iii

HYDROGEN APPLICATIONS FOR

LAMBERT- ST.LOUIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

by

MATHEW THOMAS

A THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the

MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

2009

Approved by:

John W. Sheffield
K. Chandrashekhara
Scott E. Grasman
 ii

 2009
Mathew Thomas
All Rights Reserved
 iii

ABSTRACT

Today, major airports are facing challenges related to pollution, energy

efficiency, and safety and security. Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, regarded as one

of the key energy solutions of the 21st century are more energy efficient and reliable than

conventional systems and have the potential to diminish these challenges. These

technologies can also play a significant role in reducing the noise, air, and water pollution

and enhancing energy security. This paper presents the design of a set of hydrogen

technologies and systems that are commercially available and are ready for practical,

real-world use.

The hydrogen applications selected for Lambert-St. Louis Airport include a

hydrogen fueling station, back-up and auxiliary power systems, portable emergency

power, light-duty vehicle applications, and a stand-alone system designed for public

exposure to hydrogen technologies. Specifically, the selected back-up and auxiliary

power systems will displace existing battery and diesel power systems with fuel cells. All

hydrogen systems selected will comply with or exceed the existing safety codes and

standards. The economic feasibility and environmental impacts of hydrogen applications

at airport were studied. A marketing and educational plan was formulated to educate the

airport staff and public and to alleviate any concerns regarding the introduction of

hydrogen technologies at the airport. Consequently, increased safety and security, higher

energy efficiency, reduction in pollution, and smaller impact during power interruptions

achieved by using hydrogen technologies will benefit the airport.

 iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am extremely grateful to my advisor Dr. John W. Sheffield for the

encouragement and guidance and the extreme patience shown in completing this work.
He has also given me sufficient freedom to explore avenues of research while correcting
my course and guiding me at all times. I would like to thank the Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering Department at the Missouri University of Science and
Technology for supporting this research.

I thank my committee members Dr. K. Chandrashekara and Dr. Scott Grasman,

without whose help, this effort and its successful completion would not have been
possible. I am grateful to the ME 261 team of Fall 2007 and to Fanny Valencia
Juscamaita for their valuble help. Special thanks go to my friends Ravi Philip, Rana
Gunarathnam, Robins Mathai, and Ryan Matthews who have stood by me at all times.

On a personal note, I thank my parents P.M. Thomas and Vimala Thomas, for the
tremendous encouragement and support I have received throughout my life which has
enabled me to face the challenges and achieve success.
 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................viii
SECTION
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
2. THE DESIGN ......................................................................................................... 3
2.1. ON-SITE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION, STORAGE, AND FUELING .......... 6
2.2. BACK-UP POWER GENERATION ............................................................. 10
2.3. AUXILIARY AND ENERGY SAVINGS POWER GENERATION ............. 10
2.4. HYDROGEN POWERED VEHICLES ......................................................... 12
2.4.1. Ford Hydrogen Shuttle Bus ................................................................. 12
2.4.2. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Lift Truck ............................................................ 13
2.4.3. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Ground Support Equipment . ................................ 15
2.4.4. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Scooter . ............................................................... 16
2.4.5. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Personal Transporter ............................................ 16
2.5. PORTABLE/MOBILE FUEL CELL ............................................................. 17
2.6. PUBLIC EDUCATION TECHNOLOGIES . ................................................. 17
2.7. OVERALL .................................................................................................... 18
3. SAFETY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 19
3.1. EQUIPMENT FAILURE MODES ................................................................ 19
3.2. HYDROGEN SYSTEM FAILURE MODES ................................................. 21
3.2.1. Fire and Combustion of Hydrogen ...................................................... 21
3.2.2. Human Operator Error or Equipment Misuse ...................................... 23
3.2.3. Natural Disaster .................................................................................. 23
3.2.4. Hardware Failure ................................................................................ 24
3.2.5. Electrical Power Outage ...................................................................... 24
4. ECONOMIC/BUSINESS PLAN ANALYSIS ....................................................... 25
4.1. CAPITAL AND INSTALLATION COSTS ................................................... 25
4.2. OPERATIONAL COSTS .............................................................................. 26
 vi

4.3. COST ALLEVIATION .................................................................................. 27

4.4. AIRPORT UP-TIME ..................................................................................... 28
4.5. OVERALL .................................................................................................... 28
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 30
5.1. COMPARISON OF FOSSIL FUELS AND HYDROGEN ............................ 30
5.2. REPLACING BATTERIES WITH FUEL CELLS ........................................ 33
5.3. GENERATOR NOISE POLLUTION COMPARISONS ................................ 34
6. MARKETING AND EDUCATION PLAN ........................................................... 35
6.1. EDUCATIONAL PLAN ................................................................................ 35
6.1.1. Trained Airport Staff ........................................................................... 35
6.1.2. General Public/Travelers ..................................................................... 35
6.2. MARKETING PLAN .................................................................................... 36
6.2.1. International Experiences. .................................................................... 36
6.2.2. Publicity ............................................................................................. 37
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 38
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 39
A. HYDROGEN APPLICATIONS AT AIRPORT - ADVERTISEMENT ............... 39
B. AIRLINE STATICS - BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS ......... 41
C. HYDROGEN EQUIPMENT MATRIX ............................................................... 44
D. GREET ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 46
E. PROPOSED SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE ................................................................ 49
F. CODES AND STANDARDS MATRIX .............................................................. 51
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 53
VITA ............................................................................................................................ 56
 vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Page
Figure 2.1. Missouri S&T Hydrogen Fueling Station at E3 Commons ............................ 6
Figure 2.2. GTI’s Mobile Hydrogen Unit (MHU) .......................................................... 7
Figure 2.3. Proposed Hydrogen Fueling Station Design .................................................. 8
Figure 2.4 Proposed Location for Hydrogen Fueling Station ......................................... 9
Figure 2.5 UTC Pure Cell® 200 Operation ................................................................... 11
Figure 2.6. Ford E-450 H2ICE...................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.7. HyPM® Fuel Cell Power Pack ................................................................... 14
Figure 2.8. ZES IV.5 Fuel Cell Scooter ....................................................................... 16
Figure 2.9. Jadoo Power XRT™ Extended Runtime Adapter ........................................ 17
Figure 2.10. HOGEN® H Series Electrolyzer ................................................................ 18
Figure 3.1. Fuel Leak Simulation of Hydrogen and Gasoline Vehicle .......................... 22
Figure 5.1. Fossil Fuel and Fuel Cell Comparisons ...................................................... 31
 viii

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1. Daily Hydrogen Production and Consumption at Airport .............................. 4
Table 2.2. Hydrogen Applications - Lambert-St. Louis International Airport ................. 4
Table 2.3. Fuel Cell Lift Truck Features ...................................................................... 14
Table 2.4. Fuel Cell Ground Support Equipment Features ........................................... 15
Table 2.5 Other Possibilities at STL ........................................................................... 18
Table 3.1. Failure Mode Analysis ................................................................................ 19
Table 3.2. Risk Factor Analysis ................................................................................... 21
Table 3.3. Fuel Comparison Matrix ............................................................................. 22
Table 4.1. Capital Investment & Installation Cost Summary ......................................... 26
Table 4.2. Yearly Operating Costs ............................................................................... 27
Table 4.3. Cost Savings ............................................................................................... 28
Table 5.1. Impact on CO2 Emissions at STL ................................................................ 32
Table 5.2. Summary of Data Obtained from GREET Analysis ..................................... 33
 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Airports are among the markets with greatest opportunity for practical
implementation of hydrogen technologies. In addition to the task of handling millions of
travelers every day, today’s airports face challenges related to air and water quality, noise
pollution, energy efficiency, and safety and security [1]. The statistical information
indicating the increase of delays and cancellations (and thus lost revenue) can be found in
the Appendix B Figure 1-4. The primary objective of this paper is to identify, select, and
design hydrogen technologies to address the challenges related to pollution, energy
efficiency, and safety and security at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (STL),
Missouri. Even though technology selections were made for the St. Louis Airport, the
key elements of the design are applicable to other airports around the world. All
technologies that have been selected are either presently commercially available or will
be commercially available such that this design will be possible to implement for
practical, real-world use by 2009.
Hydrogen technologies when compared to conventional systems are more energy
efficient, reliable and have fuel flexibility, energy security, scalability, light weight, and
lower emissions. Specific hydrogen technologies were selected based on these benefits
and include a fully integrated system for on-site hydrogen generation, compression,
storage and distribution, as well as several niche roles for introducing hydrogen
applications at STL. Specifically, these systems comprise of hydrogen generation from
steam methane reformation and electrolysis, composite and steel storage tanks, hydrogen
fuel cell applications for auxiliary power generation, portable emergency power, light-
duty vehicle applications, and a stand-alone system designed for public exposure to
hydrogen technologies. A hydrogen fuel cell system capable of providing back-up power
to critical systems replacing some of the existing battery and diesel power systems was
also recommended in the design. A hydrogen internal combustion engine (H2ICE) shuttle
bus was selected to transport passengers from the terminal to the parking lot. This paper
will discuss each of these applications in detail and will address its design, safety,
economic and environmental impacts, as well as the marketing and educational plan for
the hydrogen applications.
 2

