暂时无法连接题库，当前显示已保存的题面。最后核验：

A 2008 consequence-based key-performance-indicator study ranked alternative hydrogen storage technologies for inherent safety and found metal- and complex-hydride storage inherently safer than conventional options, because hydrogen is held in a less hazardous solid chemical form. The ranking, however, rested on generic failure-frequency data for conventional process equipment and a simplified Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for the non-standard hydride components, so the credit factors quantifying the credibility of loss-of-containment events, and hence the ranking itself, remained uncertain. The open problem is to obtain reliable, hydride-storage-specific equipment failure and reliability data for hydride processes and their auxiliary units (compressors, heat exchangers, valves, instrumentation), and to use these data to verify whether hydride storage retains its inherent-safety advantage at industrial scale.

Background

Hydrogen must be stored at high density to serve as an energy carrier, and the main options have very different hazard profiles: compressed gas at 350-700 bar, cryogenic liquid hydrogen at -253 degrees Celsius, and solid-state storage in metal hydrides (intermetallic alloys such as TiFe or LaNi5_5 that absorb hydrogen into a solid phase at roughly ambient temperature and pressures below a few tens of bar, releasing it endothermically on heating) or in complex hydrides (lightweight hydride compounds such as borohydrides and alanates with high capacity but complex handling). Because hydrogen is highly flammable and easily ignited, the safety of the storage concept is a first-order criterion in technology selection. Inherently safer design (ISD) is the philosophy of eliminating or reducing hazards through design choices - substitution of a hazardous material by a less hazardous one, moderation of process conditions, minimization of inventories, simplification of plants - rather than through added-on protective systems. To compare storage concepts at early design stages, Landucci, Tugnoli and Cozzani (2008) applied a consequence-based inherent-safety assessment: for each storage concept they defined a set of loss-of-containment events (LOCs, i.e., accidental releases such as a full-bore pipe rupture), assigned each LOC a credit factor (a baseline frequency value expressing how credible the event is), modeled the physical consequences of the resulting fires and explosions to obtain damage distances, and aggregated these into key performance indicators (KPIs) that rank the inherent safety of the alternatives. The credit factors for conventional equipment (compressors, heat exchangers, vessels) were taken from generic published failure-frequency collections for the process industries, while for the non-standard equipment of the innovative hydride technologies the authors used a simplified Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA, a systematic qualitative procedure that identifies component failure modes and their consequences). The study concluded that the potential hazard is always lower for the metal- and complex-hydride options, mainly through the ISD principles of substitution and moderation since hydrogen is stored as a less hazardous hydride; but it also warned that, in the perspective of industrial implementation, the reliability of the auxiliary equipment would be a critical issue: the actual failure frequencies of hydride-process auxiliary units may differ significantly from the generic literature values, the simplified FMEA may miss failure modes, and the resulting credit factors are uncertain. The same authors' companion study of automotive hydrogen supply chains (2010) reached the same limitation: technology-specific failure-frequency databases for metal-hydride storage did not exist, and reliability modelling of heat-exchanger and compressor failure rates was an open need. Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of a process plant combines such failure frequencies with consequence models; the maturity gap is often expressed through the technology readiness level (TRL), a scale from 1 (basic principles) to 9 (proven operation), because low-TRL technologies lack both operating experience and component reliability statistics. Later work has not closed this gap: successor comparative studies still draw their credit factors from generic baseline failure-frequency collections rather than hydride-specific data (Schiaroli et al., 2024), containerized metal-hydride demonstrators are risk-managed with semi-quantitative hazard analysis and consequence modeling rather than quantified equipment failure frequencies (Rosino Messa et al., 2024), and dedicated reviews of hydride-storage risk assessment and of hydrogen safety continue to report that failure-frequency estimation for quantitative risk assessment is limited by a scarcity of hydrogen-specific reliability data, particularly for emerging large-scale applications (Khan and Zhang, 2025; Groth et al., 2026).

Problem Statement

Obtain reliable, technology-specific equipment failure and reliability data for metal-hydride (and complex-hydride) hydrogen storage processes and their auxiliary units - compressors, heat exchangers, valves, and instrumentation - so as to establish, with quantified uncertainty, whether the substitution-and-moderation safety advantage that hydride storage shows under generic failure-frequency assumptions survives at industrial scale once the actual failure frequencies of hydride-specific auxiliary equipment are accounted for.

