4.7 Article

Risk analysis on mobile hydrogen refueling stations in Shanghai

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 39, Issue 35, Pages 20411-20419

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.07.098

Keywords

Risk analysis; Safe operation; Financial loss; Mobile hydrogen refueling stations

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51306071]
  2. High-technology Research and Development Program of China [2012AA053305]
  3. Science and Technology Committee of Shanghai Municipality [12dz1202500]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To better understand the hazards and risks associated with the mobile hydrogen refueling stations, a risk analysis was preformed to improve the safety of the operation. The risks to the station personnel and to the public were discussed separately. Results show that the stationary risks of the mobile stations to the personnel and refueling customers are lower than the risk acceptance criteria over an order of magnitude, so the occupational risks and the risks to customers are completely acceptable. The third party risks can be acceptable as long as the appropriate mitigation measures, especially well designed parking area and operation time, are implemented. Leak from booster compressors is the main risk contributor to the stationary risks due to the highest failure rates according to the generic data and the worst harm effects based on the consequence evaluations. However, the failure of the tube storages will result in the largest financial loss, though the likelihood of this scenario is much less than that of failure from booster compressors. As for the road risks of the mobile stations, they can be acceptable as long as the appropriate mitigation measures, especially well-planned itinerary and transport time, are implemented. Copyright (C) 2014, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available