U.S Department of Energy Hydrogen Program acknowledges that safe practices

in the production, storage, distribution, and use of hydrogen are essential components of
a hydrogen economy [2]. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and National Hydrogen Association (NHA)
[3-4] “hydrogen is no more or less dangerous than other flammable fuels, including
gasoline and natural gas.” During the design of hydrogen applications, safety analysis
was performed to identify the major failure modes of each equipment, its effects, and the
steps to mitigate them. General failure modes of the hydrogen system were also analyzed
and potential damage and frequency were estimated.
Since hydrogen technologies have not reached mass production yet, the cost
associated with them is huge when compared with the existing technologies. An
economic analysis was performed to evaluate the economic impact of implementing
hydrogen technologies at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. A business plan
encouraging partnership between different agencies to implement hydrogen technologies
at St. Louis airport was also devised.
Hydrogen’s attractiveness as a fuel is due to the fact that it is not just a clean-fuel,
but that it can be produced through renewable, energy-efficient means. In order to study
the environmental effects hydrogen technologies at the airport an environmental analysis
was performed. Public acceptance of hydrogen is one of the biggest challenges faced by
hydrogen energy and technology leaders. To address the issue of public acceptance and
build local support for STL’s use of hydrogen technologies, a well-placed education and
marketing plan was developed. This includes educational plans for airport staff,
passengers, and the public and will support the design and understanding of hydrogen
technologies to reduce potential resistance, and raise awareness of the benefits of
hydrogen.
As such, the paper has been divided into six distinct sections as follows: (i) the
design, (ii) safety analysis, (iii) environmental analysis, (iv) economic analysis, (v)
marketing and educational plan, and (vi) conclusions and recommendations.
 3

2. THE DESIGN

One can find numerous applications for hydrogen technologies at airports. For
example, Wee [5] illustrates the use of PEM fuel cell in different real-world systems
including transportation, stationary, and portable applications. The challenge is to
identify specific application for the airport depending upon its unique needs. The
hydrogen applications selected for Lambert-St. Louis International Airport were based on
the different hydrogen technologies that are currently deployed or that will be deployed
at Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T). These hydrogen
technologies include Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) fuel cell, Hydrogen Internal
Combustion Engine (H2ICE) shuttle bus, Proton Exchange Membrane electrolysis,
Steam Methane Reformation (SMR), Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA), composite and
steel hydrogen storage tanks, 5000 psi hydrogen dispensing, etc. A Phosphoric Acid Fuel
Cell (PAFC) was also selected for auxiliary power generation at the airport. All these
hydrogen applications can be divided into several smaller, distinct areas as given below:
1. On-site hydrogen production
2. Back-up power generation providing up to 30 kW of back-up power
3. Auxiliary & energy savings power generation
4. Hydrogen powered vehicles
5. Portable /Mobile fuel cell
6. Technologies dedicated to public education

Hydrogen will be produced on-site hydrogen production via steam methane

reformation and electrolysis and will be used to fuel the hydrogen powered vehicles as
well as various fuel cell applications. Most of the fuel cell applications used in the design
require only industrial grade hydrogen (99.95% pure) and are capable of using hydrogen
from K cylinders that are commercially available. The daily production and consumption
of hydrogen was estimated and is summarized in Table 2.1.
 4

Table 2.1. Daily Hydrogen Production and Consumption at Airport

Application H2 Production H2 Usage Hours Operated
SMR 15 kg - 24 hrs
FuelGen® 12 12.94 kg - 24 hrs
HOGEN® H 2M 4.31 kg - 24 hrs
H2ICE shuttle bus - 20 kg 8 hrs
Fuel cell vehicles - 6 kg 12 hrs
Back-up power unit - varies power outage
Plug Power Fuel Cell - 4.31 kg 24 hrs

To facilitate a better systems understanding, the proposed hydrogen applications

at STL have been summarized in Appendix C and are represented visually in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2. Hydrogen Applications - Lambert-St. Louis International Airport

Applications Equipments

GTI Mobile
Hydrogen Unit

Hydrogen Fueling
Station Hydrogen
FuelGen® 12 Storage Cylinders
Electrolyzer Hydrogen
Dispenser

Low Pressure
Hydrogen Cylinders
 5

Table 2.2.(cont.) Hydrogen Applications – Lambert-St. Louis International Airport

Back-up power
eration
Low Pressure Altery Freedom
Server
Hydrogen Cylinders Power ™ FCM-5

Auxiliary & energy

saving power
generation
Pure Cell® 200 Transformer

Hydrogen powered Lift truck Ground Support Personal Transportation

equipment
vehicle applications

Shuttle Bus Scooter

Portable/Mobile
power generation
Low Pressure FillPoint™ Hydrogen Jadoo Power XRT™Extended
Hydrogen Cylinders Canister Refilling Runtime Adapter
Station

Technologies
dedicated to public
education
HOGEN® H 2M GenCore® Fuel Cell Computer
Electrolyzer
 6

2.1. ON-SITE HYDROGEN PRODUCTION, STORAGE, AND FUELING

Hydrogen will be produced on-site via two leading hydrogen production
technologies; (i) steam methane reformation and (ii) electrolysis. An integrated hydrogen
fueling station will be purchased from Gas Technology Institute (GTI) and will comprise
of a GTI designed Mobile Hydrogen Unit (MHU), external hydrogen storage tanks, and a
dispenser. The MHU is a custom built trailer and will house a steam methane reformer,
pressure swing adsorption system, compression system, composite storage tanks, and
buffer tanks for natural gas and hydrogen. The unique design of the MHU will allow the
hydrogen production and storage to be semi-mobile and can be moved easily or stored
safely in case of an emergency or extreme weather conditions. Figure 2.1 shows the GTI
designed MHU, external hydrogen supply tube trailer, external storage tanks, and the
hydrogen dispenser located at E3 Commons at Missouri S&T.

Figure 2.1. Missouri S&T Hydrogen Fueling Station at E3 Commons

 7

GTI’s MHU shown in Figure 2.2 is capable of producing 15 kg of hydrogen per

day through steam methane reformation of natural gas. Hydrogen from the reformer, after
going through the hydrogen purification PSA system is fed into a buffer tank. The buffer
tank supplies hydrogen to a two-stage hydrogen compressor (flow rate of 6 to 8 scfm)
which compresses the hydrogen to 6250 psi. The compressed hydrogen will be stored
inside the on-board composite tanks and the external ASME steel tanks. Both composite
and external steel storage tanks are arranged in a three-bank cascade configuration and
can hold up to 18 kg and 33 kg of hydrogen respectively.

Figure 2.2. GTI’s Mobile Hydrogen Unit (MHU) [6]

One of the greatest advantages of the MHU is that it can accept hydrogen (up to
10 kg per day when SMR is online and up to 25 kg when SMR is offline) from an
external source such as a hydrogen tube trailer or an electrolyzer. This flexibility of the
system will allow the scheduled maintenance of the steam methane reformer without
interfering with the hydrogen fueling station operations.
 8

Hydrogen will also be produced on-site via electrolysis using a FuelGen® 12

electrolyzer capable of producing 12.94 kg of hydrogen per day using proton exchange
membrane technology. An external buffer tank specially designed for the electrolyzer
equalizes pressure differences and provides the hydrogen gas flow from the electrolyzer
to the buffer tank housed inside the mobile hydrogen unit. A separate hydrogen line from
this buffer tank will be connected to a K cylinder refilling unit. This refilling unit will be
used to fill hydrogen in the K cylinders and will supply hydrogen to the back-up power
system discussed later in the section. Figure 2.3 illustrates the design and layout of the
proposed hydrogen fueling station.

