 (considering the hydrogen value chain, the core event, the type of failure and the damage) with the goal of providing reliable and useful insights into critical processes for safety that can be extrapolated to hydrogen refueling stations.
2. Materials and Methods
The HIAD was firstly developed within the HySAFE Network of Excellence by the JRC in 2006 [15]. Subsequently, it was updated to HIAD 2.0 in 2017, with the latest version, HIAD 2.1, being released in 2023. This database was created to store valuable information about accidents and incidents associated with the production, transportation (by road, rail, or pipeline), supply, and commercial utilization of hydrogen. It is regularly updated with the latest details about each event to incorporate the most recent findings from accident investigations [17]. At the time of the study, HIAD 2.0 was only available by requesting access rights via the Odin portal [18]. For this research, the database was requested and received on June 2022. The dataset has been used in accordance with the conditions and statements of the European Commission JRC.
The current study’s sample has been obtained from the events collected in the HIAD 2.0, specifically incidents and accidents across the entire hydrogen value chain, excluding HRSs. These events (registered until 31 December 2022, with references ranging from ID 10 to ID 1036) were selected and analyzed based on their potential extrapolation to HRSs processes.
The following two phases were involved in the development of this research.
2.1. Review and Selection of Events from HIAD 2.0
This task was carried out in an identification-review process by the researchers’ project, as follows.
- (a)
- Individual review of the database to classify the events considering the stages of the value chain.
- (b)
- Cross-checking of the events selected by the other members of the research team.
- (c)
- Joint review (between the researchers) of unclear events as to their position within the value chain or their potential impact on HRSs. Consensus was essential for the event inclusion.
The review process allowed the classification of the events into three categories, as follows.
- Hydrogen value chain events: Those events that, despite not taking place in HRSs, could potentially take place in these facilities. They constitute the study sample. Table 2 shows some of the kinds of events included in each value chain phase.
Table 2. Typology of events by value chain.
- HRS events: Events that took place specifically in HRSs. Their analysis is part of another study of the SUSHy research project that aims to identify incident contributing factors.
- Excluded events: Events that were difficult to extrapolate to the HRSs’ value chain because of its specificity and events with scarce information or historical events were excluded from the sample. Further details on the exclusion criteria are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Type of hydrogen events excluded from the collection process.
2.2. Analysis of Events
The database review permitted the identification of a total of 224 events. A mixed-methods approach was employed in analyzing selected events to provide “completeness” to the study, considering that the database contains both quantitative and qualitative information [19].
The quantitative analysis exploited data on the number of injured people and number of fatalities. Additionally, a quantitative variable was generated in order to generate a severity indicator.
- Fatality rate: Multiple metrics exist to express the mortality risk of hydrogen systems [20]. The current research refers to “fatality rate” as the proportion of fatalities relative to the total number of events occurring within a defined time frame. The “fatality rate” concept serves as a valuable and straightforward metric to understand the potential fatalities associated with abnormal events in hydrogen chain value.
For the qualitative analysis, two variables were generated from the information available as “full description”.
- Core event: The most significant aspects of the incident, considering, as far as possible, its main adverse manifestation. This variable provides a synthetic view of the extended event (i.e., ID. 707. Leak on a hydrogen tank caused an explosion and subsequent fire).
- Type of failure: The defects or flaws that seem to be associated with the occurrence of the event. Accurate identification of the knowledge associated with the failure of a given event is essential for learning from the event and preventing similar incidents from happening in the future (i.e., ID. 707. Tank material with fatigue corrosion).
Accordingly, the analysis sought to identify the failures, processes and nature of the consequences associated, considering the hydrogen value chain, enabling the extrapolation of this knowledge to hydrogen refueling stations.
3. Results
The results of the event analysis from the HIAD 2.0 encompassing the entire hydrogen value chain are presented below. For each stage of the value chain, frequencies, injuries and fatalities are shown. A qualitative analysis of these events is also undertaken, allowing categories and subcategories to be established based on the inherent nature of each incident.
3.1. Event Distribution by Value Chain
In accordance with the event selection criteria outlined in the methodology section, it is revealed that incidents and accidents with hydrogen involved are most frequent in the context of both industrial uses (34.82%) and delivery processes (33.93%) (Table 4, Figure 1).
Table 4.
Hydrogen event description and damage.
Figure 1.
Hydrogen events distribution by value chain.
