4.7 Article

Fundamental environmental reactivity testing and analysis of the hydrogen storage material 2LiBH4•MgH2

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 39, Issue 3, Pages 1371-1381

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.01.139

Keywords

Hydrogen storage; Environmental reactivity; Lithium borohydride; Magnesium hydride; Calorimetry

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Storage Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While the storage of hydrogen for portable and stationary applications is regarded as critical in bringing PEM fuel cells to commercial acceptance, little is known of the environmental exposure risks posed in utilizing condensed phase chemical storage options as in complex hydrides. It is thus important to understand the effect of environmental exposure of metal hydrides in the case of accident scenarios. Simulated tests were performed following the United Nations standards to test for flammability and water reactivity in air for a destabilized lithium borohydride and magnesium hydride system in a 2 to 1 molar ratio respectively. It was determined that the mixture acted similarly to the parent, lithium borohydride, but at slower rate of reaction seen in magnesium hydride. To quantify environmental exposure kinetics, isothermal calorimetry was utilized to measure the enthalpy of reaction as a function of exposure time to dry and humid air, and liquid water. The reaction with liquid water was found to increase the heat flow significantly during exposure compared to exposure in dry or humid air environments. Calorimetric results showed the maximum normalized heat flow of the fully charged material was 6 mW/mg under liquid phase hydrolysis; and 14 mW/mg for the fully discharged material also occurring under liquid phase hydrolysis conditions. Copyright (C) 2013, 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