Pre-normative REsearch for Safe use of Liquid Hydrogen (PRESLHY)

Project Deliverable
White Paper

Deliverable Number: D42 (6.4)

Work Package: 6
Version: 2.1
Author(s), Institution(s): T. Jordan, KIT; J. L. Saw, HSE

Submission Date: 31 October 2018

Due Date: 31 October 2018
Report Classification: Public

This project has received funding from the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking
under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under
grant agreement No 779613.
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

History

Nr. Date Changes/Author

0.1 - Draft 1.5.2018 Original version by T. Jordan
0.2 27.11.20 Thomas Jordan

T. Jordan with input from L. Bernard and

1.0 04.01.21
V. Molkov
1.1 03.05.21 Editorial changes by T. Jordan
2.0 05.05.21 Major changes of Chapter 6 and 7
2.1 06.05.21 Revision of Chapter 7 and ed. changes

Approvals

Version Name Organisation Date

Acknowledgements
This project has received funding from the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking under
the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement
No 779613.

Disclaimer
Despite the care that was taken while preparing this document the following disclaimer applies:
The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty is given that the
information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof employs the information at his/her
sole risk and liability.
The document reflects only the authors’ views. The FCH JU and the European Union are not
liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Key words
LH2 safety, safe storage solution, technical solutions, hazard profiles, economic benefits

2
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

Publishable Short Summary

This white paper motivates the use of liquid hydrogen (LH2) as a safe storage option for hydrogen
and as a fuel. It introduces the involved technologies for production, storage and transport of
LH2. It compares the hazard profiles to compressed gaseous hydrogen and shows why LH2 is the
safer option. It explains the economic benefits of storing and transporting LH2 in large scale or
over long distance and to use it in weight critical applications like heavy duty transport. Finally,
it provides recommendations for policy makers, who intend to raise the potential provided with
LH2.

3
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 5
2 The growing hydrogen demand 5
3 The LH2 solution for large-scale storage of hydrogen 6
3.1 Hydrogen Liquefaction 7
3.2 Storage of LH2 9
3.3 Transport of LH2 11
3.4 LH2 based refuelling stations 12
4 Safety aspects 14
4.1 Storage and accidental releases 14
4.2 Ignition 15
4.3 Combustion, Explosions, Fireballs 16
5 Economical aspects and benefits 17
6 Policy and regulatory implications 19
6.1 Background 19
6.2 Regulation and Standardisation 19
6.3 LH2 specific safety aspects 21
6.4 Enabling function and remaining challenges 22
6.5 Conclusions for policy makers 23
7 Conclusions 24
8 References 26

4
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

1 Introduction
Our energy system must transform into a more sustainable system with reduced impact on
environment. Limiting global warming and managing an increasing energy demand of a
growing world population require a fast shift towards circular economy schemes and
preferential use of renewable energies. For a fast but successful and safe transformation
broadly open exploitation of all technology options, flexible coupling of the different energy
sectors and large-scale seasonal storage of renewable energy are required. This is perfectly
provided with the energy carrier hydrogen and hydrogen technologies.
This white paper explains the advantages of using liquid hydrogen (LH2), cryogenic hydrogen
respectively, for scaling up hydrogen supply infrastructures and enabling weight critical
mobility applications. It presents LH2 as a safe and efficient storable version of hydrogen,
describes the involved technologies and suggests actions in the political and scientific sphere
for a safe introduction of the fuel of the future.

2 The growing hydrogen demand

For fast and thorough decarbonisation, as required by corresponding regulation, renewable
energy has to be introduced in all applications, in all energy sectors at an increasing scale as
soon as possible. Imported fossil fuels have to be replaced by “green” energy carriers, which
may be harvested quite economically in remote places worldwide. Hydrogen as a versatile
carbon-free, light-weighted energy carrier provides an attractive, almost unique solution to
these challenges.
Existing use cases in the industry, where “grey” hydrogen is currently produced on-site with
considerable CO2 emissions, will serve as early entry points for green hydrogen. Integrating
green hydrogen in refineries, ammonia or methanol production offers large scales for green
hydrogen use and associated CO2 reductions almost immediately. The industrial applications
provide mature safety cultures and professional operations. However, new supply
infrastructures are required.
Similar scales are implied with heat applications and with transport. Especially decarbonizing
the transport sector turned out to be difficult within the last years. Whereas for light duty
vehicles battery electric drive trains might be the most economic choice, weight and range
critical transport, like heavy duty, water- and airborne transport are better addressed with
hydrogen as a fuel.

5
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

3 The LH2 solution for large-scale storage of hydrogen

As there are no natural sources for hydrogen, the life cycle of hydrogen always starts with the
hydrogen production. Hydrogen is produced from either organic material (hydrocarbons) via
reforming or pyrolysis or from water via electrolysis. In any of the production processes energy
has to be invested, which is largely stored chemically in the product hydrogen. The typical
production schemes deliver hydrogen in the gaseous state with a pressure below 3 MPa and
with some characteristic impurities. With its very low density (about 0.09 kg/m3 at standard
conditions) the gas has to be either compressed or liquefied for achieving acceptable densities
for storage or transport. The further processing also determines whether additional purification
is needed.

Figure 1:Energy density of hydrogen depending on temperature at different pressure levels compared to other energy carriers,
CGH2 = compressed gaseous hydrogen, CCH2 = cryo-compressed hydrogen
(left: gravimetric energy density; right: volumetric energy density)

The density of liquid hydrogen of 70 kg/m3 is about 5 times larger than compressed hydrogen
at 20 MPa and still considerably higher than compressed hydrogen at 70 MPa (38 kg/m3).
Figure 1 compares the gravimetric and volumetric energy density of liquid and cryo-
compressed hydrogen to gaseous hydrogen and other energy carriers.
Accounting for the mass and volume of typical containers and comparing specific performance
values of the storage system, clearly indicates that liquid hydrogen is the preferred option for
energy and weight critical applications, like heavy-duty transport or aviation, for scaling up
supply infrastructures and for mid- to long-distance transport of hydrogen itself.

6
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

Hydrogen Storage System Performance

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
H2 CGH2 @ CGH2 @ CGH2 @ CCH2 @ LH2 H2 in
("balloon") 20 MPa 35 MPa 70 MPa 50K, 50 metal
Mpa hydrides
(FeTi)

gravimetric / kWh/kg_System volumetric / kWh/l_System

Figure 2: Hydrogen Storage System Performance

3.1 Hydrogen Liquefaction

Liquefaction of hydrogen is another energy intensive process as hydrogen has to be cooled to
the boiling temperature of about 20 K. Table 1 compares the boiling temperature for a few
prominent gases in a decreasing sequence.