When focusing on the damage, the analysis shows that the delivery phase of the hydrogen value chain accounts for the most injuries (129 from 263, 49.05%), while the storage phase bears the brunt of fatalities (45 from 100, 45.00%) (Table 4, Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Damage by value chain.
Moreover, when the number of deaths is calculated as a proportion of the total number of events for each value chain phase (fatality rate), it appears that 90% of incidents in the hydrogen storage phase result in fatalities compared to a lower rate of 26.32% during hydrogen delivery (Table 4).
3.2. In-Depth Analysis of Events
Following are the results of the event analysis for each of the four stages of the hydrogen value chain.
3.2.1. Production
Regarding the production phase of the hydrogen value chain, the analysis allows events to be grouped into six types of categories, taking into account the systems/equipment affected (Table 5).
Table 5.
Production process/equipment categories.
The analysis shows that incidents related to hydrogen production are mainly caused by failures in electrolyzer cells and hydrogen generators, often stemming from equipment malfunctions, overheating, and corrosion (Table 6), though these failures have not occurred since 2010 or with fatal consequences since 2006.
Table 6.
Core event, failure and consequences in electrolyzer cells and hydrogen generators (production).
Considering the overall events during this phase, electrolyzer cells and hydrogen generator malfunctions contribute to the most fatalities (66.67%), followed by faults in gasometers and hydrogen tanks (33.33%) (Figure 3). When looking at the fatalities per event for each type of failure, it is important to note that gasometers and hydrogen tanks stand out with a fatality rate of 66.67% (Table 5).
Figure 3.
Production damage.
3.2.2. Storage
Regarding storage processes, the analysis allows the establishment of three distinct categories based on the types of processes/equipment involved (Table 7).
Table 7.
Storage process/equipment categories.
As seen in the previous table, events are related to cylinders and tanks, with a nearly equal occurrence. It is worth noting that problems in tanks are the ones that result in more fatalities (73.33%) (Figure 4), with a fatality rate of 173.68% (Table 7) if we consider the fatalities per number of events in each category. This rate over 100% is an indicator of the risk severity of this type of processes.
Figure 4.
Storage damage.
The analysis has permitted the establishment of cylinder- and tank-related incidents into five distinct subcategories, each based on the type of failure (Table 8). Cylinder-related incidents are primarily attributed to filling processes and mechanical/technical malfunctions, while tank-related incidents are predominantly caused by mechanical/technical failures. Notably, filling activities account for the most fatalities in cylinder-related incidents (six fatalities) due to the mixture of air and hydrogen inside the cylinders (Table 9). Conversely, although mechanical/technical failures (cracks, ruptures and corrosion) are prevalent in tank-related incidents, they do not result in fatalities, while events related to works inside the tanks and degasification activities resulted in seven fatalities (Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12).
Table 8.
Failures, descriptive and damage in cylinders (a), tanks (b) and others (c) (storage).
Table 9.
Core event, failure and consequences in cylinder-filling process events (storage).
Table 10.
Core event, failure and consequences in tank events with mechanical/technical failures (storage).
Table 11.
Core event, failure and consequences in tank events with failures related to factors inside the tank (storage).
Table 12.
Core event, failure and consequences in tank events with failure related to degasification (storage).
It should be highlighted that some events involving deaths could not be categorized because the database does not provide detailed information (four cylinder events and eight tank events). Particularly noteworthy is the incident with ID 695 in 1990, when a high-pressure hydrogen storage tank leaked and exploded during the plant’s initial commissioning, killing 26 people.
3.2.3. Delivery
With regard to the hydrogen delivery value chain, the analysis shows two distinct types of events, described in Table 13.
Table 13.
Delivery process/equipment categories.
In depth analysis of transport events reveals that they relate to hydrogen loading and unloading activities, traffic accidents and incidences with transported cargo (Table 14).
Table 14.
Transport process/equipment categories.
While distribution events are relatively less frequent and have no reported fatalities, road, rail, and ocean transport events account for a significant majority and exhibit a fatality rate of 29.41% (Table 13).
Distribution events are primarily linked to welding failures, ruptures in pipelines, or activities in close proximity to pipelines. However, no personal injuries or fatalities have been associated with these events (Table 15, Figure 5).
Table 15.
Core event, failure and consequences in distribution events.
Figure 5.
Delivery damage.
Regarding transport accidents, it is crucial to emphasize that traffic accidents are the primary cause of harm during the transportation of hydrogen, accounting for 75.19% of all injuries and 95.00% of fatalities (Figure 5). Furthermore, traffic accidents stand out with a particularly high fatality rate of 76.00% compared to other transport events, as evidenced by the incident with ID 72, which resulted in 15 fatalities (Table 16).
