NOTE: The sponsor of this content may contact you with more information on this topic. Click here to opt out of sharing your email address with this sponsor. (This link will not unsubscribe you from any other BIC email list).
Rapid Low Carbon Technology Deployment
Net Zero by 2050, a report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in May 2021, concludes that even if government pledges made to date are achieved, we will globally fall short of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 [1]. However, the report goes on to say that net zero by 2050 is achievable via an aggressive roadmap that includes an international effort with more than 400 milestones. What does it take, according to the IEA? The combination of a rapid and massive deployment of all available clean energy technologies between now and 2030 and the continued use of natural gas and oil, which remain crucial to displacing coal in developing nations.
The findings of this report are mirrored by the number of new low carbon projects either moving forward, announced, or in planning. These new projects take a variety of forms including new facilities for production and processing; changes to existing facilities to accommodate new feedstocks and products; new and repurposed transportation and storage infrastructure; and new distribution networks and systems. Regardless of the type of project, they all have two things in common: (1) the need for rapid development and (2) the introduction of hazards in the form of new or adapted infrastructure.
As part of the capital project lifecycle, companies should be reviewing the operational hazards and risks, as well as potential exposure to existing and/or future employees. This is an area where the new generation of sustainable energy companies can learn from the hard-earned experience of companies with years of experience managing these hazardous chemicals safely. The American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practices 752/753 (API RP 752 [2] and API RP 753 [3]) provide guidance for managing the hazards associated with permanent and temporary buildings at facilities that handle explosive, flammable, and toxic materials. These recommended practices highlight three key considerations with respect to low carbon projects as discussed below.
Top 3 Considerations for Occupied Buildings
While low carbon energy innovation and infrastructure is booming, existing experience with key low carbon chemicals provides an understanding of the hazards and potential risks to personnel. Have you thought about the following potential hazards with respect to your low carbon project?
- Explosions. Hydrogen is a highly reactive fuel that may result in high blast loads in the event of an explosion.
- Toxics. Ammonia is a toxic material that may be lethal at high concentrations or in the event of prolonged exposure.
- Fires. Low carbon fuel feedstocks and products are often flammable and pose both fire and explosion hazards.
While there are a number of other risk concerns for occupied buildings associated with alternative energy operations, these three stand out as important risk drivers and are discussed further below. However, consideration should also be given to other hazards such as extreme weather events (i.e., hurricane or tornado) as well as exposure to existing infrastructure. Recognizing nearby hazards, either within your existing facility or a neighboring industrial operation, are critical to understanding the new sustainable infrastructure risk exposure. While the aggressive timescale on production ramp-up to meet targets may make it tempting to sacrifice rigorously addressing these concerns in the building selection process, investing the time up front saves time and money later.
Hydrogen Infrastructure
While the future of the emerging renewable fuel mix is still unknown, the world is certainly heading for hydrogen. Currently, there are more than 200 large-scale projects totaling more than $80 billion in investments underway to produce or transport hydrogen [4]. Furthermore, hydrogen is also a key component in the production of biofuels as well as a key building block in hydrogen carriers such as ammonia and methanol. While not a new material, hydrogen is now being proposed for non-traditional uses, which introduces a number of new stakeholders to hydrogen hazards. It is important for new stakeholders to accept what the long-term hydrogen producers already know: hydrogen, while having unique hazardous properties, has a risk profile that can be managed with understanding and foresight.
An article published in March 2021 in H2Tech [5] highlights some of the safety challenges associated with hydrogen, beginning with the statement that creating large-scale infrastructure for hydrogen fuels requires objective assessment of associated risks. This includes addressing facility siting risks to personnel in occupied buildings per API 752/753. While experts differ on their opinion of the ignitability of hydrogen, the H2Tech article by Moosemiller and Thomas shows that historical incidents and testing not only support the idea that unconfined hydrogen vapor cloud explosions (VCEs) are possible, but that hydrogen is more likely than traditional fuels to undergo a deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) due to the high reactivity nature of the fuel. In summary, this means that hydrogen can result in an explosion having supersonic flame propagation velocities and substantial overpressures.