Table 1: Normal boiling temperature of water, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and helium

H2O O2 N2 H2 He

Boiling point 373 K 90 K 78 K 20 K 4K

The principle available processes for cooling and achieving these very low temperatures are
grouped into external cooling by a colder medium via a heat exchanger and internal cooling,
where the medium itself undergoes thermodynamic changes associated with a temperature
drop. The latter are split in processes where the media provides mechanical work in expansion
turbines “expanders” or in piston machines and in isenthalpic throttling in Joule-Thomson
valves.

7
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

Figure 3: Simplified process flow diagram for hydrogen liquefaction (Source: Cardella, 2018)

Even in a perfect thermodynamic process at least 14.2 MJ (11.8% of the lower heat of
combustion) are required to liquefy 1kg normal-hydrogen. This liquefaction exergy is larger
than for other gases and includes removal of tangible heat (5.8 MJ/kg), latent heat (6.2 MJ/kg)
and the heat released by ortho-para shift (2.2 MJ/kg).
The latter concerns the fact that there are actually two variants of hydrogen molecules, the
ortho- and the para-hydrogen. In ortho-hydrogen the two nuclear spins of the two atoms
composing the molecule are parallel, whereas in the para-hydrogen the spins are in opposite
directions. This leads to different magnetic properties and to less energy content in the para-
hydrogen molecule. At normal conditions, hydrogen consists of 75% ortho- and 25% para-
hydrogen (“normal hydrogen”) and at low temperatures close to the boiling point
predominantly para-hydrogen. As the ortho-para shift releases a considerable amount of
energy, it is important to include this step in the production and product specification of LH2.
The commonly applied method in large-scale liquefaction plants is the Claude process
combined with liquid nitrogen LN2 pre-cooling, where the necessary refrigeration is provided
in four main steps (Krasae-in, 2010):

1. Compression of hydrogen gas with removal of compression heat;

2. Precooling with liquid nitrogen ( > 80 K);
3. Cooling of a part of the hydrogen in an expansion machine “expander” (> 30 K);
4. Expanding of the residual hydrogen in a Joule-Thomson valve (20 K).

Joule-Thomson expansion is applied for the final step to avoid two-phase flow in the expander.
Currently, established liquefaction technology requires in the order of 40 MJ/kg – what is 33%
of the lower heat of combustion of 120 MJ/kg and an exergy efficiency – defined as ratio of
liquefaction exergy over actually required energy – of about 36%. Feasibility studies, as
performed in the IDEALHY project (Stolzenburg, 2013), showed a potential to reduce this to
22 MJ, corresponding to an efficiency of about 65%. Improvements in efficiency are expected
with the development of new materials, better heat exchangers and new compression/expansion
technology. An interesting but still immature technology is magnetic refrigeration, where the
entropy difference and the adiabatic temperature change upon application or removal of

8
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

magnetic fields is utilised. However, this process is deemed to be used for the rather low
temperatures and suitable materials are still lacking.
The current worldwide production capacity in about 35 installations is approximately 350 t per
day. Northern America has with 85% the largest share. In Europe there are currently only 3
large liquefaction plants (Aasadnia, 2018).

3.2 Storage of LH2

Similar to compressed storage, there are two main classes of LH2 storage vessels. There are
cryostats for stationary applications and for transport. Representatives of both classes are
shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

Figure 4: 3800 m3 LH2 Storage at Kennedy Space Flight Center in Florida (Source NASA)

Figure 5: Cross-sectional model of a LH2 lightweight formtank with integrated auxiliary system for automotive application
(Source: BMW AG)

Cryogenic vessels have been commonly used for more than 40 years for the storage and
transportation of liquefied gases including liquid hydrogen. In order to manage storage at -
253°C, for large inventories (> 100 m3 volume) double-walled vacuum-insulated pressure tanks
are used. Such vessels consist of an inner pressure vessel and an external protective jacket. The

9
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

volume between inner vessel and jacket is filled with compressed perlite under vacuum. Perlite
is an inorganic amorphous volcanic glass that represents a good trade-off between cost and
insulation properties. For smaller cryostats (< 100 m3) a multi-layer insulation MLI is used
instead. This insulation is composed of several layers of a metallic coated plastic sheet,
separated by a grid like spacer. The heat absorption for the small automotive LH2 storage tanks
with an internal volume of about 100 l, like the one shown in Figure 5, is thus reduced to about
1W. This heat input leads to evaporation and via a pressure limiting valve to the boil-off of the
evaporated cold gases. The boil-off corresponds to a loss of 1.5% of the stored energy per day
for small cryostats. The typical stored mass of about 7kg will be lost in 2 months if the car was
not used in this phase.
The following boil-off management may reduce these losses or at least reduce the associated
risk with released hydrogen by:

- cold combustion with air in catalytic recombiners,

- storing the boil-off gases in metal hydrides or other adsorbers,
- re-cycling in a re-liquefaction process,
- direct energetic use, in a fuel cell for instance.

Of course, the involved temperatures are demanding not only regarding the design of the actual
storage but also regarding the compatibility of all connected technologies, like measurement
techniques, armatures, valves, and piping. Also fuel cells actually require higher temperature of
the feed hydrogen. However, the cooling power of the extracted gases might be used also for
cooling purposes, which represent in particular for low temperature fuel cells a challenge.

Figure 6: Liquid Hydrogen Storage System LHSS (based on: UN ECE GTR13)

So, the typical liquid hydrogen storage system, as shown in Figure 6, consists of the following
components:

- insulated liquefied hydrogen storage container(s);

- shut off devices(s);

10
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

- a boil-off system;
- Pressure Relief Devices (PRDs);
- a level gauge for measuring the filling level,
- a heater, either electric or heat exchanger air for higher extraction rates, and
- interconnecting piping (if any) and fittings between the above components.

