Tag: Hydrogen Vehicles

Hydrogen based storage technology could replace capacitor and battery technology for energy storage in vehicles, vessels and aircraft of various types and sizes. Previously, posts in this weblog have taken up a hydrogen station explosion, and its aftermath. In addition, a flawed report about the economics of hydrogen and methane has been examined.

Plasma Kinetics hydrogen technology was introduced, and patented, in 2008. It was first claimed that the technology was transformational, then disruptive. Almost immediately restrictions were placed on their use of patents, effectively resulting in the technology being banned by the US government. That situation continued until 2017, when it was allowed to be commercialized. There were some restrictions imposed under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which continues to restrict its export as a missile fuel.

Where Plasma Kinetics technology differs from other providers of hydrogen, is that it does not need a compressed gas infrastructure to capture, move or distribute hydrogen. Instead, one common distribution method is to fill 19 l / 7 kg containers with hydrogen, for sale at assorted local stores. Empty containers can be returned, in exchange for recharged containers.  The stored hydrogen is non-flammable.  Containers of hydrogen can be transported via truck, rail, or ship without restriction.  There is no need to build compressed hydrogen gas stations.  Plasma Kinetics systems are slightly larger, and only moderately heavier, than compressed gas carbon-fiber tanks at 700 bar.  But solid storage containers are much easier to manage than compressed gas, and have a lower overall energy cost, and a cleaner fabrication process.  Safe, non-flammable, hydrogen storage in dense solid form. Hydrogen is zero-carbon. No energy or pressure is required to collect and store hydrogen. No pipelines or fixed structure pumping stations are required. Cassette, canister and other container systems can be easily recharged. Materials used are non-toxic and readily available worldwide. The entire processing process is quiet. 

The nano-graphite film recharges through 150 cycles and is fully recyclable. The reason for this limit, is that the process only works with atomic hydrogen = ¹H (where an atom consists of one proton and one electron, but no neutrons). This amounts to 99.98% of hydrogen found in the wild. Deuterium = ²H (where an atom consists of one proton, one neutron and one electron), amounts to 0.02% of the wild hydrogen population. It cannot be used in the energy system, so it accumulates on the film. It can, however, be retrieved when the storage units are recycled, and sold for a profit that exceeds the recycling costs!

My acquaintance with this technology came from a YouTube video (2021-06-24) on the E for Electric channel, when Sandy Munro was asked by Alex Guberman, what he would do if he became CEO of Toyota for a day? Part of his answer involved Toyota acquiring, or at least developing a relationship with, Plasma Kinetics.

Some weeks later, in an interview with Paul Smith (2021-08-12), Smith explains how the technology works, starting at about 5m00s in. He claimed that 15 lbs provides 20 miles of range in a car. With a severe allergy to imperial units, I would probably have said that a 19 l/ 7 kg cartridge would provide an average car with sufficient energy for 30 km. Cylinders for trucks would be 20 x larger (140 kg). Four of those would allow a truck to travel 570 miles = ca. 900 km.

One of the main concerns with this technology is the capability of consumers to replace a 19 l/ 7 kg cartridge every 30 km. People expect a modern electric vehicle (EV) to have a range of at least 300 km, which would require a vehicle to carry ten such units, at a weight of 70 kg. It was pointed out that systems were being developed for the automatic removal and insertion of disks (in cars), and presumably cylinders (in trucks and airplanes).

It was noted that while batteries are extremely efficient, the specific energy of hydrogen, expressed in terms of J/ kg, is three times that of a battery. Except, in some respects, one is comparing avocados with olives! The hydrogen needs to go through a fuel cell for its energy to be converted to electricity.

It should be noted that prior to the hydrogen ending up in some container, water = H₂O has been converted in an electrolyzer resulting in hydrogen 2 parts H₂ and oxygen 1 part O₂. Please do not ask what happens to the oxygen!

Both fuel cells and electrolyzers are becoming smaller, lighter and more reliable. Electrolyzers can be stationed at local wind or photo-voltaic farms, wastewater treatment facilities, or other climate friendly sources.

It was also pointed out that a conventional compressed hydrogen refueling station can cost US$ 2.5 to 3 million. This contrasts with a station for Plasma Kinetics containers that costs about US$ 200 000.