Figure 2.3. Proposed Hydrogen Fueling Station Design

 9

™
Hydrogen dispensing will be based on GTI’s patented Hydrofill technology and
the dispenser will be able to dispense hydrogen at 5000 psi. This system meets all SAE
hydrogen vehicle interface standards and doesn’t require complex communication
protocols, or intense training that other systems require [6].
The station will be capable of remote operation. Power controls and data
acquisition systems will be included so that the station can be monitored, started, and
stopped remotely, or it can be operated automatically to maintain pre-set pressure and
hydrogen inventory [6]. The station will be used to fill both hydrogen internal
combustion engine vehicles as well as fuel cell vehicles. The design recommends the
hydrogen station to be built at one of the two Super Park parking lots as shown in
Figure 2.4. Safety features of the hydrogen station and the associated equipments will be
discussed in later section.

A - Economy Parking
B - Cypress Parking

Figure 2.4 Proposed Location for Hydrogen Fueling Station

 10

2.2. BACK-UP POWER GENERATION

After analyzing flight operations at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, it
was observed that the power outages experienced by the airport significantly impact
airport operations. To mitigate this critical weakness, the proposed design includes a 30
kW back-up power system furbished by Altergy Systems for uninterrupted power supply.
The 30 kW system is a modular configuration of six Freedom Power™ FCM-5 fuel cell.
Individually, these units are rated from 0-5000 W, with a 30 second overload capacity of
6250 W and rated net current of 0-100 A@48 VDC [7]. They will be fueled by the
hydrogen K cylinders mentioned in the previous section and will consume 0.38 kg of
hydrogen per hour while generating 5 kW. They are equipped with fuel leak sensors and
remote communication and control ability. The system also includes a power distribution
module (PDM) for administering the six FCM-5 units, a transient power module (TPM)
for start-up and bridge power (downtime between a power failure and fuel cell warm-up
time), and a power conversion module to convert DC power to AC power. The location
of the system can either be located indoor or outdoor; if it is placed outdoor then it would
need external conditioning. While this back-up power system could serve any number of
different areas, the design suggests that the airport computer network be protected first.
The dependability of the fuel cells and the back-up power unit in general will assure that
the airport can perform its critical tasks and that no data will be lost in the event of a
power outage. By utilizing this system, the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport will
experience fewer critical outages ultimately preserving not only its flight schedule but
also reducing effects throughout the country.

2.3. AUXILIARY AND ENERGY SAVINGS POWER GENERATION

To drive down energy costs and to lessen the load of the local utilities, auxiliary
power generation system was selected. The proposed system comprises of a stationary
Pure Cell® Model 200 PAFC system capable of producing 200 kW of power, and
approximately 900,000 Btu/hr of heat for combined heat and power (CHP) applications
[8]. According to Neef [9], the advantages of the stationary fuel cell systems compared to
the competing condensing boilers or conventional heat and power plants consist of higher
 11

efficiencies and reduced emissions, but also of a contribution to decentralized electricity

production and to stability of the electric grid.
The system can be operated in both grid-connected and grid independent modes
depending on the power requirements of the airport. It can use either natural gas or
anaerobic digester gas as fuel, which will be reformed with steam to generate hydrogen
for the fuel cell stack. The DC power generated by the fuel cell stack is conditioned to
provide AC power using a power conditioner inside the Pure Cell® Model 200. An
illustration of how the fuel cell work can be found in Figure 2.5. The system can be
configured to run at 400V at 50 Hz or 480V at 60 Hz. The footprint of the power module
is 15’ by 18’, allowing a single unit to be installed in a variety of locations, or making the
modular configuration of several units a realistic possibility.
Of the many advantages this offers, perhaps the most notable is that the system
will be capable of running for long periods of time as long as a hydrogen fuel is readily
available. During emergency situations, this equipment also acts as back-up or auxiliary
power generation. With only a single unit, per unit specifications power assurance is in
excess of 99.99%.

1 - Fuel Processor 2 - Fuel Cell Stack 3 - Power Conditioner

Figure 2.5 UTC Pure Cell® 200 Operation [10]
 12

2.4. HYDROGEN POWERED VEHICLES

The transportation sector is the single largest consumer of petroleum in the United
States, accounting for nearly two-thirds of its annual consumption. According to U.S.
DOE’s Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program, “a transportation
system powered by hydrogen and fuel cells would significantly improve the national
energy security and reduce emissions of harmful pollutants and greenhouse gases.”[11]
Keeping this in mind, five specific hydrogen vehicles for unique operations was
selected for Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. These vehicles will act as a part of
the design’s educational and marketing component and will introduce hydrogen
technologies to both airport employees and passengers in highly visible applications.
The selected hydrogen powered vehicles includes both internal combustion engine and
fuel cell powered vehicles and are as follows: (i) Ford E-450 H2ICE shuttle bus, (ii)
hydrogen powered lift truck, (iii) a fuel cell ground support equipment, (iv) a fuel cell
scooter, and (v) a fuel cell personal transporter.
2.4.1. Ford Hydrogen Shuttle Bus. The most noticeable hydrogen powered
vehicle included in the design is the Ford hydrogen internal combustion engine (H2ICE)
shuttle bus. This vehicle, leased from Ford Motor Company will supplement the existing
natural gas shuttle bus service and will be used to shuttle passengers between Lambert-St.
Louis International Airport’s main terminal, east terminal and Super Park parking lots.
The proposed route found in Appendix E is approximately 6.5 miles and will take around
30 minutes for a round trip. This proposal has been constructed around an estimated eight
to ten hours of operation per day.
The hydrogen shuttle bus is a retrofitted Ford E-450 that uses gaseous fuel
injection system, modified ignition & electrical system, iridium dipped spark plugs, super
charger, and intercooler [12]. Hydrogen is stored on-board in six storage tanks and can
hold up to 29.4 kg of hydrogen at 5,075 psi. Hydrogen from these tanks is regulated to
70-80 psi before being injected into the engine. The shuttle bus also has a hydrogen
management system which will be discussed in detail in the safety analysis section of the
paper. The use of hydrogen in internal combustion engines should be seen as a bridging
technology while fuel cell technology becomes economically viable and is further refined
for transportation purposes. Since the vehicle is being leased, when sufficiently
 13

developed technology becomes commercially available, the airport may readily upgrade
its environmentally friendly passenger transportation.
Missouri University of Science and Technology have been using two of these
hydrogen shuttle buses (Figure 2.6) for more than a year (June 07 - Nov 08) for
demonstration purposes and for shuttling students around campus. During this period,
studies have shown the vehicle can easily travel at highway speeds and has a fuel
economy of approximately 6 miles per kg of hydrogen.

Figure 2.6. Ford E-450 H2ICE

2.4.2. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Lift Truck. Hydrogen fuel cell lift truck is an
excellent candidate for multi-shift indoor material handling operation. The advantages of
this technology include zero emissions, reduced fueling times, elimination of space for
charging stations, and extended run-time between fills. This is especially useful if the
equipment is being used inside where ventilation is less than adequate.
Hydrogenics HyPM® Fuel Cell Power Pack (FCPP) shown in Figure 2.7 was
selected to meet the specific requirement of a drop-in replacement for traditional battery
power systems in lift trucks. It is an integrated electric hybrid power solution that
includes a fuel cell, hydrogen storage tank, power electronics, system controls, thermal
 14

management system and an electrical storage device [13]. The details of the fuel cell lift
trick can be found in the Table 2.3 given below.

Figure 2.7. HyPM® Fuel Cell Power Pack [13]

Table 2.3. Fuel Cell Lift Truck Features [13]

Vehicle Specification
Forklift Hyster E 55 Class 1 Electric
Counterbalanced Lift Truck
Wheels 4
Tire Type Cushion
Power Solution
Product Hydrogenics HyPM Fuel Cell Power Pack
Configuration Fuel Cell Ultracapacitor Hybrid
Peak Power (10s) 27 kW
Fuel Cell Power Module HyPM 12
Continuous Net Rated Power 12 kW
Electrical Storage Ultracapacitors
Hydrogen Storage 1.6 kg @ 350 bar
3.5 lb @ 5000 psi
Run-time 12 hours
Refueling time < 5 minutes
 15

Hydrogenics has already demonstrated the benefits of using the fuel cell lift
trucks at General Motors (GM) of Canada’s automotive assembly plant in Oshawa, and at
FedEx Canada’s logistics hub at the Toronto Pearson International Airport [13]. The fuel
cell lift truck application at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport will use the Hyster
Class 1 Electric Counterbalanced Lift truck identical to the one used at Oshawa and
Toronto.
2.4.3. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Ground Support Equipment. The fuel cell power
pack used in the Section 2.4.2 will also be used to power airport ground support
equipment (GSE). The design will use John Deere’s 6x4 Gator™ platform to deploy a
fuel cell powered utility vehicle. This vehicle will be used in terminal for light cargo as
well as passenger transport. In addition, the fuel cell powered Gators can provide
external AC and DC power, enabling the fuel cell to act as generator that provides off-
board power to operate tools, and other electrical equipment. Much like the fuel cell for
the lift trucks detailed above, this will not only allow the vehicle to operate indoors
emissions free, but will also boast a rapid refueling time when compared to existing
battery systems. The details of the fuel cell lift trick are summarized in the Table 2.4
given below.