3.3 Transport of LH2

Liquid hydrogen may be transported for short distances in pipelines, for larger distances in
storage systems as described in the previous chapter.
Cryogenic liquid hydrogen trailers can carry up to 5 000 kg of hydrogen and operate up to 1.2
MPa (with a certain distance from critical pressure). Hydrogen boil-off can occur during
transport despite the super-insulated design of these tankers, potentially in the order of 0.5%
per day. Hydrogen boil-off up to roughly 5% also occurs when unloading the liquid hydrogen
on delivery.
The LH2 trailers are insulated using a vacuum super insulation, similar as described for the
storage containers. This thermal insulation system typically includes:
- A double-shell insulation space (interspace) where static or dynamic (for large
storage) high vacuum is limiting heat transfer by conduction and convection;
- A blanket of alternate layers of highly reflecting shields (Aluminium for instance)
and insulating spacers (Lydall for instance) to prevent heat transfer by radiation as
well as conduction between shields;
- An adsorbent (molecular sieve) placed in the vacuum space in order to achieve an
adequate level of vacuum at low temperature by adsorption of residual gases and
moisture.

Figure 7: Trailer transport of liquid hydrogen

11
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

Pipes for transferring cryogenic liquid hydrogen provide relatively large specific surface and
therefore must be insulated even more carefully. Similar concepts as for storing LH2 in
cryostats are applied. A prototypical transfer pipe for LH2 therefore consists of at least two
concentric tubes combined with superinsulation material in the vacuum insulated. There are
rigid or flexible variants (see Figure 8).

Figure 8: CRYOFLEX® Transfer Lines for LH2 by Nexans

Because of the relatively high heat ingress such LH2 pipelines are usually limited in length.
Typical use of flexible lines is for transfer from a trailer to a stationary storage or for filling
lines at a refuelling station. Larger set-ups are typically used for filling rocket tanks at space
flight centers, like the one of NASA in Florida, USA.

3.4 LH2 based refuelling stations

Basically, a LH2-based refuelling station consists of:
- a vertical or horizontal LH2 tank. Tanks at the utilisation site are usually smaller
with capacities from 100 to 2 500 kg for vertical tanks and up to 5 000 kg for
horizontal tanks. Usually, the maximum operating pressure is 1.2 MPa;
- an insulated process line from the bottom of the storage to the LH2 pump
(reciprocating or submerged) pumping LH2 from the storage tank to the atmospheric
vaporizer. This device allows to pump LH2 up to 100 MPa.
- a heater (hot oil, electric or atmospheric heat exchange) in order to heat up
hydrogen at 100 MPa;
- 100 MPa gaseous buffers (few m3). These buffers are generally bundles of type I or
II metallic cylinders or long metallic tubes; and
- all the other parts (dispenser, filling hose, …) of the refuelling station are similar to
classical gaseous refuelling station.
The LH2 is delivered by a LH2 trailer truck. The LH2 trailer has a 40 m3 horizontal tank
operating between 0.1 and 1.2 MPa. The connection between the truck and the stationary
storage at the refuelling station is done by a flexible transfer line. The transfer is performed

12
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

without a pump. Instead a small vaporizer, a heater respectively, is present on the trailer to
pressurise truck tank and to allow the transfer of liquid H2 in the stationary vertical storage by
the generated pressure difference.

Figure 9: Process flow of a LH2-based hydrogen refuelling station

Figure 10: View of a LH2-based hydrogen refuelling station (90 MPa - 100 kg/d; source: Linde).

13
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

4 Safety aspects
Hydrogen is not more or less dangerous compared to other fuels, it is different and doesn’t bring
more safety concerns if it is dealt with professionally. The safe handling of gaseous and liquid
hydrogen is the established practice in the industrial environment, including the experience
gathered within the scope of the international and national space programs, where liquid
hydrogen is produced, transported, stored and used in large amounts. However, this experience
is only partially applicable to new applications of hydrogen as an energy carrier in non-industrial
settings.

There are technological and safety-related pros and cons of the use of hydrogen in gaseous or
liquid form for different applications.

Many safety-relevant characteristics are shared by both compressed and liquefied hydrogen.
Hydrogen is highly diffusive and might leak, e.g. via imperfect fittings, and mix with air forming
flammable mixtures in comparatively wide flammability range. Flammable cloud after LH2
release or spillage is “visible” as the boundary of condensed atmospheric water vapour is
practically coincides with the lower flammability limit (LFL) of 4% by volume of hydrogen in
air. Due to higher density (low temperature) and water vapour condensation, the release of LH2
is less buoyant at the initial stage but in a comparatively short time the main safety asses of
hydrogen, i.e. buoyancy, takes over and “visualised” by water vapour flammable cloud raises
and disperses in the open atmosphere below LFL. Hydrogen has the lowest minimum ignition
energy (MIE) and it can be expected that practically any released and mixed with air hydrogen
may be easily ignited. However, there was no ignition observed in a series of large-scale
experiments performed by NASA in 80th of last century. Because of the missing carbon atoms
the reaction kinetics of hydrogen-air combustion yields relatively fast chemical reaction and
flame propagation which have a strong tendency to accelerate because of instabilities rooted in
the low density, high diffusivity and low viscosity of hydrogen. Lower temperatures reduce
laminar burning velocity but, as observed in PRESLHY project, can reduce run-up distance for
the transition to detonation due to instabilities, including that generated by flame front itself. On
the other hand, due to the absence of carbon, the radiative heat flux from hydrogen flames is
much less compared to hydrocarbons. Some materials, in particular high strength steels, are
subject to hydrogen embrittlement.

It is important to understand how hydrogen safety characteristics are affected by the storage
option, i.e. by storing hydrogen in either compressed gaseous or liquefied form. Safety
characteristics of cryogenic liquid hydrogen can be different from gaseous hydrogen and yet to
be understood further.

4.1 Storage and accidental releases

The compressed hydrogen in a pressure vessel up to around 100 MPa, contains considerable
mechanical energy compared to pressures of LH2 stored at pressures of an order of 1 MPa.
However, it is not yet understood if overpressure generated by LH2 BLEVE is less hazardous for
life and property. Indeed, if the expansion of liquid to gaseous hydrogen (increase in volume by
847 times) happens fast enough then the generated pressure wave after storage tank rupture in a
fire could have serious safety consequences that would be aggravated by the contribution of
chemical energy of combustion to the blast wave strength.

14
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

High-pressure releases, sometimes entraining small fragments from the fracture surface itself,
might impact on other components, or hurt persons. The high momentum gas release induces
strong recoil force on the releasing pipe or container. The rupture in a fire of compressed
hydrogen vessel at 35 MPa and 70 litres under the vehicle (the largest “projectile”) translated it
by 22 m.