Table 16.
Core event, failure and consequences in traffic accidents (transport).
It is also worth mentioning that cargo-related events and loading–unloading events, in general, have low levels of associated damage (Table 17 and Table 18).
Table 17.
Core event, failure and consequences in transported cargo events (transport).
Table 18.
Core event, failure and consequences in loading/unloading events (transport).
3.2.4. Industrial Uses
Finally, the analysis of events during the industrial uses permits the classification of the events into two categories described in Table 19.
Table 19.
Industrial use process/equipment categories.
As per the previous table, events related to failures in piping and hydrogen lines are the most prevalent. A majority of the damage is attributed to these events, accounting for 54.72% of injuries and 68.97% of fatalities (Figure 6). However, events associated with compressors, though less frequent, stand out with a higher fatality rate (47.37%) (Table 19).
Figure 6.
Industrial application damage.
The database allows the categorization of incidents according to the type of failure. Incidents involving compressors can be classified into six distinct categories, while incidents involving pipes/hydrogen lines can be categorized into ten distinct categories (Table 20).
Table 20.
Failures, descriptive and damage in compressors (a), pipes and hydrogen lines (b) and other failures (c) (industrial applications).
Compressor-related incidents are primarily attributed to cylinder failures mainly caused by overpressure (Table 21), but with no fatalities involved. Looking at the total number of fatalities by category, an incident related to suction pipe rupture is shown as the most significant contributor to fatalities (Table 22).
Table 21.
Core event, failure and consequences in compressors with cylinder failure (industrial applications).
Table 22.
Core event, failure and consequences in compressors with suction pipe failure (industrial applications).
Pipe/hydrogen line-related incidents are predominantly caused by flange/connection failures, corrosion and performance (Table 23, Table 24 and Table 25). Remarkably, problems as common as connection failures and corrosion do not lead to fatalities. Events related to performance and welding failures emerge as the most severe incidents, accounting for the most fatalities, each responsible for seven fatalities (Table 25 and Table 26).
Table 23.
Core event, failure and consequences in pipes/hydrogen lines with flange/connection failure (industrial applications).
Table 24.
Core event, failure and consequences in pipes/hydrogen lines with corrosion (industrial applications).
Table 25.
Core event, failure and consequences in pipes/hydrogen lines with operator failure (industrial applications).
Table 26.
Core event, failure and consequences in pipes/hydrogen lines with welding failure (industrial applications).
It is relevant to note that events associated with human performance, such as the events with ID 503 and ID 905, can have a very damaging impact.
As with the storage events, it should be pointed out that some incidents resulting in deaths could not be categorized because the database does not provide detailed information (nine fatalities for compressors and six for pipes/hydrogen lines).
4. Discussion
This study has systematically reviewed, selected, and categorized the events collected in the HIAD 2.0, considering the different stages of the hydrogen value chain and its possible extrapolation to hydrogen refueling stations. The damage was quantified in terms of both injuries and fatalities. Simultaneously, the core event of each incident and accident, serving as the focal points leading to abnormal situations, was scrutinized, generating categories and typologies of events.
In this section, three central aspects are emphasized: (1) main findings comparing events by hydrogen value chain; (2) lessons derived from the characterization of events (processes and activities) across the different stages of the hydrogen value chain; (3) key concepts in terms of HRS safety. Additionally, the research limitations and potential avenues for further research are outlined.
Firstly, the study reveals varying levels of risk associated with the different stages of the hydrogen value chain. A significant finding is the disparity between event frequency and severity. The nonlinear relationship between prevalence (number of events) and damage is noteworthy. Consequently, certain stages of the hydrogen value chain experience a higher frequency of abnormal situations, while others, with fewer incidents, pose a potentially higher severity of consequences.
Specifically, hydrogen industrial uses and delivery correspond to the majority of incidents in terms of frequency, a closer examination shows that a higher number of events is not necessarily associated with more significant human damage. Fatality rate emerges as a crucial indicator of the potential severity of events within the hydrogen storage value chain. Simply put, any abnormal event in the storage process substantially increases the risk of fatalities with a 90% fatality rate (45 fatalities in 50 accidents). Paradoxically, the delivery process, despite having the highest absolute number of events together with industrial events, boasts the lowest fatality rate among the categories, standing at 26.32% (20 fatalities in 76 events).