From a facility siting perspective, hydrogen operations are likely to require blast resistant occupied buildings near processing, storage, and/or handling areas. When designing for loads that may be upwards of 10psi and long duration, hydrogen operators should evaluate not only building response to predicted loads, but also non-structural debris hazards to building occupants. This is an aspect of building response that is often missed in facility siting; the building structural response may not tell the story as to the actual vulnerability of personnel inside the building. Be sure to ask the question – “The building shell may be okay, but what about the people inside?” Asking questions along these lines early in your capital project will ensure that you are ready to safely move from design to construction and ultimately safe operation.
Ammonia as a Carrier
While hydrogen is emerging as the frontrunner in the energy transition, ammonia, as a hydrogen energy carrier, is also poised to play a key role - particularly in the marine shipping industry. The IEA 2050 net-zero scenario shows ammonia powering 45% of shipping, with hydrogen supplying another 15% [6]. However, there are some who say that ammonia’s role will be much greater, and extend far beyond the marine industry, because it is both easier to transport than hydrogen and provides about 50% more energy than the same volume of liquid hydrogen. As several large ammonia producers within the fertilizer industry rebrand as energy producers, the market is also seeing new stakeholders enter the ammonia production, storage, and transportation sectors.
FORTRESS Protective Buildings: Unparalleled proven protection for your site’s personnel – where sustainability meets safety.
As with hydrogen, the use of ammonia in non-traditional ways by new stakeholders elevates the importance of understanding and communicating key hazards and how best to protect personnel from these hazards. While many people understand the ammonium nitrate explosion hazards associated with fertilizer production from events such as the 1947 Texas City, 2013 West Texas, and 2020 Beirut incidents, the acute toxic hazards of ammonia are less familiar. However, as shown in a December 22, 2020 ammonia leak at the Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) unit in Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj district [7], the toxic hazards should not be forgotten. This event, which happened late on a Tuesday, resulted in two deaths and 16 injuries/hospitalizations. This event could have been far worse had it occurred during a high occupancy period, had the facility not been surrounded by a green belt, and had the weather not been calm with low wind velocity.
To meet the full intent of API 752/753, occupied buildings with exposure to toxic hazards such as ammonia should be designed to protect personnel and/or provide for an emergency response plan to safely evacuate. Five keys to a highly effective shelter-in-place (SIP) strategy are as follows: [8]
- Provide timely, reliable detection of toxic gases.
- Provide timely, reliable isolation of ventilation systems to avoid ingression of toxic gases.
- Establish a leak-tight SIP volume to minimize infiltration.
- Train personnel and provide instructions to ensure that sheltering activities are performed properly.
- Provide an effective fallback (evacuation) plan and protective gear to evacuate safely.
A common misconception is that tripping HVAC on gas detection means the building will be safe. However, detailed studies of air ingress indicate that this action alone is often not enough. As you are designing your occupied buildings for ammonia capital projects, be sure to ask, “Does my building provide the safety needed to ensure personnel protection from toxic exposure?”
Other Low Carbon Fuels
While #1 and #2 for low carbon facility siting focus on current low-carbon fuel frontrunners, there are a number of other low carbon alternatives including, but not limited to, methanol (hydrogen carrier), renewable natural gas, renewable diesel, and a range of biofuels. Not only do many of these processes incorporate hydrogen feeds, but also have a number of feedstocks, intermediates, and products that are both flammable and explosive. If there is one thing that most stakeholders in energy understand, it is that hydrocarbons burn hot, and with large liquid holdups, can burn for extended durations.
Every year, there are several notable large industry fires – some of which burn for days. So why is thermal exposure often the most overlooked hazard when designing occupied buildings? One explanation is that it is hard to design for thermal exposure; either your building is heat resistant or it is not. Building materials such as reinforced concrete or robust masonry provide inherent thermal protection whereas prefabricated metal and wood buildings provide little thermal protection. Some added protection may be available via intumescent coatings, but these are often subject to the unintended side effect of combustion products that are lethally asphyxiant or toxic to building occupants.