Table 2.4. Fuel Cell Ground Support Equipment Features [13]

Vehicle Specification
Configuration 6x4 Gator™
Vehicle Weight 730 kg (1640 lb)
Maximum Speed 33 km/hr (21 miles/hr)
Power Solution
Fuel Cell Power Module HyPM 12
Continuous Net Rated Power 12 kW
Electrical Storage Ultracapacitor pack
Hydrogen Storage 0.6 kg @ 350 bar
1.3lb @ 5000 psi
Range 2-3 hours (normal drive cycle)
 16

2.4.4. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Scooter. A hydrogen powered scooter designed by

Asia Pacific Fuel Cell Technologies, Ltd (APFCT) was selected as an additional roaming
advertisement for hydrogen technologies. The ZES IV.5, or Zero Emission Scooter IV.5
Generation, is a hydrogen fuel cell scooter that boasts a power plant producing 120 amps
at 24V which allows it to reach a maximum level speed of just over 30 mph [14]. At a
more tame speed of 18 mph, the scooter has a range of approximately 37 miles before
refueling is necessary. The scooter’s fuel supply is delivered via a metal hydride canister
that can be simply exchanged for a new canister at refueling as seen in Figure 2.8. The
scooter and fuel canister have a combined weight of 240 pounds, allowing the vehicle to
operate nearly anywhere pedestrian traffic is possible.

Figure 2.8. ZES IV.5 Fuel Cell Scooter [14]

2.4.5. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Personal Transporter. The design selected a fuel
cell personal transporter for the security officers at the airport. It will help tighten
security with faster response and can increase extend of area under surveillance. The
transporter is a modified Segway® Personal Transporter (PT) designed to run on
hydrogen using fuel cells purchased from Jadoo Power Systems [15]. Hydrogen will be
stored in hydrogen fuel canister and can be easily recharged using Jadoo’s FillPoint™
refill station. These canisters can be replaced and recharged depending on the use of the
personal transporter.
 17

2.5. PORTABLE/MOBILE FUEL CELL.

Off- the grid portable power equipment are extensively used by first responders
including fire fighters, emergency medical responders, and law enforcement. The design
includes a hydrogen fuel cell power pack unit manufactured by Jadoo Power. The XRT™
Extended Runtime Adapter as seen in Figure 2.9 offers built-in 110 VAC and 12 VDC
output jacks delivering 100W of continuous power [16] and will be used for both
portable and remote power applications such as communications equipment for early
response teams, small electric tool operation, or any other application that requires light,
reliable portable electric power. Their advantages over conventional battery units are
compact size, modularity, rapid refill time, consistent run-time, and no self-discharge
giving the unit a very long shelf life.

Figure 2.9. Jadoo Power XRT™ Extended Runtime Adapter [16]

2.6. PUBLIC EDUCATION TECHNOLOGIES.

Public perception of hydrogen technologies was given high importance while
designing hydrogen applications at the airport. In order to educate the public and to
increase their acceptability towards hydrogen technology a public/passenger hydrogen
education center was designed. It will educate and inform public about the hydrogen
applications and also about the greater possibilities that can be realized through the use of
hydrogen technologies. This center should be located in a high-traffic area of the airport
to have maximum visibility.
This exhibit will be powered entirely by hydrogen produced through the exhibit
itself. For this requirement, the design specifies a HOGEN® H2M electrolyzer, seen in
 18

Figure 2.10. The H 2M employs a proton exchange membrane electrolysis technology

and produces 4.31 kg of hydrogen per day at 218 psig (99.9995% purity) [17]. The
hydrogen produced by this system will fuel a 5 kW Plug Power (GenCore® 5U120)
hydrogen fuel cell which will power multiple computers as well as audio/visual
equipment located within the exhibit. It should be noted the 5 kW fuel cell will not be
run at full load, allowing expansion of the display at a later time.

Figure 2.10. HOGEN® H Series Electrolyzer [17]

2.7. OVERALL
The technologies selected for this design should not be seen as the end product of
a hydrogen infrastructure at an airport. Instead, these systems have been designed to
serve as a stepping stone to the introduction of larger hydrogen systems within an airport
or similar facility. Technologies that were considered during the design but not selected
have been summarized in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 Other Possibilities at STL

Technologies not selected Reasons for not using
Wind Turbine Permitting issues
Solar Panel High volume of batteries/ space constraints
Fuel cell cars, buses, wheelchairs, etc. High cost
 19

3. SAFETY ANALYSIS

Safety is the primary concern for any airport operations. H2BestPractices.org, a

collaboration of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Los Alamos National
Laboratory warns “A catastrophic failure in any hydrogen project could negatively
impact the public's perception of hydrogen systems as viable, safe, and clean alternatives
to conventional energy systems, and could reduce the ability of hydrogen technologies to
obtain insurance, a necessary step in commercialization of any technology” [18]. As
such, special care is needed to not only identify probable failure methods of hydrogen
systems, but also to provide a design that mitigates this risk and provides a safe image to
the public. This section will address the safety analysis of specific hydrogen equipments
as well as different accident scenarios of PEM fuel cells (e.g., Gerbec et al. [19]) and
other hydrogen systems used in the design. Codes and standards applicable to hydrogen
equipments selected during the design have been summarized in Appendix F.

3.1. EQUIPMENT FAILURE MODES

Failure modes associated with different hydrogen application and methods to
mitigate them have been summarized in the Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Failure Mode Analysis

Potential
Potential Safety features and failure
Equipment effects of
failure mode(s) control/ prevention
failure
Mobile Hydrogen leak Fire and a). H2 leak detection system
Hydrogen Unit combustion of b). Ventilation
hydrogen , c). Fire detection and
asphyxiation suppression safety system
d). Emergency shutdown
devices
e). PLC-based system control
and remote monitoring
system
f). Electrical connections and
panels compliant with
National Electrical code
 20

Table 3.1.(cont.) Failure Mode Analysis

Hydrogen Over Failure of tank Pressure relief valves
storage tanks pressurizing
Hydrogen Hydrogen leak Fire and Emergency shutdown devices
fueling station combustion of located at different convenient
hydrogen; locations
other
emergencies
Altergy fuel Hydrogen leak Fire and a). H2 leak detection system
cell and fuel cell combustion of b). Remote system and fuel
degradation hydrogen; low monitoring
power output
Pure Cell® 200 Hydrogen leak Fire and a). H2 leak detection system
fuel cell and fuel cell combustion of b). Remote system and fuel
degradation hydrogen monitoring
Ford hydrogen Hydrogen leak Combustion / a). H2 sensors
shuttle bus and roadside asphyxiation b). H2 temperature & pressure
emergency sensor in tank valve
c). H2 fans in the storage
compartment
d). Audible alarm and light on
dashboard if H2
concentration > 2%
e). Manual shut-off valve
f). Battery disconnect
g). Pressure relief valves and
devices
Fuel cell lift Hydrogen leak Fire and Hydrogen sensor
truck & GSE combustion of
hydrogen
Fuel cell Hydrogen leak Fire and a). Uses metal hydride
scooter combustion of hydrogen storage
hydrogen b). Self limiting in gas release
rate
HOGEN® Hydrogen leak Fire and a). On-board H2 detection
H 2M combustion of b). Automatic fault detection
electrolyzer hydrogen and system depressurization
c). Emergency stop
d). Remote alarm and
shutdown
Plug Power Hydrogen leak Fire and a). H2 detection system
electrolyzer and fuel cell combustion of b). Low fuel alarm
degradation hydrogen; low c). Remote monitoring system
power output
 21

