Summary and Findings from the NREL/DOE Hydrogen Sensor Workshop (June 8, 2011)

Abstract

NOTICEThis report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.iii Executive SummaryOn June 8, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) hosted a hydrogen sensor workshop attended by nearly 40 participants from private organizations, government agencies, and academic institutions. The participants represented a cross section of stakeholders in the hydrogen community, including sensor developers, end users, site safety officials, and code and standard developers. The goals were to identify critical applications for the emerging hydrogen infrastructure that require or would benefit from hydrogen sensors, to assign performance specifications for sensors deployed in each application, and to identify shortcomings or deficiencies (i.e., technical gaps) in the ability of current sensor technology to meet the assigned performance requirements. Current (e.g., onboard sensors for hydrogen forklifts) and emerging (e.g., residential) applications were included.The workshop was structured into two parts. The morning session consisted of topical talks that provided background information about various emerging hydrogen energy applications, the certification and listing processes, and about strategies for sensor deployment. Several critical key application areas were specifically identified, and for each application, breakout groups were formed to identify critical performance metrics, assign values to specifications, and identify shortcomings or deficiencies in current sensors to meet these requirements. Three sequential breakout sessions were held, which allowed workshop attendees to participate and provide input into multiple topical areas. Several breakout groups met in parallel, which restricted the size of each group to eight or fewer participants and enabled open discussions. Each breakout group was chaired by a topic expert. The breakout topics and chairs were: Sensor requirements for each application were defined based on feedback from the breakout groups. Although application specific, many requirement metrics overlap applications. For example, response time is a critical paramet...

Onboard Hydrogen/Helium Sensors in Support of the Global Technical Regulation: An Assessment of Performance in Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Crash Tests

“…A discussion of major sensor parameters, along with numerous hydrogen applications, was previously presented by NREL [6]. The parameters can be divided into three main categoriesanalytical characteristics, deployment parameters, and operational parameters.…”

“…The critical performance parameters must be identified and assigned specifications. Of the nearly 40 parameters identified and previously discussed in the NREL report [6], the following, with the assigned specifications, were identified as most critical for deployment in FCEV vehicle crash tests.…”

Steering Committee Progress Report on Hydrogen Sensor Performance Testing and Evaluation under the Memorandum of Agreement between NREL, U.S. DOE and JRC-IET, EC

“…SINTERCOM results were also incorporated into conference presentations, publications in the scientific literature, and as direct feedback to the manufacturers, including, where appropriate, site visits. SINTERCOM data are also being surveyed to assess the ability of each major sensor platform to meet performance specifications for the various hydrogen applications [10], and, more importantly, to identify unmet performance specifications (e.g., gaps in sensor performance capabilities).…”

“…DOE has identified a response time of 1 s as a critical analytical performance specification for several key applications [10,11]. Although a 1 s response time remains a challenging specification, it can be achieved only by minimizing bulk-phase processes via device miniaturization.…”

Editors' Choice—Field Trials Testing of Mixed Potential Electrochemical Hydrogen Safety Sensors at Commercial California Hydrogen Filling Stations

“…1, 2,4,[6][7][8][9] To address sensor limitations, the DOE began sensor research programs at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in 2008 to develop a new safety sensor platform to fill the critical performance gaps identified in the existing commercial platforms. The hydrogen safety sensor demonstrated herein employs mixed potential electrochemical principles, 10 relying on a yttria-stabilized zirconium oxide electrolyte, in conjunction with either a tin-doped indium oxide or strontium-doped lanthanum chromite electrode.…”