A fuel cell vehicle using this technology should be far cheaper to make than a battery electric vehicle. Some items are eliminated, others are repurposed. For example, the battery cooling system becomes a fuel cell cooling system. Some components remain the same, such as the electric motors. In essence, a heavy battery is being replaced with a much lighter fuel cell and the Plasma Kinetics photo release system for hydrogen. This should give the vehicle improved range.

Paul Smith concludes that interest for the technology is stronger in Asia and Europe, and much less so in North America. A fab = fabrication facility = factory, to make the equipment costs about US$ 100 million.

In EV 2030 predictions, the challenges with fuel cells involve the energy costs of electolyzing hydrogen from water, which account for somewhere between 25% (DC) and 31% (AC) energy loses. Then, processing of hydrogen in the fuel cell costs another 50%. This means that the energy value available to the motors is somewhere between 36 – 38%. In contrast, the energy value available with a battery is about 77%.

Since my prophecy quotient is already used up, I will only speak of dreams. One of which is that dynamic charging along highways will meet much of the vehicular need for electricity, by 2050. Unfortunately, this is not supported by any evidence seen so far. Associated with this dream, is that the cost of dynamic charging technology will be less than that provided by hydrogen containers and fuel cells or equivalent battery based components, in vehicles. An agenda to this dream is that solid-state batteries will become the norm because of their increased specific energy and energy density, and durability. Any such batteries will generally be much smaller and reserved for last mile situations, something a 20 kWh battery would be able to supply.

The hydrogen station at Kjørbo is centrally located in Sandvika outside of Oslo, by two of the busiest roads in Norway with 80 000 cars passing daily. It is in Bærum municipality, and Akershus county. It exploded on Monday 2019-06-10. Since then, a number of interesting – some might say alarming – facts have emerged.

The station was a joint venture between X-Uno, Nel and Nippon Gases (formerly Praxair), announced on 2016-04-01. It uses Nel technology for on-site hydrogen production from electrolysis. The station is co-located with Powerhouse Kjørbo, an energy-positive office building, that uses solar panels that can supply upward of 200 000 kWh each year, twice the amount of the building’s annual energy consumption. Some of this excess energy was to be used to produce hydrogen.

The project had a total budget of NOK 28.4 million, of which NOK 5.7 million was support from the Akershus County Council and NOK 7.7 million was from the Norwegian public enterprise, Enova, responsible for the promotion of environmentally friendly production and consumption of energy. Other project partners included consulting firm Asplan Viak and Bærum Municipality.

Nel is an electrolysis technology company that has expanded into the hydrogen market. Its roots going back to technology developed by
Norsk Hydro in 1927. It is the world’s largest electrolyzer manufacturer with more than 3500 units delivered in over 80 countries. It is also a world leading manufacturer of hydrogen fuelling stations; approximately 50 stations delivered to 9 countries.

Safety Assessment

Bærum municipality has clearly stated that they did not have the competence to say whether the station was safe or not. They pointed out that the operator Uno-X sent its risk analysis to the Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning (DSB), relying on the authority to intervene if they saw the station as a security risk.

But DSB did not assess the analysis. Neither do they need to do so with anyone who stores or produces hydrogen in Norway. It emerges from DSB’s overview of hydrogen facilities in Norway, that the limit for having to get approval from the professional authority is actually set so high that it does not apply to anyone.

A total of 5 tonnes of hydrogen can be stored before it is subject to major accident regulations. Then another regulation on the storage of hazardous chemicals enters, which requires consent from DSB. That said, 100 grams of hydrogen can cause a serious situation if it is handled incorrectly, and less than one kilogram can lead to a fatal accident.

The 5 tonne limit is taken directly from Seveso, the relevant EU directive, which has been placed in the Norwegian major accident regulations. DSB is nevertheless free to demand that organizations obtain approval even if they are below the limit. However, DSB must argue that the risk dictates it, and then make a decision. It was not done at the hydrogen filling station in Sandvika. DSB is now also asking whether the limit of 5 tonnes of hydrogen is reasonable.

The amount of hydrogen stored when it exploded in the Uno-X station in Sandvika is uncertain, but in the safety analysis, the company estimates that they would store up to 100 kilograms during the first 1-2 years.

Leakage without Alarm

Perhaps the most disturbing fact emerging is that there was a hydrogen leak for an estimated 2.5 hours, that did not set off any alarms before the station exploded.

Nel installed the technology at the station and has admitted their responsibility for the explosion.

They are now reacting to the accident with a four point action plan. First, with a verified plug solution, they intend to inspect all high pressure storage units in Europe, and to check and re-torque all plugs. This should prevent the same circumstances arising in the future.