LH2 is usually stored at moderate pressures, well below the critical pressure of 1.3 MPa.
However, the extremely low temperatures might embrittle non-suitable materials and lead to
thermal stresses. If not shielded carefully the cold surfaces might lead to condensation of highly
reactive oxygen or cryo burns when human beings come into contact with these cold surfaces or
accidentally released cryogenic hydrogen.

The increase in density of low temperature cryogenic, liquid hydrogen leads to the elimination
at the initial stage of release of the otherwise strong buoyant forces acting on warm hydrogen
released into the atmosphere. Up to 30 K hydrogen is heavier air at ambient temperature. The
mixing with ambient temperature air quickly leads to warming up on one side and to a dilution
on the other. On the other side, the flammable envelope created by LH2 release is easily identified
by the visible clouds formed when the released cryogenic hydrogen condenses the ambient
humidity. Flammable envelope and the boundary of the visible cloud coincide quite well.

PRESLHY research demonstrated that concentration decay in momentum-dominated hydrogen

jets at ambient and cryogenic temperatures obey the similarity law currently widely used in
hydrogen safety engineering.

4.2 Ignition

From more than 500 single tests performed in the PRESLHY project and from other accessible
databases (Kreiser, 1994) it may be derived that cryogenic hydrogen is much less probable to
ignite than ambient warm hydrogen released from high pressure reservoirs.

Figure 11: Fraction of accidents without ignition, slow and fast deflagration and with detonation in the full sequence of events
(Kreiser,1994)

Without ignition, there is no further escalation into combustion or explosion with more serious
thermal and blast loads.

15
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

4.3 Combustion, Explosions, Fireballs

There are at least two competing effects in the combustion of cryogenic hydrogen-air mixtures.
Compared to warm hydrogen the density of the cold hydrogen-air mixtures might be up to 4
times higher. This means that almost 4 times more chemical energy is available in the same
volume. On the other hand, the low temperature slows down the flame propagation processes
seriously leading to increase of flame front area and thus to the increase of the burning rate.
This lead to slightly more critical scenarios with liquid hydrogen in closed and obstructed
rooms and the opposite for the open space scenarios. This is again reflected in the statistics (see
Figure 11) and was confirmed in combustion tube experiments performed in the PRESLHY
project.

Phenomena like boiling liquid expanding vapour explosions (BLEVE) or rapid phase transition
(RPT), observed for liquid natural gas (LNG) and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) are not yet
investigated sufficiently for LH2 due to the need to use comparatively large amounts of LH2 that
implies the relatively high cost of experiments and their safety arrangements. This would require
an investment of financial and intellectual resources.

There is no or little difference expected in a fireball size after hydrogen tank rupture in a fire.
The maximum size is proportional to stored mass in power 1/3 and expected to be large for LH2.

Hazard distances from hydrogen jet flame originating from high-pressure storage and storage at
cryogenic temperature obey the same dimensionless flame length correlation that is in use by
hydrogen safety engineers.

The direct comparison of LH2 with compressed gaseous hydrogen shows some disadvantages
stemming from the wider spreading of hydrogen on the ground level and possible formation of
oxygen-enriched zones. However, this drawback is “compensated” by the benefits associated
with the reduced ignition propensity and generally slowed down reactivity at the low
temperatures.

A profound understanding of the associated safety-critical phenomena, proper safety planning,

monitoring of operation procedures and overall safety management and generally pro-active new
safety culture of hydrogen use in the public domain is required to deploy hydrogen as an energy
carrier safely. Figure 12 summarises those findings in a properties/hazards profile.

The understanding of LH2 safety-related phenomena investigated in PRESLHY paves the way
to the development of scientifically underpinned innovative safety strategies and breakthrough
engineering solutions in forthcoming research of hydrogen technologies with the use of LH2.

In summary, the overall hazards and associated risk potential of LH2 is comparable to
compressed gaseous hydrogen. However, the knowledge of the difference in safety
characteristics of gaseous and liquid hydrogen and the fundamentals of hydrogen safety
engineering makes it easy to develop a reliable hydrogen safety system providing a similar level
of safety provisions for people and the built environment.

16
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

Figure 12: Comparison of safety critical properties of liquid hydrogen and compressed gaseous hydrogen, along a
prototypical accident sequence of events

5 Economical aspects and benefits

The energy required for liquefaction is only slightly higher as for compression to 70 MPa (40 vs
30 MJ/kg). With the potential to reduce this energy requirements by about 50% within the next
decade and the additional use of the cooling capacity LH2 will be competitive even for middle
sized installations.
The relative high density of LH2 reduces the required storage volume. This allows for a more
flexible refuelling stations design with considerably smaller land use, for instance. Together with
the low pressures typically involved and the relatively low costs for thermal insulation, the
overall specific hydrogen storage costs are reduced with LH2 substantially.
Similarly the increased density and reduced pressure affect the economy of batch transport. The
investment costs for transport equipment and the operational costs are seriously reduced as shown in

Figure 13 (Reddi, 2015). One LH2 trailer suffices to transport the same hydrogen inventory as at
least 5 and up to 15 trailers with compressed gaseous hydrogen. Additionally, the LH2 road
trailers typically come with a total weight of about 25 tons, whereas the gaseous trailers must
utilise the maximum permissible total weight of 40 t on European highways. Obviously, this
reduces the load on roads and on traffic, respectively transport infrastructure in general.

17
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

Figure 13: Capacities and investment costs for LH2 and CGH2 trailer transport (Reddi, 2015)

With respect to refuelling, there are several further striking advantages of LH2 based refuelling
stations. Pumping LH2 to the required pressures of about and above 70 MPa is much more
energy efficient than compressing highly compressible warm gases. The standard 70 MPa
fillings (SAE J2601) require a pre-cooling of the compressed hydrogen to down to -40°C. The
energy requirements for this pre-cooling are relatively high at the currently operational gas
based refuelling stations, whereas this pre-cooling is implicitly included, comes for free in
liquid based refuelling stations. Thus, the invested efforts for liquefaction are recovered to an
essential degree herewith.
This cooling capacity is potentially useful also for other purposes. The steadily growing
demand for cooling power in many industries and warehouses might be addressed with the
cryogenic hydrogen. This becomes particularly interesting, if multiple usage is considered.
For instance, the cooling of high temperature superconductors with LH2 is an innovative
solution, very promising in many aspects. The lossless transfer of electricity would be coupled
to the transport of chemical and thermal energy. Thus, these cables could be considered key
elements of the sector coupling. Moreover, such high power superconducting electricity lines
require only small cross-section and non-critical materials and therefore come at relatively low
specific costs. Compared to other prominent cooling media (liquid helium LHe or liquid
nitrogen LN2) for superconductors, LH2 provides better cooling capacities and lower costs in
comparison to LHe. Finally, LH2 cooled superconductors are very light and therefore are best
suited for the future electric flying.
In the research and development project icefuel (Markowz, 2010) a flexible plastic pipe for
such a combined transport of LH2 and electricity via high temperature superconductor was
tested, see Figure 14.