Secondly, the study has enabled the characterization of types of abnormal events within each stage of the hydrogen value chain with a significant level of detail. This thorough analysis reveals relevant aspects for the safety of both the different activities/processes within the hydrogen value chain and refueling facilities.
In the context of the hydrogen production, 50% of the events are associated with two types of components, electrolyzers and gas holders/tanks, which are the factors leading to 100% of the mortality. It could be inferred that the greatest danger during production is related to electrolyzers and their associated gas storage. However, it is crucial to note that in the case of electrolyzers, the last fatal event recorded in HIAD 2.0 was in 2006, and hydrogen production technology has also evolved significantly in recent decades [21].
As regards hydrogen storage, which has the most severe consequences in terms of fatalities, a detailed analysis can pinpoint the activities that pose the greatest safety concerns. The initial conclusion is intuitive: the potential for serious consequences increases proportionally with the amount of hydrogen stored. Therefore, the fatality rate for incidents involving storage tanks is 4.68 times higher than the fatality rate for those involving issues with storage cylinders (despite a similar frequency of events recorded in the database). Additionally, the analysis provides a more nuanced understanding of critical activities/processes for these two storage modes.
For tank storage, two high-risk activities/processes are identified: works inside the tank and degassing. Conversely, for cylinder storage, critical activities/processes are associated with filling hydrogen containers and operation/works with hydrogen cylinders. It is also noteworthy that for both types of storage, human activities (operations conducted by people in the storage area) present a high-risk factor. It is also important to highlight the considerable number of storage events in the data (28%) with limited information, which impedes the identification of the processes/activities involved.
Concerning the delivery stage of the hydrogen value chain, events can be broadly categorized into two types: those related to distribution (large pipelines) and those related to transport (mostly road transport by trucks). Notably, the most prominent and significant risk associated with hydrogen delivery lies in the transportation phase, which is related to cargo incidents, hydrogen charge incidents, and traffic accidents. Even though they occur with nearly equal frequency, the fatality rate indicates that traffic accidents have the most significant safety risk (76% of all hydrogen delivery fatalities), especially in the case of collisions with other vehicles, which have been identified as the leading cause of fatalities in hydrogen delivery.
Finally, examining incidents related to hydrogen industrial uses, two primary event types can be extrapolated to hydrogen refueling stations. These are incidents involving compressors (with a fatality rate of 47.37%) and incidents in hydrogen pipes inside industrial installations (fatality rate of 36.36%). As to compressors, the critical and hazardous process is linked to the pipe compressor connection. This connection can fail (two events, two fatalities) or experience a suction pipe rupture (two events, three fatalities). Conversely, fatalities resulting from failures in hydrogen pipes and lines are primarily associated with leaks caused by human activities (seven events, seven fatalities) and welding failures (two events, seven fatalities).
Thirdly, this study provides insights highly relevant to the safety of hydrogen refueling stations. The knowledge provided by the dissection of the events carried out in this research makes it possible to establish a hierarchy of the potential risk entailed by the different processes and activities that take place in HRSs. This extrapolation of risks can be carried out both by the results of the macro-vision of the hydrogen value chain events and by the findings obtained in the microanalysis of specific HRS events (research in progress in another study) [22].
The findings of the study bear noteworthy implications for the safety of hydrogen refueling stations. Specifically, those gleaned from the storage, delivery, and industrial utilization of hydrogen should be carefully accounted for, owing to its nearly seamless translation from procedural contexts to HRSs. The extrapolation of these findings must consider that hydrogen refueling stations can be either on-site or off-site, depending on whether they incorporate hydrogen production or not. Both primarily operate on processes encompassing hydrogen storage and delivery, which manifest as having the highest potential for fatal accidents. Consequently, enhanced safety protocols are crucial during these stages. For storage, activities within tanks and during offloading hydrogen for subsequent storage at refueling facilities should be prioritized, while in delivery-hase road transport, which emerges as a critical aspect, demands attention. Additionally, heightened vigilance is essential for tasks involving hydrogen compressors and piping. Such undertakings play a pivotal role in industrial hydrogen uses and are susceptible to generating leaks, thereby posing a significant risk.
On-site hydrogen refueling stations, while not the most common type, must also address the inherent challenges of hydrogen production. Stringent safety measures are paramount, especially when dealing with electrolyzers and gasometers/tanks, critical components for hydrogen production. Mishandling these components could result in explosion hazards caused by equipment malfunctions, overheating, and corrosion, amongst others. Hence, adherence to strict safety protocols is imperative in such scenarios.