3.2. HYDROGEN SYSTEM FAILURE MODES

After considering possible failure modes of hydrogen equipments, general failure
modes of the whole hydrogen system were identified and are as follows:
1) Fire and combustion of hydrogen
2) Human operator error or equipment misuse
3) Natural disaster
4) Hardware failure
5) Electrical Power outage
The failure modes above are listed in decreasing order of risk to the St. Louis
airport. Each scenario was evaluated for both damage potential and frequency, and then
scored appropriately (1-10, 10 being the most severe). The results of this analysis can be
seen in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Risk Factor Analysis

Failure Mode Damage Potential Frequency Risk Factor
Fire and Combustion 10 6 60
Operator Error 8 5 40
Natural Disaster 8 4 32
Hardware Failure 5 3 15
Power Outage 2 7 14

3.2.1. Fire and Combustion of Hydrogen. In 2007, fire killed more Americans
than all natural disasters combined [20]. Furthermore, direct property loss due to fires
was estimated at $14.6 billion [20]. Hydrogen being colorless and odorless is very
difficult to detect; it is also highly flammable. Table 3.3 provides the flammability limit,
explosion limits, and ignition energy of hydrogen compared to gasoline vapor and natural
gas.
 22

Table 3.3. Fuel Comparison Matrix [3-4]

Properties Hydrogen Gasoline Natural Gas
Flammability limits (in air) 4-74% 1.4-7.6% 5.3-15%
Explosion limits (in air) 18.3-59% 1.1-3.3% 5.7-14%
Ignition energy (mJ) 0.02 0.20 0.29

It can be observed that hydrogen has a wide flammability and explosion limits.
Hence, it is crucial that ignition sources be removed from any area where hydrogen is
being processed or handled. To mitigate this risk, appropriate warning signs including
“NO SMOKING, FLAMMABLE GAS, NO CELL PHONES, HYDROGEN DOESNOT
HAVE A DISTINCTIVE ODOR” will be posted in areas where hydrogen equipments
are present. Since static electricity discharges also pose a risk as an ignition source, all
equipment will be equipped with an appropriate safety grounding system. At the
hydrogen fueling station, infrared sensors will be installed to detect hydrogen flames.
Finally, measures will be taken to assure operators and the public that hydrogen is
a safe fuel, despite its high range of combustibility. Scenarios such as those found from
the fuel leak simulation of hydrogen and gasoline vehicle (see Figure 3.1) will be used to
illustrate this idea. It can be observed that the traditional gasoline vehicle is completely
destroyed. Remarkably, the maximum surface temperature measured on the hydrogen
vehicle was 117o Fahrenheit at the rear window glass [21]. Similar information will be
disseminated at the public education facility at the airport.

Figure 3.1: Fuel Leak Simulation of Hydrogen (left) and Gasoline (right) Vehicle [21]
 23

3.2.2. Human Operator Error or Equipment Misuse. Human operators pose a

risk to the overall integrity of the any system during its operation. Even trained operators
make mistakes and can be forgetful. For this reason, the design calls for several safety
checks to be installed, especially with regard to the hydrogen fueling station where
hydrogen will be at high pressure (5000 psi). The system will be run using a smart card
so that only trained users will be able to access the station. In the event that a driver pulls
his/her vehicle away before nozzle disconnection, a break-away design such as those
found at gasoline service stations will be used. Operator error also includes incidents
such as a vehicle collision with hydrogen equipment. Due to the mobile nature equipment
such as the hydrogen store and dispensing unit, mobile jersey barriers will be used to
protect this equipment. These hollow plastic barriers can be filled with water to impede a
vehicle’s path, but are easy to relocate quickly and without the use of heavy equipment.
The water can simply be drained from the barrier and the barrier carried to a new
location.
All hydrogen production, compression and storage equipment at Missouri S&T
hydrogen fueling station is located inside a fenced area to minimize physical damage and
vandalism. Missouri S&T has also installed a security camera to monitor the activities at
the hydrogen fueling station. Similar steps would be taken at Lambert-St. Louis
International Airport to ensure the safety of public and equipments.
3.2.3. Natural Disaster. Natural disasters have the ability to annihilate any of
man’s creations. In St. Louis area, the greatest cause for concern is tornados and
thunderstorms. Tornados can produce winds in excess of 100 miles per hour and are
typically accompanied by torrential rain. The mobile nature of the MHU allows it to be
moved to a higher elevation if a storm is expected. If necessary, the equipment could be
taken off-site for the duration of the storm. The high winds should have little impact on
the other aspects of the design due to their location inside or their relatively low profile.
Localized flooding and flash flooding, while a threat to human life can be mitigated in
the design phase of the project by avoiding construction in low-lying areas. All
equipment exposed to the environment will be adequately protected from rain-water
penetration.
 24

3.2.4. Hardware Failure. Typically every system is prone to mechanical or

hardware failure associated with time and usage. To prevent such failures, routine
maintenance should be performed, especially to any surfaces with hydrogen exposure.
Hydrogen embrittlement resistant piping, valves, and fittings will be selected. Any crack
or scratch on a product interface surface should be closely monitored for any fatigue or
corrosion effects causing the crack to open. If inspections reveal a critical crack or one
outside of design tolerance, the airport maintenance personal will de-energize, follow
lockout/tagout procedures, and then make appropriate repairs to the system.
It is also important that all temperatures and pressures be maintained at or below
system specifications. The pressure sensors, temperature probes, and relief valves
included in each system will ensure that the equipments operate within the safety limits
and that the equipment will shut down safely in case of an event. Inspections for
hydrogen leak at hydrogen piping and valves joints must be performed periodically as
well as during installation of the equipment.
3.2.5. Electrical Power Outage. An electrical power outage at the airport would
result in a loss of instrumentation and system control, possibly resulting in one of the
failure methods above. Because of this, an electrical power outage is a risk to system
integrity. To manage this risk, system specifications will require all product valves to fail
closed to prevent unintentional release or processing of hydrogen gases. All systems will
also be equipped with pressure relief valves that function without power requirements,
allowing any critical pressure increase to be released safely and in a controlled manner
during times of electrical power outage.
 25

4. ECONOMIC/BUSINESS PLAN ANALYSIS

U.S. businesses lose $29 billion annually from computer failures due to power
outages and lost productivity [22] and are quickly realizing that fuel cells may help
prevent some of these losses. However, being a new technology, hydrogen technologies
have a high cost associated with them. Lambert-St. Louis Airport will be encouraged to
partner with multiple agencies/organizations to implement hydrogen technologies
proposed in the design. As an example, the E3 Commons site at Missouri S&T
comprising of hydrogen fueling station, hydrogen research garage, and renewable energy
transit depot has been funded by Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Federal Transit
Administration, and National University Transportation Centre (NUTC). St. Louis airport
could solicit funds from different organizations to implement one or more hydrogen
applications recommended in the design. A possible outcome of these could be a
partnership between Federal Aviation Administration, St. Louis Airport Authority
(SLAA), and Department of Energy.
The hydrogen technologies selected attempt to address several economic issues
including showing fiscal viability through power cogeneration and moderating losses due
to power outages through reliable back-up systems. The design incorporates leased
equipment which will help to keep the initial outlay of assets down while also creating
flexibility to change with emerging and improving hydrogen technologies. The business
plan includes both capital investments in purchased equipment as well as lease
agreements.