Figure 14: icefuel cable sample (outer diameter ~40mm; max. chemical transport capacity 100-200 kWLHV; source: LEONI)

18
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

6 Policy and regulatory implications

6.1 Background
International governments have entered into climate change agreements that will require
significant reduction in the usage of fossil fuels to reduce CO2 production, halt global warming
and associated issues including loss of land mass due to sea level rises, widespread forest fires,
etc. The chemical energy storage hydrogen burns without producing CO2 and so is a natural
choice to replace fossil fuels, e.g. natural gas, gasoline, LPG, etc, for transport and heating
applications. This provides the key policy requirement to increase the use of H2 as a flexible
carbon-free energy storage and alternative fuel. There is a need for rapid development and
widespread roll out of new hydrogen-based technologies.
Liquid hydrogen LH2 with its high density, purity and safety characteristics will be needed as
part of this global change in technology. This gathering of momentum leads to the policy need
to provide suitable frameworks and boundary conditions for production, storage and use
solutions that are technically viable, energy efficient and safe for humans and the environment.
The development of a comprehensive set of standards for the safe design and operation of
liquid hydrogen facilities for its whole lifecycle is pivotal to the safety of this transition. In
order for the hydrogen market to grow, harmonised standards and guidance are required by
developers, design engineers, manufacturers and installers; in addition to synchronised policies
for regulatory authorities/ bodies to ensure consistency.
Policy and regulation will need to focus on the protection of life, infrastructure
(property/equipment) as well as the environment. Of utmost priority would be for regulators to
ensure that risks to human life are as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), and this would
include general public/ customers, site workers, as well as emergency responders. Examples of
LH2 operations include bulk transport, refuelling stations, bunkering facilities for ships and
airport services. Producing, storage and operating companies should also endeavour to ensure
risks of damaging infrastructure/ equipment including escalation and domino effects are
ALARP, as well as reduce risks of reputational and financial loss. Regulators, through the help
of local environmental authorities should also ensure that impact to the natural environment is
minimised.

6.2 Regulation and Standardisation

From a safety perspective, existing key regulatory controls in Europe include the European
Seveso III Directive for production and storage of fuels and international agreements on the
carriage of dangerous goods (relevant to the supply of hydrogen). These are underpinned by
European and international standards for the design and operation of the infrastructure.
In regulation hydrogen use is not a new concept (Joyce and Strachan, 2020); a range of
international standards apply to hydrogen, including but not limited to, those developed by the
International Standards Organisation (ISO) ISO/TC 197 Hydrogen Technologies; the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC); and the European Industrial Gases
Association (EIGA). In fact, in July 2020, the European Commission (EC) released its own
hydrogen strategy “EU Strategy”, which is divided into three phases of development (2020-
2050) of the European hydrogen economy:
The EU Strategy is a pivotal part of the ‘European Green Deal’, which aims to achieve climate
neutrality in Europe by 2050. In July 2020, EU leaders collectively approved a €1.8 trillion
package geared towards boosting EU economic recovery post-COVID-19, with the Green Deal

19
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

now seen as a key element of the recovery strategy. The strategy aims are to be achieved
through decarbonisation of existing hydrogen production for its current applications in the
various sectors and promote and expand it into new sectors such as steel-making, transport
(trucks, rail, aviation, etc.) and some maritime applications; with increasing hydrogen demand
being met through optimisation of its production, use and transport. The last phase of the
strategy involves deployment at large-scale to reach all sectors, including those difficult to
decarbonise. It is worth noting that the scope of the above strategy extends beyond cryogenic
hydrogen.
Initiatives such as the implementation of the EU’s Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking
(FCH JU) industry-led Regulations, Codes and Standards Strategy Coordination Group (RCS
SCG) try to identify the gaps and needs for additional pre-normative research or Regulation,
Codes and Standards (RCS) in the field of hydrogen including cryogenic hydrogen. Within
Europe, the European Hydrogen Safety Panel (EHSP) was established in 2017 to assist the
FCH JU both at programme and at project level to ensure that hydrogen safety is adequately
managed, and to promote and disseminate hydrogen safety culture within as well as outside of
the FCH JU programme. The EHSP is composed of a multidisciplinary pool of safety experts
grouped in ad-hoc working groups for different workstrands. In addition to this, the FCH JU
HyLaw project (Floristean and Brahy, 2019, Floristean et al, 2019 and Hayter, 2018) brings
together 23 partners including 18 Member States (from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden,
Portugal and the Netherlands plus the United Kingdom) aimed at the removal of legal barriers
to the deployment of fuel cells and hydrogen applications. This is aimed to boost the market
uptake of hydrogen technologies by providing market developers with a clear view of the
applicable regulations whilst calling the attention of policy makers on legal barriers to be
removed, under eight main application areas such as production, storage and transport
(including LH2), use as fuel, use in vehicles including marine, electricity grid issues, gas grid
issues and stationary power.
Under the Seveso III Directive, H2 is in scope at thresholds of 5 tonnes for Lower-Tier (LT)
and 50 tonnes for Upper-Tier (UT). Most production and storage facilities will therefore be in
scope of Seveso III, and most filling stations may become LT sites. UT sites are required to
produce a safety report/case to be submitted to the relevant health & safety regulator. This will
provide a mechanism for regulatory control but there may need to be considerations at EU level
as to whether the resource requirements of the regime for regulators and operators would be too
onerous once a comprehensive set of standards is available, particularly for refuelling/ filling
stations and other facilities with relatively low inventory. Under Seveso III, there are strong
requirements for the provision of public information, including a broader duty to manage
domino effects; as well as a duty for lower-tier establishments to provide public information.
There are provisions for electronic access to up-to-date public information.
In view of the expected roll-out of hydrogen refuelling stations in the coming years the Energy
and Hydrogen Alliance (EHA), in collaboration with EIGA, submitted a strong suggestion to
double the threshold for onsite hydrogen storage from 5 to 10 tonnes (H2 EuroOrg, 2021). This
request was denied in the final Commission’s proposal, as the number of larger hydrogen
refuelling stations in operation across the EU is expected to be still limited in the coming years.
The Commission however refers to the possibility of using “delegated acts” to change non-
essential parts of the legislation if deemed necessary at a later stage. The EHA is currently
considering lobbying Parliament and the Council to include the doubling of the threshold to
avoid amending the legislation at a later stage.