It should also be underlined that the analysis of events underscores the substantial role of human actions in contributing to incidents and accidents. Specifically, in processes with direct applicability to hydrogen refueling stations, operator-induced failures can have severe repercussions, including equipment damage, fires, explosions, and even personal injuries.
In sum, the findings emphasize the importance of implementing rigorous safety measures, technological advancements, and improved incident reporting and data collection to mitigate risks and improve the safety of hydrogen-related activities. The main findings are shown in Table 27.
Table 27.
Summary of the main findings of the event analysis.
Lastly, some relevant limitations of the study must be acknowledged. The quality and consistency of the information contained in the database (gathered by third parties) has conditioned the breadth of the analysis. As West et al. [23] pointed out, the lack of consistent data reporting poses a challenge to exploit this database. Thus, some of the events do not have sufficient information to identify the critical activities/processes that contributed to the development of the incident. Also, the analysis is based on data collected up to 2022, which would need to be extended with the most recent incidents. To finish, as mentioned before, the analysis does yet not include knowledge from the events occurring in HRSs, which is part of another study.
Further research and collaborative efforts in the hydrogen industry are necessary to continually improve safety protocols and minimize the impact of incidents and accidents.
5. Conclusions
This review and analysis of the events recorded in the HIAD 2.0 has enabled the identification of risks and hazards associated with each stage of the hydrogen value chain (production, storage, distribution and industrial applications). These insights, related to frequency, severity, activities/processes and types of failures, provide valuable knowledge for enhancing the safety of HRSs.
One of the main findings of the study is related to the binomial frequency–severity, revealing that the event frequency does not necessarily translate into greater severity. In this sense, incidents and accidents occurring during storage operations, while constituting 22.32% of the total, bear an alarming 90% fatality rate. This high severity is linked to critical practices such as performing work activities inside the tanks and degassing processes.
The analysis also identifies critical equipment/systems in the different stages of the hydrogen value chain. This is the case of electrolyzers and storage devices in events during hydrogen production or compressors and hydrogen pipes inside the installations where hydrogen is being used. Additionally, loading and unloading hydrogen for transfer or receipt and transporting hydrogen by road are crucial processes/activities during hydrogen delivery.
These findings can be instrumental in improving the safety of hydrogen refueling stations. HRSs also face the challenges of storage, delivery, use, and production (for on-site installations). This knowledge can help stakeholders in the hydrogen industry, including operators of refueling stations, regulatory bodies, and technology developers, take specific actions that foster safer environments for both workers and the public. This proactive approach to safety is essential for the successful growth of the hydrogen economy and the widespread adoption of hydrogen as an energy carrier.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.N. and E.B.; methodology, J.N. and E.B.; validation, J.N. and E.B.; formal analysis, J.N. and E.B.; investigation, J.N. and E.B.; resources, J.N., E.B. and N.P.; data curation, J.N. and E.B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.N. and E.B.; writing—review and editing, J.N., E.B., R.S., N.P. and H.S.; visualization, J.N. and E.B.; supervision, J.N. and E.B.; project administration, J.N., E.B., R.S. and N.P.; funding acquisition, R.S. and N.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Spanish National Research Agency (AEI) under its National Plan for Scientific, Technical Research and Innovation 2021–2023 (grant number PCI2022-132997), through the European Interest Group (EIG) CONCERT-Japan platform (grant number 334340) as the international SUSHy project.
Institutional Review Board Statement
On 19 March 2024, the Research Ethics Committee of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (CERec), where CIEMAT researchers work, confirmed that the project does not require an ethics clearance.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data sample was obtained from the European Hydrogen Incidents and Accidents Database (HIAD) 2.0 and the European Commission Joint Research Centre (Petten, Netherlands). It was requested on the 15 June 2022 via the Odin portal (https://odin.jrc.nl, accessed on 15 June 2022).
Acknowledgments
This work was undertaken as a part of the research project “Sustainability development and cost-reduction of hybrid renewable energies-powered hydrogen stations by risk-based multidisciplinary approaches” (SUSHy). The authors would like to thank the European Commission Joint Research Centre (Petten, Netherlands) for providing the Hydrogen Incidents and Accidents Database (HIAD) 2.0.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
References
- UNFCCC Paris Agreement. In United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; UN: Paris, France, 2015; pp. 1–18.
- SUStainability and Cost-Reduction of Hydrogen Stations through Risk-Based, Multidisciplinary Approaches Project. Available online: https://sushyproject.com/ (accessed on 15 December 2023).