4.1. CAPITAL AND INSTALLATION COSTS

The initial capital investment for all operating equipment will be $3,250,000 with
an additional $400,000 estimated for installation. Installation costs were estimated based
on the cost involved in the installation of the E3 Commons facility at Missouri S&T. It
was assumed that the no extensive site preparation would be required and that utility
connections are available on-site. Table 4.1 illustrates the cost break-down of proposed
hydrogen application at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.
 26

Table 4.1. Capital Investment & Installation Cost Summary

Capital Costs
Item Description Quantity Price
1 Hydrogen Cogeneration System
1.1 UTC Pure Cell® 200 - Incl. Installation 1 $1,100,000
2 Hydrogen Fueling Station
2.1 MHU, storage, and dispenser 1 $1,100,000
2.2 Fuel Gen® 12 Electrolyzer 1 $275,000
2.3 Hydrogen K cylinder refilling unit 1 $25,000

2.4 Concrete pad, design, utility connections, fence, $200,000

flame detection system , security cameras, etc.
3 Hydrogen Back-up Power System
3.1 Altergy Integrated Fuel Cell 1 $120,000
3.2 Transient Power Module 1 $30,000
3.3 Communications and Control Module 1 $15,000
3.4 Installation $50,000
4 Public Education Module
4.1 HOGEN® H 2M Electrolyzer 1 $140,000
4.2 Plug Power Fuel Cell 1 $20,000
4.3 Desired Peripherals $25,000
4.4 Installation $50,000
4.5 Marketing $100,000
5 Hydrogen Vehicles & Portable Power System $400,000
Total Capital Cost $3,650,000

4.2. OPERATIONAL COSTS

Hydrogen technologies deployed at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport will
have utility costs, maintenance cost, and other cost associated with its operation. The
operational cost also includes the 30 month lease payment on the Ford H2ICE shuttle bus
at $250,000 for 30 months [23]. Electricity and natural gas are supplied by Ameren UE.
The energy charge for electricity is $0.024 per kWh during summer and $0.0212 per
 27

kWh during winter [24]. The electricity demand charge for summer and winter is $14.35
per kW and $6.52 per kW respectively [24]. The electricity cost is derived from operation
of the two electrolyzers, and mobile hydrogen unit (approximately 50,000 kWh per
month) producing hydrogen 24 hours a day. The average electricity cost per month for
hydrogen generation is approximately $1,840. Natural gas is priced at $0.28 per Ccf for
the first 7000 Ccf $0.18 for every Ccf thereafter [25]. It was estimated that the Pure Cell®
200 auxiliary power generator will require natural gas and the Steam Methane Reformer
worth $3,350 and $650 respectively. The operating cost per year was calculated and has
been tabulated in Table 4.2. Grid water used for cooling purposes and de-ionizer
feedstock is assumed to be a negligible cost factor. The maintenance costs are assumed to
be 5% of the total investment cost.

Table 4.2. Yearly Operating Costs

Item Cost
Electricity $22,000
Natural Gas $48,000
Shuttle Bus $140,000
Maintenance $160,000
Total $370,000

4.3. COST ALLEVIATION

The most important cost alleviation factor in the design is the Pure Cell® 200 fuel
cell unit which produces 200 kW. This unit will be operational 24 hours a day and will
save approximately $5,000 per month in electric bills. Other cost savings include fuel and
maintenance cost savings for the hydrogen vehicles including H2ICE shuttle bus, fuel
cell lift truck, ground support vehicle, and the fuel cell scooter. Keeping the airport up
and running during power failures curtails losses due to flight delays and cancellations
not only at STL, but at all connecting airports as well. The cost saving anticipated by the
introduction of hydrogen technologies at the airport have be summarized in Table 4.3.
 28

Table 4.3. Cost Savings

Item Avg. monthly savings Avg. yearly savings
®
Pure Cell 200 fuel cell $5,000 $60,000
Hydrogen vehicles $3,000* $30,000
Total $8,000 $96,000
*
Assuming gasoline costs $3 per gallon and the monthly rent and maintenance cost
on the hydrogen vehicles to be saving to be $1000.

4.4. AIRPORT UP-TIME

The market for hydrogen fueled technologies is still emerging and hence, as with all new
technologies, is still quite expensive. Currently it is not cost effective to simply replace
existing fossil fueled technologies. According to the economic feasibility prediction of
commercial fuel cell application by Ma et al. [26], the installation of 200 kW auxiliary
power generation system will not result in direct monetary gain or profit. The selected
hydrogen technologies will combat the ‘high cost and profit’ issue by solving critical
problems such as airport down time due to power failure. The Altergy fuel cell computer
back-up system along with the 200 kW auxiliary power generation system ensure that the
airport experiences shorter down-time (and thus reduced loss of revenue) during power
interruptions. The breakdown of flight schedules at one airport also affects every
connecting airport leading to a serious loss in revenue, productivity and customer
satisfaction. The airport currently employs multiple back-up power systems, but they are
antiquated and unreliable. The value of technologies guaranteeing zero interruption and
power generation to over 99.99% is virtually immeasurable when compared to the
domino effect of loss created when an airport shuts down.

4.5. OVERALL
The Altergy integrated fuel cell/UPS and Pure Cell® power generator solve the
critical issue of cancelled and delayed flights as a result of power interruption. The next
measure promotes hydrogen technologies to the general public as well as the airport work
force. The public education module as well as the multitude of hydrogen vehicles
 29

supplied to the airport will have myriad benefits as these hydrogen technologies become
widely accepted. The hydrogen powered Ford shuttle bus, specifically, will provide a
valuable customer service while enhancing the public image of the airport for supporting
green technologies. And lastly, to provide some quantifiable economic viability, the
cogeneration effort of the Pure Cell® will reduce electricity costs in between times of
power interruption and lighten STL’s grid load. Through these methods, achievements
are made in finding a solution to a critical airport problem, increasing public awareness
and approval of a new green fuel, and finding an economically sound means of cost
savings, all with hydrogen.
 30

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies provide a major opportunity to shift the
carbon-based global energy economy to a clean, renewable, and sustainable economy
based on hydrogen. According to Edwards et al. [27] hydrogen, with its energy storage
capacity would be the potent link between sustainable energy technologies and a
sustainable energy economy. But, in the United States, 95% of the hydrogen produced
comes from steam methane reformation of natural gas which produces hydrogen and
carbon dioxide as by-products. Hydrogen is also produced through electrolysis of water,
but it is primarily dependent on grid power predominantly from coal powered power
plants. Hence it is important to do an environmental analysis to study the impact of
hydrogen production and its use at the airport. Environmental impact of using steam
methane reformation and electrolysis to produce hydrogen on-site were examined along
with comparison of combustion of traditional fossil fuels to burning hydrogen or using
hydrogen in fuel cells, effect of displacing batteries with hydrogen fuel cells and finally,
the differences in the noise level of the diesel generator with fuel cell system.

5.1. COMPARISON OF FOSSIL FUELS AND HYDROGEN

It has been estimated that about 50% of Americans live in areas levels of one or
more air pollutants are high enough to affect public health and/or the environment [28].
Hydrogen being a clean-fuel has a potential to mitigate this problem and when used in a
fuel cell to generate electricity that can power transportation, stationary, or portable
applications while producing only pure water and heat as byproducts.
One aspect of the proposed design, the UTC Pure Cell® 200, is a strong example
of how emissions can be drastically reduced through the use of hydrogen fuel cell
technologies. Figure·5.1 is a generalization of the emissions generated during use of the
Pure Cell® unit when compared to both the United States grid electric as well as a typical
natural gas engine of comparable capacity. It can be seen from the Figure 5.1 that fuel
cell technologies offer distinct advantages over fossil fuels, especially when considering
environmental effects. Compared with traditional combustion powerplants, a single Pure
 31

Cell® Model 200 system emits 17,000 pounds less acid rain and smog-causing
pollutants into the environment every year and reduces carbon dioxide emissions by more
than 1.5 million pounds per year [29].

Figure 5.1. Fossil Fuel and Fuel Cell Comparisons [29]

Even though the auxiliary power generation system, hydrogen powered shuttle
bus, hydrogen fuel cell lift truck, ground support equipment and public education center
displace carbon dioxide, production of hydrogen from steam methane reformation and
electrolysis using grid power produces carbon dioxide. The amount of CO2 emitted and
displaced using hydrogen technologies at the airport were estimated and are summarized
in the Table 5.1. It was found out that the hydrogen application at the airport displaced
224,335 kg of CO2 annually.
 32

Table 5.1. Impact on CO2 Emissions at STL

Application CO2 displaced (kg/year) CO2 added (kg/year)
Pure Cell® Model 200 675,000 -
Steam Methane Reformation - 51,800
Electrolysis - 462,000
Ford Shuttle Bus1 15,375 -
Fuel Cell Fork lift2 17,350 -
Fuel Cell GSE2 10,550 -
Public Education Center 19,850
TOTAL 738,125 513,800
1
Compared with natural gas vehicle
2
Compared with electric vehicle

When traditional fossil fuels are burned, they release many compounds and fine
particulate matter into the atmosphere. These off-gases include chemicals such as
nitrogen oxides, sulfur compounds, carbon monoxide, and countless other molecules that
can poison the air and eventually make their way into the water supply. However, when
hydrogen is burned with oxygen, the by-product is clean, pure water vapor. To further
gain from the clean burning of hydrogen fuels, the proposed design offers a Ford E-450
H2ICE shuttle bus which only produces water vapor and trace amounts of NOx. To fully
realize the environmental benefits of hydrogen, a well-to-wheel (WTW) analysis of the
full fuel cycle was performed using the latest version (version 1.8b) of the GREET [30]
software. The results obtained from the GREET [30] model are tabulated in Appendix D
Table·1-4. Default estimates for 2008 were adopted during the simulation and hydrogen
was assumed to be produced on-site via steam methane reformation. Since the design
employs Ford E-450 H2ICE, it was compared with its possible alternatives. Following
Table 5.2 compares the emissions generated during production and use of hydrogen,
gasoline, and natural gas.
 33

Table 5.2. Summary of Data Obtained from GREET [30] Analysis

Total Energy Coal Natural Gas Petroleum GHGs
Btu/mile Btu/mile Btu/mile Btu/mile g/mile
Gasoline 8,058 260 565 6,986 629
CNGV 7,858 334 7,402 52 536
Electric 5,171 3,234 1,033 234 449
H2ICE 10,080 836 8,976 94 694
H2FCV 6,342 526 5,648 59 435

From the table it can be seen that the fuel cell vehicle produces the least
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and uses the less amount of energy and fossil fuel per
mile. The total emissions of the hydrogen H2ICE and hydrogen fuel cell vehicle would
have been lesser if renewable energy sources were used in the production of hydrogen.