20
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

There may be a need for new regulations and policy to be established in the area of hydrogen
refuelling stations (including multi-fuel configurations), though LH2 shares many of the
hazards from compressed LNG. A number of FCH JU projects expect to fill some of the
knowledge gaps and output some recommendations for development or modification of
regulation, codes and standards.

6.3 LH2 specific safety aspects

As a cryogenic liquid, hydrogen is stored as a liquid below -253°C and therefore, consideration
should be given to cold burns, oxygen-enriched atmospheres, and the way in which a liquid
spill may develop into a flammable cloud (Pritchard et al, 2010). It should be appreciated that
the vapour produced by a liquid spill will not initially be buoyant due to its low temperature. In
addition, liquid hydrogen is always accompanied by a certain amount of gaseous hydrogen,
hence it is necessary to consider both the properties of liquid and gaseous hydrogen together.
UNECE (2013a) para 122 states that, “In order to maintain the hydrogen in the liquid state, the
container needs to be well insulated, including use of a vacuum jacket that surrounds the
storage container. Generally accepted rules or standards are advised for use in the proper
design of the storage container and the vacuum jacket.” Loss of containment from liquefied
hydrogen storage can be catastrophic within enclosed steel structures due to a number of
reasons, such as but not limited to: immediate loss of toughness and embrittlement of carbon
steel including weld metals; H2 vapours can remain denser than air for extended periods; low
ignition energy, wide flammability/ explosibility limits; high flame velocities which may
transition to detonation with shockwave; the very low temperature release can lead to
liquefaction and freezing of inert gas and constituents of air near the leakage and O2-enriched
atmosphere/ air will further increase hydrogen reactivity. Hydrogen fires also have low flame
visibility.
Currently, for extended distances, LH2 is transported in super-insulated, cryogenic tankers.
After liquefaction, the liquefied hydrogen is dispensed to delivery tankers and transported to
distribution sites where it is vaporized to a high-pressure gaseous product for dispensing.
Because a liquid tanker can hold a much larger mass of hydrogen than a gaseous tube trailer
can, transporting liquid hydrogen is more economical than in gaseous form. However,
challenges exist with liquid transportation include the potential for boil-off during delivery. In
terms of transport, whilst there are currently no specific limits in quantity and pressure to H2 in
transportable H2 cylinders (for example in the UK) – provided that the cylinder and pressure
regulator valve meets required pressure Directive standards / ISO standards and are CE-
marked. In the UK, the Pressure Equipment (Safety) Regulations do apply to the design,
manufacture, conformity assessment and periodic reassessment of transportable cylinders,
tubes, cryogenic vessels and tanks for transporting gases; it also covers associated valves and
includes both refillable and non-refillable cylinders. It applies to existing equipment as well as
new equipment introduced since the Pressure Equipment Directive which applies to the design,
manufacture and conformity assessment of pressure equipment with allowable pressure greater
than 0.5 bar above atmospheric pressure for the maximum/ minimum temperatures for which
the equipment is designed for gases, liquids and vapours. Existing equipment is checked for
compliance during annual periodic assessments. Aspects of the design, production and testing
of the equipment are the subject of a large number of harmonized standards.
The UK Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009 (formerly TPED) have been fully
updated and the legislation effectively now implements the requirements of the European
agreement concerning the carriage of dangerous goods (ADR); equipment previously made to

21
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

those standards and specifications may continue to be used in Great Britain as long as it is
subject to a proper test and inspection regime – for which the Department for Transport (DfT)
is the UK "Competent Authority“ and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) administers the
system for the appointment of bodies for the conformity assessment and periodic inspection of
Transportable Pressure Equipment.
In 2019, EIGA released its Doc 06/19 publication (EIGA, 2019) - intended as guidance for
companies directly associated with the installation of LH2 storage at the user's premises and
the distribution of liquid hydrogen by road, rail and sea transport, but excludes portable
containers such as pallet tanks and liquid cylinders. The guidance was divided into four main
areas: H2 (including LH2) properties and hazards; customer installations (production, storage,
layout, design, access, testing, commissioning, decommissioning, operations, maintenance);
LH2 transport and distribution (road, rail and inland waterways and sea); and personnel
training and protection (gas supplier, customers, Permit to Work). Several other principal
regulations exist in Europe to cover hydrogen facilities (not just LH2): these include, but are
not limited to, those regulations which arise from the various national legislations passed to
implement the ATEX Directives and the Pressure Equipment Directive.
Operators/ dutyholders of LH2 installations should be obligated to undertake the necessary risk
assessments to identify the hazards and consider and/ or implement the necessary risk reduction
measures to eliminate, control or mitigate their effects. This would need to be regulated and
monitored by the relevant health and safety regulatory body in each country. The risk
assessment should include all hazards associated with the whole lifecycle of the LH2
application, so could span a number of operators/ dutyholders - including new ones who have
just come into scope; as well as regulatory bodies.
The benefits of LH2 over GH2 would need to be demonstrated in the context of these policy
requirements. Over longer distances it is usually more cost-effective to transport hydrogen in
liquid form, since a liquid hydrogen tank can hold substantially more hydrogen than a
pressurized gas tank. Whilst PRESLHY has indicated that liquefied hydrogen is the better
option compared to compressed gaseous hydrogen and offers economic benefits in bulk storage
and transportation, it does still present some technical challenges which will need addressing,
as well as regulatory and policy implications.