Second, they are updating their routines for assembly of high pressure storage units. This includes the introduction of a new safety system, and routines that follow an aerospace standard. This includes torque verification, double witness and documentation/marking.

Third, there is a need for improved leak detection, since it is estimated that hydrogen leaked from the tank for 2.5 hours, without this being detected. Thus, no alarm sounded before the tank exploded. Initially, this will involve a software update to increase leak detection frequency. However, they will also consider additional detection hardware and/ or modifications to the existing equipment.

Fourth, ignition control measures will have to be implemented. These are site dependent. A smooth surface, without gravel, should surround any high pressure storage unit. Additional ventilation may also be required, along with greater use of EX-equipment. That is, electrical equipment specifically designed for hazardous locations. This type of equipment should be specially designed and tested to ensure it does not initiate an explosion, including – but not restricted to – those due to arcing contacts or high surface temperature of equipment.

Incorrect Assembly of Equipment

The safety consulting company Gexcon, along with SINTEF and Bureau Veritas, is responsible for investigating the accident. They have found that a plug in one of the hydrogen tanks was mounted incorrectly and that this is why hydrogen leaked into the air and formed a cloud that eventually exploded.

On Friday, 2019-06-28, Nel, the company manufacturing the hydrogen distribution equipment, and who has taken responsibility for the explosion, explained how the incorrect assembly took place. Their presentation – which appears to be part public relations information about the company and part explanation for the incident – is here.

1. Materials OK
   1. Magnetic particle inspection
   2. Penetrant testing
   3. Verification of materials
2. Design OK
   1. 1 000 000 cycle accelerated test
3. Assembly NOT OK
   1. Bolt analysis
   2. Physical gap
   3. Opening torque

1. Starting condition.
   1. Green bolts torqued properly
   2. Blue bolts not torqued properly
2. Red sealing fails.
   1. Starting with small leak on red sealing area
   2. Small leak wears red sealing out and escalates
   3. Large leak exceeding capacity of leak bore, causing pressure increases inside blue sealing area
3. Bushing with Plug lifts and the blue seal fails.
   1. Insufficient pretension of bolts leads to lift of the plug and blue sealings fail immediately
   2. Spread of Hydrogen leaks out in uncontrolled way

There are two main candidates for ignition that are probably impossible to distinguish between. These are: 1. Self-ignition by static electricity mixed with optimum amount of oxygen and hydrogen led to ignition. 2. Gravel on the substrate at the tank, which lay at the very bottom in one corner. Wind acting on the gravel may have caused friction which led to ignition.

An additional report is expected to be released at the end of august 2019.

V2: The content was updated 2019-06-30 at 17:30.

An explosion, most likely in a single hydrogen tank, occurred at the Uno-X hydrogen station at Sandvika, near Oslo, on 2019-06-10. When writing this post, the cause of the explosion was not known.

While no one appears to have been directly injured in the explosion, two people driving in the vicinity were injured when their airbags activated because of air pressure from the explosion.

The explosion resulted in the closing, in both directions, of two major highways. European Highway 16 (E16) is the major east-west connection between Bergen and the Swedish border. The E18 connects southern Norway with Oslo.

For those interested in robotics, a LUF 60 wireless remote controlled mobile firefighting support machine, was actively used to suppress the fire that followed after the explosion. More importantly, it was used to cool other unexploded hydrogen tanks, to prevent them from exploding. In addition, a platform lift with water canon assisted with this task. These two vehicles allowed firefighters to keep their distance.

Norway’s other two hydrogen stations, one in Skedsmo, another Oslo suburb, and the other in Bergen, have now been closed.

According to Norwegian Hydrogen Forum as of 2018-12-31 there were 148 hydrogen cars registered in Norway: 57 Toyota Mirais, 27 Hyundai Nexos, and 64 Hyundai iX35s. In addition to this there are 5 buses and 1 truck. In contrast, as of the same date there were 200 192 plug in electric vehicles, plus 96 022 hybrid vehicles.

In another post titled Methane vs Electricity, a significantly flawed study from the Munich-based IFO Institute for Economic Research, was examined, along with its support for methane based, hydrogen vehicles.

With this explosion, hydrogen supporters in Norway will have lost much of the little good will that hydrogen fuel cells have built up. It has probably resulted in the last nail being put into the hydrogen car coffin.