guest column

Expert weighs in on fire protection standards in hydrogen industry growth

With the projected uptick of new hydrogen production projects, an expert explores hydrogen fire protection, reflects on the measures and standards established to mitigate risks, and more. Photo courtesy

As First State Hydrogen continues to advance its groundbreaking clean hydrogen production facility in the U.S., the spotlight intensifies as hydrogen becomes an increasingly key player in the energy transition.

With the projected uptick of new hydrogen production and handling projects, let's explore hydrogen fire protection, reflect on the measures and standards established to mitigate risks, and ensure that the hydrogen economy thrives.

The challenges of hydrogen fire protection

As the hydrogen industry experiences a boom, the issue of fire protection emerges as a critical concern. It's important to note that hydrogen fires can pose a significantly higher risk than traditional fuel fires, burning hotter and more rapidly due to their higher outflow rates. The diverse range of storage and transport options, from cryogenic liquids to high-pressure cylinders, further complicates safety measures. This underscores the industry's urgent need to prioritize risk mitigation for common hydrogen applications, such as high-pressure cylinders used in fuel-cell vehicles and data centers, to ensure safety as this energy source scales up.

Hydrogen jet fire test results

The author's company, a global leader in paint and coatings, recently tested an industry leading, flexible epoxy intumescent passive fire protection (PFP) coating to evaluate the material response against high pressure hydrogen jet fires to determine if current ISO jet fire standards are adequate for the challenges hydrogen poses. Collaborating with the United Kingdom's Health and Safety Authority, they conducted hydrogen jet fire tests at a specialized facility. The team replicated conditions of high-pressure hydrogen leaks and their effects on steel and protective coatings. The initial tests revealed unprotected steel reaching critical temperatures rapidly under hydrogen fires. The steel coated with advanced PFP coatings proved highly effective. The PFP coatings help keep steel well below critical temperatures throughout the exposure, indicating their potential to protect against structural failures during hydrogen fires.

These initial tests can contribute to setting standards for hydrogen fire protection. The results offer safety experts critical data for better protecting industrial environments against high-pressure hydrogen jet fires.

A call for a fire protection standard

The hydrogen industry currently relies on oil and gas regulations for specialized fire protection. While safety experts actively debate whether these standards can be adapted or whether entirely new criteria are necessary, industry collaboration remains key. Paint and coating companies, international standard organizations, safety groups, and energy regulators are all actively involved in assessing the adaptability of existing standards for hydrogen fires. The initial tests show promising results, suggesting that current oil and gas fire protection measures might be adapted for hydrogen fire protection, potentially leading to standards for the growing hydrogen industry.

Developing fire protection standards for the hydrogen industry remains a collective industry responsibility. Safety engineers, industry specialists, non-government officials (NGO), and policymakers must work together to ensure the hydrogen industry advances safely and responsibly. The paint and coatings industry, in particular, will play a crucial role in creating these standards. Leveraging their expertise in protective coatings, they can meet hydrogen's unique needs, from anti-corrosion to chemical resistance and passive fire protection.

———

Stuart Bradbury is the PPG business development manager of Fire Protection, Protective and Marine Coatings.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder who sued to block the pay package contended that shareholders who had voted for the 10-year plan in 2018 had been given misleading and incomplete information. Photo via cdn.britannica.com

For a second time, a Delaware judge has nullified a pay package that Tesla had awarded its CEO, Elon Musk, that once was valued at $56 billion.

Last week, Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick turned aside a request from Musk's lawyers to reverse a ruling she announced in January that had thrown out the compensation plan. The judge ruled then that Musk effectively controlled Tesla's board and had engineered the outsize pay package during sham negotiations.

Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder who sued to block the pay package contended that shareholders who had voted for the 10-year plan in 2018 had been given misleading and incomplete information.

In their defense, Tesla's board members asserted that the shareholders who ratified the pay plan a second time in June had done so after receiving full disclosures, thereby curing all the problems the judge had cited in her January ruling. As a result, they argued, Musk deserved the pay package for having raised Tesla's market value by billions of dollars.

McCormick rejected that argument. In her 103-page opinion, she ruled that under Delaware law, Tesla's lawyers had no grounds to reverse her January ruling “based on evidence they created after trial.”

What will Musk and Tesla do now?

On Monday night, Tesla posted on X, the social media platform owned by Musk, that the company will appeal. The appeal would be filed with the Delaware Supreme Court, the only state appellate court Tesla can pursue. Experts say a ruling would likely come in less than a year.

“The ruling, if not overturned, means that judges and plaintiffs' lawyers run Delaware companies rather than their rightful owners — the shareholders,” Tesla argued.

Later, on X, Musk unleashed a blistering attack on the judge, asserting that McCormick is “a radical far left activist cosplaying as a judge.”

What do experts say about the case?

Legal authorities generally suggest that McCormick’s ruling was sound and followed the law. Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said that in his view, McCormick was right to rule that after Tesla lost its case in the original trial, it created improper new evidence by asking shareholders to ratify the pay package a second time.

Had she allowed such a claim, he said, it would cause a major shift in Delaware’s laws against conflicts of interest given the unusually close relationship between Musk and Tesla’s board.

“Delaware protects investors — that’s what she did,” said Elson, who has followed the court for more than three decades. “Just because you’re a ‘superstar CEO’ doesn’t put you in a separate category.”

Elson said he thinks investors would be reluctant to put money into Delaware companies if there were exceptions to the law for “special people.”

What will the Delaware Supreme Court do?

Elson said that in his opinion, the court is likely to uphold McCormick's ruling.

Can Tesla appeal to federal courts?

Experts say no. Rulings on state laws are normally left to state courts. Brian Dunn, program director for the Institute of Compensation Studies at Cornell University, said it's been his experience that Tesla has no choice but to stay in the Delaware courts for this compensation package.

Tesla has moved its legal headquarters to Texas. Does that matter?

The company could try to reconstitute the pay package and seek approval in Texas, where it may expect more friendlier judges. But Dunn, who has spent 40 years as an executive compensation consultant, said it's likely that some other shareholder would challenge the award in Texas because it's excessive compared with other CEOs' pay plans.

“If they just want to turn around and deliver him $56 billion, I can't believe somebody wouldn't want to litigate it,” Dunn said. “It's an unconscionable amount of money.”

Would a new pay package be even larger?

Almost certainly. Tesla stock is trading at 15 times the exercise price of stock options in the current package in Delaware, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a note to investors. Tesla's share price has doubled in the past six months, Jonas wrote. At Monday’s closing stock price, the Musk package is now worth $101.4 billion, according to Equilar, an executive data firm.

And Musk has asked for a subsequent pay package that would give him 25 percent of Tesla's voting shares. Musk has said he is uncomfortable moving further into artificial intelligence with the company if he doesn't have 25 percent control. He currently holds about 13 percent of Tesla's outstanding shares.

Trending News