5.2. REPLACING BATTERIES WITH FUEL CELLS

The Mercury-containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act was passed
in 1996 to phase out the use of mercury in batteries and to provide for the efficient and
cost-effective collection and recycling or proper disposal of used nickel cadmium
batteries, small sealed lead-acid batteries, and certain other batteries [31]. According to
the United States EPA, battery recycling keeps heavy metals (the primary contaminant of
all batteries) out of landfills and out of the air [32]. If left in landfills, it is possible for
the heavy metals from batteries to seep into groundwater systems. In locations where
trash is incinerated, the heavy metals may also be lifted into the atmosphere with the ash.
Hence, batteries can be a source of both air and water pollution and poisoning.
Replacing a battery system with a fuel cell eliminates the source of these heavy
metals in our environment. The proposed design has replaced several systems that are
traditionally battery powered with hydrogen fuel cells. Of these applications, the largest
is the electric power back-up system manufactured by Altergy Systems. Instead of using
traditional battery back-up, the system utilizes stacked hydrogen fuel cells to provide
back-up power. It should be noted, however, that a small number of batteries are
 34

necessary to maintain a workable transient response, as the fuel cells are not able to
respond immediately.
Additional systems that have been retrofitted with a fuel cell to replace a battery
include class 1 lift truck, scooter, ground support vehicle, personal transporter, and
portable power packs. In all of these applications, the user will be utilizing not only a
more environmentally friendly product, but also one with greater reliability and energy
efficiency due to the implementation of a fuel cell.

5.3. GENERATOR NOISE POLLUTION COMPARISONS

While pollution is traditionally thought of as contaminants to our air, water, and
soil, excessive noise is also considered a pollutant, especially in urban areas. In this
respect, fuel cells and hydrogen energy offer yet another benefit over traditional systems.
As an example, the Pure Cell® 200 will be compared to a Caterpillar diesel generator of
comparable load rating. EPA recommends sound levels to prevent hearing loss with a
reasonable margin of safety is below 70 dBA (continuous exposure) [33]. At a distance of
50 feet, a Caterpillar generator equipped with a sound attuned enclosure has sound
pressure levels of approximately 70 dBA. But, the Pure Cell® 200 unit only produces
sound pressure levels of 60 dBA at a distance of 30 feet. If a low noise cooling module is
purchased for the Pure Cell® 200 unit, the sound level is further reduced to 54 dBA at 30
feet. Sound pressure levels of 55 dBA outdoors is identified by EPA as noise level
preventing activity interference and annoyance, emphasizing the quiet operation of the
fuel cell unit[33].
 35

6. MARKETING AND EDUCATION PLAN

The marketing and educational plan is one of the most important programs in
order to achieve the success of appropriate use of hydrogen based applications. Programs
for both the airport staff and the general public are detailed below.

6.1. EDUCATIONAL PLAN

An effective educational plan must consider many different methods of learning:
linguistic, logical, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, as well as interpersonal and intrapersonal
learners. Activities that will be employed in this design are listed in the following
subsections.
6.1.1. Trained Airport Staff. The hydrogen safety training and education are
going to be based on inputs from hydrogen experts, academic faculty and staff (Missouri
S&T), energy leaders, and safety training providers to build support for understanding of
hydrogen technologies. The first step in the process will be to adapt the attitude of the
airport personnel to eliminate any resistance to change and to sensitize the topics of
energy and security for the hydrogen systems. In the second part, time will be spent to
explain all of the systems, mechanisms, controls, security, safety procedures, reporting of
data, monitoring, and other additional tasks. Interactive workshops using a combination
of several techniques will provide an experience of learning more profound and
pragmatic than lecturing alone would. These workshops will be based on the PPP
procedure (Presentation, Practice, and Production).
6.1.2. General Public/Travelers. The principal objective of the general public
education is to explain the basics of hydrogen production, delivery, storage, and fuel cell
technologies. Missouri S&T’s team will organize seminars aimed at educating the
public. In a case study of the approach to training, the instructor acts more as an assistant
to the learning process of group, an advisor when required and a catalyst for learning,
instead of lecturer or a trainer. The methodology of the educational part includes:
(i) Workshops which provide a stimulating learning environment will bring
together people with a wide range of experience. In these workshops, the general public
and travelers wary of new technologies may express concerns about safety and efficiency
 36

to allay public safety fears or reduce potential resistance. Topics will include: the
environmental benefits of hydrogen in contrast to gasoline, the future scarcity of oil, the
inevitable necessity of alternative energy resources, the wide availability and easy
production of hydrogen fuel, and facts regarding driving and refueling a vehicle. These
topics will seek to educate the public as to the improvements hydrogen technology will
bring.
(ii) Interactive web pages. Communication skills and organization are as
important as the technical knowledge of these topics. Adults learn best when they are
involved in an active way: remembering 20% from what they hear, 40% of what they see,
and 80% of what they discover for themselves. Therefore, this package is based on
interactive teaching methods.

6.2. MARKETING PLAN

The designers of new airport facilities face a series of new challenges to achieve the
balance between long term economic and environmentally sustainable development.
These challenges include issues such as security, costs, passengers, communications, and
also energy. For this reason, the recommendations of the Voluntary Airport Low
Emission (VALE) Program of Federal Aviation Administration suggest the use of
hydrogen as good practice at airports [34].
6.2.1. International Experiences. Different airports have diverse programs and
solutions to face problems related to air pollution, security, energy, and passenger
comfort. One example can be seen in the Munich International Airport, ranked 28th by
total amount of passengers [35]. The sustainable promotion of hydrogen energy in this
strategic master project shall help to demonstrate the application of hydrogen and prepare
the ground for a wide operational spectrum in the future. For the first time in the world,
the production and storage of hydrogen, as well as the fully automated fuelling of
passenger busses and other vehicles, is being tested under the strict safety regulations of
an international airport. In addition, the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation
developed Illinois' first hydrogen fueling station powered by renewable sources. “The
airport of the future will be clean, efficient and fuel independent" said Rockford Airport
Director Bob O'Brien. "I'm excited that we'll be the first airport in the world to
 37

demonstrate that renewable solar and wind energies can be successfully integrated into
the transportation sector."[36]. Also, the marketing team will be present at local events to
present these experiences and other local experiences, answer any questions, and
distribute brochures about this new technology. In addition, presentations will be made at
the different events such as those organized by Airport Council International (ACI).
6.2.2. Publicity. The publicity program will start with advertisements for the
general public and travelers. The goal will be to demonstrate the advantages of
technologies where hydrogen fuel can help reduce greenhouse gases and diversify the
world’s energy supply, and that hydrogen safety, like any fuel, requires proper handling
and safe system designs for production, storage, and usage.
Also, newsletters will be distributed to the entire community, including workers
of the airport. The topics will include environmental benefits, information on the
vehicles, and information on the station itself. Use of hydrogen technologies and fuel
cell technology applications should include a detailed description of the fuel cell
installations, how it will be publicly visible to demonstrate the practical use of fuel cells,
and a data collection plan on system operation in different advertisement panels. It is
suggested to use two large bulletin board displays to advertise the hydrogen fueling
station to the widest audience. A preliminary example of a possible periodical
advertisement for the new hydrogen systems at the airport can be found in Appendix A.
 38

