![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090509045843im_/http://www.rita.dot.gov/images/spacer.gif) |
Work Plan
Any analysis of gaps or future technology needs for hydrogen
distribution, transportation, and storage must encompass both centralized
manufacture at sites remote from the user points (these could include large
central station plants or midsize plants for regional markets) and distributed
manufacture at the vehicle fueling facilities.
The study used a hazard assessment-like procedure that
incorporated the following steps:
- Identifying the Key Areas required for a safe hydrogen economy, and their criticality.
- Assessing the state of these Key Areas:
- Identify that the important factors have been or are being addressed.
- Determine if prior work is still applicable or if recent breakthroughs or observations render the prior work obsolete.
- Identifying and prioritizing “gaps” and highlight areas that warrant further study.
- Developing recommendations for Key Areas, including research, studies, or trials that could close gaps and resolve shortcomings in understanding all aspects of safe hydrogen gas operations.
Although there may be considerable differences in “how” certain
practices are performed, the general approach to design, construction, and
operation of hydrogen pipelines is expected to be similar to standards and
procedures for natural gas pipeline operations. Therefore, current DOT Safety
Regulations were used as a reference for identifying a number of Key Areas.
Other resources, such as ASME Codes, the National Academy of
Science (NAS) report The Hydrogen Economy,
NASA’s Safety Standard for Hydrogen and Hydrogen Systems, the DOT
Hydrogen Portal, DOE Hydrogen Program activities (particularly work underway at
Sandia National Laboratories and the Hydrogen Pipeline Steering Group of which
GTI is a member), and the comprehensive volume of related research performed by
GTI was used to establish the comprehensive list of Key Areas.
The overall process for the analyses is depicted graphically in Figure 1. The bottom of this figure shows a matrix that was
developed for facilitating the identification, filtering, and prioritization of
Key Areas. Criticality was categorized as high, medium, or low while the state
of progress used the following categories:
- Fully Addressed: technology is mature and safety procedures (not necessarily regulations) are established.
- Addressed, Monitoring: technical work is well underway and safety procedures are reasonably well developed.
- Addressed, Not Adequately: technical work has started and safety procedures are under development.
- Not Addressed: no progress, or efforts are only identified or getting organized.
Criticality and progress were assigned weights as indicated in
the following table. The score for each Key Area was then calculated as the
product of criticality and progress weights. Non-linear weighting was employed to
emphasize the Not Adequately Addressed and Not Addressed progress categories.
Criticality |
High |
5 |
Medium |
3 |
Low |
1 |
Progress |
Fully Addressed |
1 |
Addressed, Monitoring |
2 |
Addressed, Not Adequately |
4 |
Not Addressed |
8 |
The anticipated deployment scope for technology categories was considered
in formulating recommendations. The assessment of deployment scope was
represented in the Usage Matrix in Figure
2. The matrix identifies
categories of hydrogen transport technologies from high pressure gas to
developing technologies such as hydrides and physisorption materials. The
columns of the matrix identify the scale of transport from pipeline at the
large end to small-scale (man portable) systems at the small end. Bulk and
non-bulk are defined regulatory terms. From 49 CFR 171.8:
Bulk packaging means a packaging, other
than a vessel or a barge, including a transport vehicle or freight container,
in which hazardous materials are loaded with no intermediate form of
containment and which has:
- A maximum capacity greater than 450L (119 gallons) as a receptacle for a liquid;
- A maximum net mass greater than 400kg (882 pounds) and a maximum capacity greater than 450 L (119 gallons) as a receptacle for a solid; or
- A water capacity greater than 454 kg (1000 pounds) as a receptacle for a gas as defined in §173.115 of this subchapter.
At each intersection of technology and scale is an indication of
the likelihood of that technology being used at that scale.
The timeframe matrix in Figure
3 uses the same overall structure,
but with each intersection indicating the recommended timeframe in which the
issues associated with the technology at that scale need to begin being
addressed. This is not necessarily the same as the timeframe at which it is
anticipated that the technology will be widely deployed. The timeframe coding
is also shown for each Key Area in the Master Item Table below.
The analysis of each Key Area is presented in a consistent format
which encompasses a description of the Key Area, a discussion of criticality, a
discussion of progress, and finally recommendations. A number of Key Areas have
similarities and therefore similar discussion. While this can lead to some
repetitiveness when reading multiple Key Area assessments, the benefit is that
each assessment can largely be read and understood in isolation.
This work was conducted by a multi-faceted implementation team,
with oversight provided by a highly experienced and diverse expert panel. The
expert panel provided high-level input on the direction of this study while
providing review of interim and draft final documents. The implementation team
consisted of Gas Technology Institute, Lincoln Composites (Dr. Norm Newhouse),
Proteus Services Group (Dr. Ned Stetson), and St. Croix Research (Mr. Charles
Powars).
The following individuals served on the Expert Panel for this
effort: Addison Bain (NASA, retired), Jim Campbell (Air Liquide), Don Cook
(California Department of Industrial Relations), David Haberman (IF, LLC), John
Koehr (ASME), George Parks (ConocoPhillips), and Ralph Tribolet (Linde,
retired). The panel members represent the breadth of hydrogen economy
participants—from technology developers, industrial gas and energy companies,
standards developing organizations, and public safety officials. Additional
commentary was provided by Mr. Louis Hayden, chairman of the ASME B31.12
Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines Project Team.
|
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090509045843im_/http://www.rita.dot.gov/images/spacer.gif) |