- Salehi, F.; Abbassi, R.; Asadnia, M.; Chan, B.; Chen, L. Overview of Safety Practices in Sustainable Hydrogen Economy—An Australian Perspective. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 34689–34703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.; Wang, T.; Deng, X.; Dang, J.; Huang, Z.; Hu, S.; Li, Y.; Ouyang, M. Review on Hydrogen Safety Issues: Incident Statistics, Hydrogen Diffusion, and Detonation Process. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 31467–31488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Cho, M.H.; Lee, M.C.; Kim, Y.J. Evaluating Hydrogen Risk Management Policy PR: Lessons Learned from Three Hydrogen Accidents in South Korea. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 24536–24547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, Y.; Wu, J.; Bai, Y.; Cai, J.; Zhu, X. All-Process Risk Modelling of Typical Accidents in Urban Hydrogen Refueling Stations. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 166, 414–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Academy of Engineering The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; ISBN 9780309388108. [CrossRef]
- Noyan, O.F.; Hasan, M.M.; Pala, N. A Global Review of the Hydrogen Energy Eco-System. Energies 2023, 16, 1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adnan Khan, M.; MacKinnon, C.; Eng Young, C.; Layzell, D.B. Techno-Economics of a New Hydrogen Value Chain Supporting Heavy Duty Transport. Transit. Accel. Rep. 2022, 4, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Alsaba, W.; Al-Sobhi, S.A.; Qyyum, M.A. Recent Advancements in the Hydrogen Value Chain: Opportunities, Challenges, and the Way Forward–Middle East Perspectives. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 26408–26435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petmal. 884011924. Available online: https://www.istockphoto.com/es/foto/solución-de-ecología-energética-poder-al-concepto-de-gas-gm884011924-245825266?phrase=hydrogen+facility (accessed on 15 December 2023).
- Nasa Kennedy KSC-20160428-PH_FJM0001_0016. Available online: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/26172644733/ (accessed on 15 December 2023).
- Nasa Kennedy KSC-20180831-PH_CHS01_0104. Available online: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/43485369735/ (accessed on 15 December 2023).
- Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Hydrogen Isotopes Technology Laboratory. Available online: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cnl_lnc/17333214691 (accessed on 15 December 2023).
- Wen, J.X.; Marono, M.; Moretto, P.; Reinecke, E.A.; Sathiah, P.; Studer, E.; Vyazmina, E.; Melideo, D. Statistics, Lessons Learned and Recommendations from Analysis of HIAD 2.0 Database. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 17082–17096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campari, A.; Nakhal Akel, A.J.; Ustolin, F.; Alvaro, A.; Ledda, A.; Agnello, P.; Moretto, P.; Patriarca, R.; Paltrinieri, N. Lessons Learned from HIAD 2.0: Inspection and Maintenance to Avoid Hydrogen-Induced Material Failures. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2023, 173, 108199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melideo, D.; Weidner Ronnefeld, E.; Dolci, F.; Moretto, P. HIAD—Hydrogen Incident and Accident Database. In Proceedings of the 53rd ESReDA Seminar, Ispra, Italy, 14–15 November 2017; pp. 326–336, JRC108666. [Google Scholar]
- Online Data & Information Network for Energy. Available online: https://odin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/odin/ (accessed on 15 June 2022).
- Schoonenboom, J.; Johnson, R.B. Wie Man Ein Mixed Methods-Forschungs-Design Konstruiert. Kolner Z. Soz. Sozpsychol. 2017, 69, 107–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrhart, B.D.; Hecht, E.S.; Groth, K.M. Sandia Report. Hydrogen Risk Assessment Models (HyRAM) Version 3.0 Technical Reference Manual; OSTI.GOV: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2020.
- Tarancón, A.; Esposito, V.; Torrell, M.; Di Vece, M.; Son, J.S.; Norby, P.; Barg, S.; Grant, P.S.; Vogelpoth, A.; Linnenbrink, S.; et al. 2022 Roadmap on 3D Printing for Energy. J. Phys Energy 2022, 4, 11501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navajas, J.; Badia, E.; Sala, R.; Sato, H.; Paltrinieri, N. Development of a Protocol for the Systematic Analysis of Events at Hydrogen Refuelling Stations. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2023, 105, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- West, M.; Al-Douri, A.; Hartmann, K.; Buttner, W.; Groth, K.M. Critical Review and Analysis of Hydrogen Safety Data Collection Tools. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 17845–17858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).