So, what should you do if your sustainable energy project has an occupied building that may be exposed to fire hazards? The most important consideration is your building construction materials; choose robust building materials with naturally insulating properties and select materials that are not combustible to limit potential issues with offgassing. Another important factor to consider are windows; limit the number of windows and keep penetrations to a minimum. If you are in doubt, ask for documentation from your building provider on thermal resistance.
Sustainability Meets Safety
The 400 milestones put forth by the IEA are intended to limit the global temperature to 1.5 C by 2050 and will avert the worst effects of climate change. However, in addition to protecting future generations, we also have the obligation to ensure that our employees go home safe, every day. For proven protection against the occupied building hazards posed by sustainable fuels, FORTRESS Protective Buildings, LLC created a turnkey modular building solution that can keep pace with rapid infrastructure development while providing flexible layouts to meet your building’s functional needs.
With 35 years of risk assessment and related industry expertise, Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants, Inc. (BakerRisk®) knows the hazards that sustainable energy providers face. BakerRisk combined this expertise with their experience in designing protective buildings to create FORTRESS Protective Buildings, LLC – a company that provides your staff a building proven to protect them in at risk locations. FORTRESS, unlike other industrial “resistant” buildings, has been subjected to a full-scale testing program to confirm occupants of the building are exposed to negligible vulnerability for design basis events. FORTRESS is designed and tested to:
- Blast: 8 psi overpressure at >> 200 ms (long duration)
○ Negligible occupant vulnerability
○ Reusable and occupiable after safety checks/minor repairs following design basis load
- Fragmentation: 13 lb projectile at 171 ft/s (116 mph) velocity
○ Very minor local spalling observed
- Thermal: 1-hour direct impingement for ¼-inch saturated propane jet fire
○ Local spalling observed on the building exterior, but internal air temperature < 139 ºF and negligible smoke/toxic off-gassing
- Toxic: < 0.1 ACH infiltration for main building and < 0.03 ACH infiltration for interior Shelter-In-Place (SIP) room (if selected)
○ SIP Control Box, designed and engineered to provide system specification
○ Extreme Weather: Resistant to high wind and debris from hurricane and tornado natural hazards
For every sustainable hazard, there is a FORTRESS. Provide your team with maximum safety because a safer today means a more sustainable tomorrow.
[1] IEA (2021), Net Zero by 2050, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
[2] API, Management of Hazards Associated with Location of Process Plant Buildings. API Recommended Practice 752, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20005, 2009.
[3] API, Management of Hazards Associated with Location of Process Plant Portable Buildings. API Recommended Practice 753, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20005, First Edition, June 2007.
[4] Reed, S. and Ewing, J. Hydrogen Is One Answer to Climate Change. The New York Times, July 2021. Accessed [ONLINE] 19th July 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/13/business/hydrogen-climate-change.html?referringSource=articleShare
[5] Moosemiller, M. and Thomas, J.K. Hydrogen fuel risk assessment and differing views of ignitability. H2Tech, March 2021. Accessed [ONLINE] 19th July 2021. https://gulfenergyinfo.com/h2tech/articles/2021/01/hydrogen-fuel-risk-assessment-and-differing-views-of-ignitability
[6] Washington, T. et. Al. Ammonia to power 45% of shipping in 2050 net-zero scenario: IEA. S&P Global Platts, May 2021. Accessed [ONLINE] 19th July 2021. https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/petrochemicals/051821-ammonia-to-power-45-of-shipping-in-2050-net-zero-scenario-iea
[7] Kalhans, S. 2 killed, more than a dozen injured in ammonia leak at IFFCO unit in UP. Business Standard, December 2020. Accessed [ONLINE] 19th July 2021. https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/2-killed-more-than-a-dozen-injured-in-ammonia-leak-at-iffco-unit-in-up-120122300567_1.html
[8] Sarrack, A. Shelter-In-Place: Reducing risk from Toxic Impacts. Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants (BakerRisk) Best Practices, June 2020.