6.4 Enabling function and remaining challenges

As such, it is pertinent that policy and regulation is to function as an enabler, including
designing market rules for the deployment of hydrogen; removing barriers for efficient
hydrogen infrastructure development or repurposing; and ensuring access to liquid markets for
hydrogen producers and customers and the integrity of the internal gas market, through the
review and development of legislation, codes and standards to allow consistent application by
member countries. This allows all stakeholders to place safety as priority in a systematic,
structured and robust manner. Winning the trust of the public trust in the safety of liquefied
cryogenic hydrogen is pivotal to building the public confidence needed for widespread uptake.
HSE Research Report RR769 (Pritchard & Rattigan, 2010) presents the main challenges of
applications involving liquid hydrogen. The work presented some suggestions of potential
research areas - these are reproduced in bullet points below. A number of the recommended
research areas have been addressed within the PRESLHY project itself.
• Applications involving liquid hydrogen present additional fire and explosion hazards to
those arising from use in gaseous form, which need to be fully appreciated if levels of

22
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

safety comparable to those from conventional fuels such as petrol and liquefied petroleum
gas are to be achieved.
• The requirements in the current regulatory framework are adequate for controlling the fire
and explosion hazards from the transport and storage of liquid hydrogen. Where safety
issues arise they are in the understanding of liquid hydrogen behaviour and the lack of
standards and guidance to assess the hazards, ensure equipment is fit for purpose and to
demonstrate compliance with the regulations.
• The consequences of an accidental spillage or leak of liquid hydrogen are poorly
understood, particularly the initial stages of pool spread and vaporisation. A better
understanding of this initial phase together with more experimental data on the dispersion
phase are required if reliable models for predicting the consequences are to be developed
and validated. There is currently lots of research work which is being funded by the EU, as
well as commercially.
• The separation distances given in current standards and guidance on hydrogen applications
are derived from industrial experience and if applied to hydrogen refuelling stations are
likely to put severe limitations on where they could be located in urban areas. There is a
need to assess the scientific basis of the recommended distances, to see if they can be
safely reduced, either because they are overly conservative or by the use of appropriate
mitigation measures.
• Liquid hydrogen presents severe challenges to the materials it comes into contact with, in
equipment such as pumps, vaporisers, pipework and storage vessels. It is essential that
materials used are properly assessed to ensure they are compatible with the extremely low
temperature of liquid hydrogen (-253°C), are resistant to hydrogen embrittlement (causing
weakening of the material) and have a low permeability (passage of hydrogen through the
material).
• The risks of widespread use of road tankers to supply refuelling stations with liquid
hydrogen, particularly through urban areas, needs to be comprehensively assessed and
compared to those currently incurred by the transport of petrol or diesel fuels. An issue for
particular consideration is the control of the bulk transport of liquid hydrogen through
tunnels. There is FCH JU project work looking at the above implications, namely
HyTunnel, but more from the point of view of LH2 being used as a vehicle fuel rather than
the bulk transportation of LH2.

6.5 Conclusions for policy makers

To fully exploit the beneficial properties of LH2, suitable standards and regulatory frameworks
(RCS) will have to be established. As LH2 implies at least inter-regional, possibly international
or even intercontinental transport these standards should be harmonised, ideally on an
international level. Therefore, for the purposes of standardisation, the ISO/IEC framework
should be further supported and used. The legal requirements with respect to quality and safety
then can refer to this set of steadily updated standards.
As economies of scale are in particular important for LH2 any support for scaling up hydrogen
technologies will implicitly favour the LH2 path. However, the further build-up of liquefier
capacities should be accompanied by publicly supported research and development for more
efficient liquefaction technologies, addressing also mid-scale applications. Although projects
like PRESLHY or SH2IFT were able to close some important knowledge gaps, further pre-
normative research should be supported to raise the potential of LH2 as a safe fuel, for details
see concluding chapter. This research work should on one side support the standardisation
efforts driven by the respective industry; and on the other hand also provide an unbiased

23
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

foundation for safety-aware regulation. This will allow achieving best levels of safety in an
economical way.
Considering supply infrastructures for green energy as a public task, pilot installations for
storage and transport of LH2 should be installed with public support. These initial public
investments could spearhead a broader roll-out of LH2. As soon as proper fossil fuel taxation
and economic scales with LH2 are reached, the operation of the infrastructure can become
economically attractive and may be transferred to private business. However, this LH2 market
initiation should also depend on consistent and long-term stable taxation policies, best
harmonised internationally.
The emerging risks posed by storage and transport of LH2 will need to be scrutinised by the
regulators and policy makers and will need to cover the following areas: examination of risk
assessments and research evidence, demonstration of tolerability of risk; assurance of in-depth
oversight whilst maintaining a challenge function in terms of underlying assumptions made in
any demonstrations; provision of a view of robustness in its risk management including
Management of Change implications; and provision of a credible, authoritative view which
gains public trust and acceptance. The relevant stakeholders should also be engaged within this
process. In terms of emergency planning, the Seveso III requirement remains with LH2 being
within scope, for co-operation by designated authorities in tests of the external emergency plan.
Public perception and engagement is pivotal to any change in technology and/ or infrastructure.
Risk assessment to a suitable level, environmental assessment and reference to the availability
of standards are likely to be important to demonstrate the benefits of the change. Policy makers
will need early engagement in order to understand and address the key issues surrounding land
use planning, refuelling stations, accidental leaks/ spills of LH2, separation distances, material
compatibility, transportation, storage, etc.
The policy and legal frameworks on an international/ EU level should be coordinated to:
1. Support the development of legislation, regulations, codes and standards for the
cryogenic hydrogen industry, including technical safety standards;
2. Develop/ improvise and evaluate key regulatory models to address and support
hydrogen, with the aim of avoiding divergence in interpretations.
a. Safety including emergency planning; and
b. industry development/economy.
The ultimate aim would be to have a consistent international approach to the regulation of the
(cryogenic) hydrogen sector. Existing policy, legislation, regulations and standards should be
reviewed then amended, or new ones drafted in order to achieve this aim.

7 Conclusions
Liquid hydrogen is a dense, economic and safe option for storing, transporting and distributing
renewable green energy. Its production requires only about 20% more energy compared to
compressed gaseous hydrogen. However, this investment is largely returned by more efficient
transport and distribution schemes. For LH2 based transport, as anticipated for heavy duty on
short-term and in aviation in the mid-term, liquid supply infrastructure is the preferred choice,
as small scale liquefaction is considered quite inefficient at the moment.
Multiple use, in particular for cooling purposes and for coupled efficient transport of electricity
in superconductors, adds further value to LH2.