References

  1. Landucci G, Tugnoli A, Cozzani V. Inherent safety key performance indicators for hydrogen storage systems. Journal of Hazardous Materials 159(2-3):554-566, 2008. DOI 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.02.080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.02.080
  2. Tugnoli A, Landucci G, Cozzani V. Key performance indicators for inherent safety: Application to the hydrogen supply chain. Process Safety Progress 28(2):156-170, 2009. DOI 10.1002/prs.10303. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.10303
  3. Landucci G, Tugnoli A, Cozzani V. Safety assessment of envisaged systems for automotive hydrogen supply and utilization. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35(3):1493-1505, 2010. DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.11.097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.11.097
  4. Khalil Y. Risk quantification framework of hydride-based hydrogen storage systems for light-duty vehicles. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 38:187-198, 2015. DOI 10.1016/j.jlp.2015.09.008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.09.008
  5. Lototskyy MV, Tolj I, Klochko Y, Davids MW, Swanepoel L, Linkov V. Metal hydride hydrogen storage tank for fuel cell utility vehicles. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 45(14):7958-7967, 2020. DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.04.124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.04.124
  6. Correa-Jullian C, Groth KM. Data requirements for improving the Quantitative Risk Assessment of liquid hydrogen storage systems. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 47(6):4222-4235, 2022. DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.10.266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.10.266
  7. Groth KM, Al-Douri A, West M, Hartmann K, Saur G, Buttner W. Design and requirements of a hydrogen component reliability database (HyCReD). International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 51:1023-1037, 2024. DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.07.165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.07.165
  8. Rosino Messa A, Quesnel S, Bellosta von Colbe J, Ante MJ, Stühff H, Luetto C, Baricco M. Risk Management in a Containerized Metal Hydride Storage System. Hydrogen Safety 1(1):33-45, 2024. DOI 10.58895/hysafe.10. https://doi.org/10.58895/hysafe.10
  9. Martinček I, Jandačka J, Malcho M. Metal Hydride Hydrogen Storage as a Safe Alternative to Traditional Hydrogen Storage Methods. System Safety: Human - Technical Facility - Environment 6(1):218-226, 2024. DOI 10.2478/czoto-2024-0024. https://doi.org/10.2478/czoto-2024-0024
  10. Schiaroli A, Scarponi GE, Antonioni G, Cozzani V. Hazard footprint of alternative fuel storage concepts for hydrogen-powered urban buses. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50:1430-1442, 2024. DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.11.104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.11.104
  11. Khan HB, Zhang T. Metal hydride hydrogen storage risk assessment: A review. Journal of Energy Storage 129:117273, 2025. DOI 10.1016/j.est.2025.117273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2025.117273
  12. Casson Moreno V, Vianna S, Landucci G. An integrated assessment of the safety, economic, and environmental impacts of hydrogen refueling stations in comparison to conventional fuel stations. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 185:151929, 2025. DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.151929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.151929
  13. Fede G, Collina G, Tugnoli A, Bucelli M, Silva D, Sgarbossa F. Hydrogen supply design for the decarbonization of energy-intensive industries addressing cost, inherent safety and environmental performance. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 175:151373, 2025. DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.151373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.151373
  14. Groth K, Li R, Al-Douri A, Ustolin F, Yang R. Hydrogen safety for production, infrastructures, vehicles and aviation. Nature Reviews Clean Technology 2(7):476-491, 2026. DOI 10.1038/s44359-026-00175-0. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44359-026-00175-0
  15. Tamburini F, Tugnoli A, Cozzani V. Inherent safety assessment of the blue hydrogen value chain. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 223:154322, 2026. DOI 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2026.154322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2026.154322
  16. Wang T, Aguey-Zinsou K-F. Toward consequence-based setback distances for outdoor bulk metal hydride-based solid-state hydrogen storage. Journal of Energy Storage 165:122299, 2026. DOI 10.1016/j.est.2026.122299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2026.122299