24
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

Although the PRESLHY project and further pre-normative research work worldwide have
provided some progress with regard to the state-of-the-art and confirmed some of the intrinsic
advantages of LH2 with respect to safety, there are still some open issues and gaps in the
understanding of accidental behaviour of LH2. The following list suggests some relevant
research topics for improving further the knowledge base.

Fundamental/Modelling:

- Understand material compatibility for cryogenic hydrogen, concerning metallic and in

particular non-metallic materials, and determine suitable test methodologies,
- Improve thermodynamic modelling in multiphase, non-equilibrium domain and
examine reaction kinetics below 200K,
- Determine induction times and detonation cell sizes at cryogenic condition.

Dispersion phenomena:

- Develop suitable ventilation strategies for closed rooms and investigate the interaction
with other mitigation technology,
- Understand multiphase effects on large scale dispersion with obstruction and/or
(partial) confinement.

Combustion phenomena:

- Understand ignition phenomena under extreme weather conditions,

- Provide broader assessment of flame acceleration (FA) and deflagration-to-detonation
transitions (DDT) for varying congestion and confinement in particular at large scale,
- Evaluate detonation potential of solid O2 in LH2 pools,
- Better understand physics and scaling of LH2 BLEVEs.

Risk assessment and mitigation strategies:

- Assessment of interaction of flame dynamics with mitigation techniques, like

ventilation, water sprays flame retardant and fire extinguishing agents,
- Crash testing of vehicle tank systems,

- Integral (applied) tests (dispersion and combustion in closed rooms) for mitigation
strategies, including sensor placement and performance,
- Special requirements for application in public spaces.

From the results of research work dedicated to these topics guidance and standards for the safe
use of LH2 in non-industrial settings may be iteratively improved, what will help to introduce
LH2 as the fuel of the future safely.

25
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

8 References
Aasadnia, M., Mehrpooya, M., Large-scale liquid hydrogen production methods and approaches: A review, 2018,
Applied Energy 212(2018), pp 57-83, DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.033

Cardella, U., Large-scale hydrogen liquefaction under the aspect of economic viability, 2018 PhD Thesis TUM

Krasae-in, S., Stang, J., Neksa, P., Development of large-scale hydrogen liquefaction processes from 1898 to
2009, 2010, Int Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35 (2010), pp 4524-4533

Kreiser, A. Fröhlich, G., Eichert, H., Schatz, A., Analyse von Störfällen mit Wasserstoff in bisherigen
Anwendungsbereichen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von LH2, 1994, Report IKE 2-116 University of
Stuttgart, ISSN 0173-6892

Markowz, G., Dylla, A., Elliger, T., icefuel – An Infrastructure System for Cryogenic Hydrogen Storage,
Distribution and Decentral Use, 2010, Proceedings of the WHEC, May 16.-21. 2010, ISBN: 978-3-89336-651-4

Reddi, K., Elgowainy, A., Brown, D., Rustagi, N., Mintz, M., Hydrogen delivery scenario analysis model, 2015
Department of Energy Report for US Department of Energy

Stolzenburg, K. et al, Efficient Liquefaction of Hydrogen: Results of the IDEALHY Project, 2013, Proc of XXth
Energie – Symposium, Stralsund, Germany, 7 – 9 November 2013
https://www.idealhy.eu/uploads/documents/IDEALHY_XX_Energie-Symposium_2013_web.pdf

European Hydrogen Safety Panel (EHSP), https://www.fch.europa.eu/page/european-hydrogen-safety-panel

European Industrial Gases Association EIGA 06/19, Safety in Storage, Handling and Distribution of Liquid
Hydrogen, https://www.eiga.eu/

Floristean A and Brahy N (2019) HyLaw D4.4 EU Regulations and Directives which impact the deployment of
FCH Technologies, http://www.hylaw.eu/sites/default/files/d4.4_-
_eu_regulations_and_directives_which_impact_the_deployment_of_fch_technologies_0_0.pdf

Floristean A, Brahy N, Kraus N, Skiker S, Damman S, Hayter D, Nozharova D (2019) HyLaw D4.5 EU Policy
Paper, https://www.hylaw.eu/sites/default/files/2019-
03/EU%20Policy%20Paper%20%28March%202019%29.pdf

Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU) https://www.fch.europa.eu

H2 Euro Org https://www.h2euro.org/whats-h2appening/ec-proposal-for-new-seveso-ii-directive-keeps-onsite-h2-

storage-treshold-at-5-tons/

Hayter D (2018), HyLAW - Hydrogen Law and removal of legal barriers to the deployment of fuel cells and
hydrogen applications: UK National Policy Paper, https://www.hylaw.eu/sites/default/files/2019-
01/HyLaw%20UK%20Policy%20Paper_Final_December%202018.pdf

26
 FCH JU Grant Agreement No: 779613
D6.4 White Paper

HyLaw https://www.hylaw.edu

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), https://www.iec.ch

International Organization for Standardization ISO, STANDARDS BY ISO/TC 197 Hydrogen technologies,
https://www.iso.org/committee/54560/x/catalogue/

International Organization for Standardization ISO 13984:1999 Liquid hydrogen — Land vehicle fuelling system
interface, https://www.iso.org/standard/23570.html?

International Organization for Standardization ISO 13985: 2006(en) Liquid Hydrogen – Land vehicle fuel tanks,
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:13985:en

Joyce M and Strachan E (2020), The Emerging Hydrogen Economy: Regulation, Policy and Industry Update,
https://www.akingump.com/en/experience/industries/energy/speaking-energy/the-emerging-hydrogen-economy-
regulation-policy-and-industry-update.html

MultHyFuel, https://multhyfuel.eu

Pritchard DK, Royle M, and Willoughby D (2009), RR715: Installation permitting guidance for hydrogen and fuel
cell stationary applications: UK version, https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr715.pdf

Pritchard DK and Rattigan WM (2010), Health & Safety Executive RR769: Hazards of Liquid Hydrogen –
Position Paper, https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr769.pdf

European Seveso III Directive, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/seveso/legislation.htm

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNECE (2013a) ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/41 Proposal for a
global technical regulation on hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles, https://unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2013/wp29/ECE-
TRANS-WP29-2013-041e.pdf

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNECE (2013b) ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/42 (GRSP) Report
on the development of a global technical regulation on hydrogen & fuel cell vehicles,
https://unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2013/wp29/ECE-TRANS-WP29-2013-042e.pdf

27