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Potential hydrogen applications that could be deployed at Lambert-St. Louis

International Airport was identified, selected, designed, and analyzed. The proposed
hydrogen technologies include back-up power fuel cell system for airport’s critical
computer network, fuel cell for auxiliary power generation, hydrogen fueling station,
hydrogen powered vehicle applications, portable hydrogen fuel cell power packs, and
hydrogen technologies for public education. These technologies or application have the
potential to mitigate the critical challenges related to pollution, energy efficiency, safety
and security. Safety analysis of the proposed hydrogen systems was performed and major
failure modes were identified.
The environmental analysis demonstrated that hydrogen production pathway has
a significant impact on the environment. Even though hydrogen applications at the
airport will lower CO2 emissions, priority should be given to hydrogen production using
electrolysis from renewable and nuclear sources, as well as from fossil fuel-based
systems with carbon sequestration rather than using steam methane reformation and
electrolysis using grid power. The total initial cost of the design and the annual operating
cost were estimated to be $3,650,000 and $376,000 respectively. However, the proposed
design will solve critical problems and will reduce airport down time and thus loss of
revenue. Through the utilization of hydrogen technologies, Lambert-St. Louis
International Airport can not only improve process efficiencies, but can also help keep
the world clean for future generations.
 39

APPENDIX A
HYDROGEN APPLICATIONS AT AIRPORT - ADVERTISEMENT
 40

Advertisement for Hydrogen Systems at STL

 41

APPENDIX B
AIRLINE STATICS - BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
 42

Figure 1. Flight Delays by Cause, STL (April 2007 - Sep 2008) [37]

Figure 2. Flight Delay by Cause, STL (April 2007 - Sep 2008) [37]
 43

Figure 3. Causes of National Aviation Systems Delays, STL (April 2007 - Sep 2008) [37]

Figure 4. Causes of National Aviation Systems Delays, National

(April 2007 - Sep 2008) [37]
 44

APPENDIX C
HYDROGEN EQUIPMENT MATRIX
 Equipments & Vehicles used Process / Fuel Cell H2 Production Storage Compression Use

PureCell™ Model 200 SMR / PAFC Intermediate - - Auxiliary power

Low Pressure H2 cylinders - - 0.463kg/cyl 2265 psig H2 storage

Mobile Hydrogen Unit (MHU) SMR 15 kg/day 18 kg 6000 psig H2 production & storage

External H2 Storage Tanks - - 33 kg 6000 psig H2 storage

Proposed Hydrogen Technologies at STL

GTI/Greenfield H2 Dispenser - - - 5000 psig H2 dispensing

FuelGen 12 PEM 12.94 kg/day - 218 psig H2 s production

Altergy Freedom Power™ Backup PEM - - - Backup power

Fuel cell lift truck PEM - 1.6kg 5075 psig Fork lift

Ford H2ICE E-450 shuttle bus H2IC Engine - 29.4 kg 5000 psig Shuttle bus

Fuel cell Ground Support Equipment PEM - 0.6 kg 5075 psig Ground support vehicle

Fuel cell Personal Transporter PEM - H2 canisters 400 psig Personal Transporter

HOGEN® H Series Electrolyzer - 4.31 kg/day - 218 psig H2 production

Plug Power Fuel Cell PEM - - - Power supply

APFCT®H2 canister refilling station - - - 300 psig H2 canister refilling station

APFCT®H2 canister - - 0.2 kg 300 psig H2 storage

APFCT®Fuel Cell Scooter PEM - 0.4 kg 300 psig Scooter

Jadoo FillPoint™ H2 refilling station - - - 400 psig H2 canister refilling station

Jadoo XRT ™ power supply PEM - 6 H2 canisters 400 psig Power supply

45
 46

APPENDIX D
GREET ANALYSIS
 47

Data from GREET Analysis

Table 1. Gasoline Vehicle Table 2. Natural Gas Vehicle

Btu/mile or grams/mile Btu/mile or grams/mile

Vehicle Vehicle
Item Feedstock Fuel Operation Item Feedstock Fuel Operation

Total Energy 321 1,255 6,482 Total Energy 530 505 6,823
Fossil Fuels 310 1,137 6,364 Fossil Fuels 526 439 6,823
Coal 51 210 0 Coal 19 316 0
Natural Gas 181 384 0 Natural Gas 478 101 6,823
Petroleum 79 543 6,364 Petroleum 29 23 0
CO2 21 87 498 CO2 37 42 405
CH4 0.599 0.101 0.020 CH4 1.628 0.056 0.205
N2O 0.001 0.006 0.012 N2O 0.001 0.001 0.012
GHGs 37 91 502 GHGs 78 44 414
VOC: Total 0.023 0.154 0.254 VOC: Total 0.041 0.004 0.184
CO: Total 0.043 0.049 4.944 CO: Total 0.058 0.011 4.548
NOx: Total 0.159 0.148 0.345 NOx: Total 0.166 0.046 0.345
PM10: Total 0.013 0.057 0.033 PM10: Total 0.007 0.056 0.033
PM2.5: Total 0.006 0.021 0.019 PM2.5: Total 0.004 0.015 0.019
SOx: Total 0.056 0.102 0.008 SOx: Total 0.081 0.102 0.002
VOC: Urban 0.004 0.097 0.158 VOC: Urban 0.001 0.000 0.114
CO: Urban 0.002 0.023 3.075 CO: Urban 0.002 0.002 2.829
NOx: Urban 0.007 0.061 0.215 NOx: Urban 0.006 0.008 0.215
PM10: Urban 0.000 0.012 0.021 PM10: Urban 0.000 0.000 0.021
PM2.5: Urban 0.000 0.007 0.012 PM2.5: Urban 0.000 0.000 0.012

SOx: Urban 0.005 0.043 0.005 SOx: Urban 0.002 0.018 0.001
 48

Table 3. H2ICE Vehicle Table 4. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle

Btu/mile or grams/mile Btu/mile or grams/mile

Vehicle Vehicle
Item Feedstock Fuel Operation Item Feedstock Fuel Operation

Total Energy 449 3,843 5,788 Total Energy 283 2,418 3,642
Fossil Fuels 446 3,673 5,788 Fossil Fuels 281 2,311 3,642

Coal 16 820 0 Coal 10 516 0

Natural Gas 405 2,783 5,788 Natural Gas 255 1,751 3,642
Petroleum 25 69 0 Petroleum 16 43 0
CO2 32 606 0 CO2 20 381 0

CH4 1.381 0.707 0.009 CH4 0.869 0.445 0.000

N2O 0.001 0.002 0.012 N2O 0.000 0.002 0.000
GHGs 66 624 4 GHGs 42 393 0
VOC: Total 0.035 0.036 0.122 VOC: Total 0.022 0.023 0.000

CO: Total 0.049 0.121 2.571 CO: Total 0.031 0.076 0.000
NOx: Total 0.140 0.283 0.345 NOx: Total 0.088 0.178 0.000

PM10: Total 0.006 0.217 0.026 PM10: Total 0.003 0.137 0.021
PM2.5: Total 0.003 0.110 0.013 PM2.5: Total 0.002 0.069 0.012

SOx: Total 0.069 0.291 0.000 SOx: Total 0.043 0.183 0.000
VOC: Urban 0.001 0.010 0.076 VOC: Urban 0.001 0.006 0.000

CO: Urban 0.002 0.057 1.599 CO: Urban 0.001 0.036 0.000
NOx: Urban 0.005 0.098 0.215 NOx: Urban 0.003 0.061 0.000

PM10: Urban 0.000 0.050 0.016 PM10: Urban 0.000 0.032 0.013
PM2.5: Urban 0.000 0.050 0.008 PM2.5: Urban 0.000 0.031 0.007

SOx: Urban 0.002 0.047 0.000 SOx: Urban 0.001 0.030 0.000
 49

APPENDIX E
PROPOSED SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE
 50

Proposed Shuttle Bus Route at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport [38]

 51

APPENDIX F
CODES AND STANDARDS MATRIX
 52

Codes and Standards [39]

Equipments & Vehicles used Codes & Standards
PureCell® Model 200 CSA No. 5.99, UL 2264B, ISO 16110-1, ASME
PTC 50, NFPA 70 Art 692, NFPA 110

Low Pressure Hydrogen cylinders ASME BPVC

Altergy Freedom Power™ Backup ASME PTC 50, CSA No. 33, UL 1741, NFPA
853,NFPA 70 Art 692, NFPA 110

Mobile Hydrogen Unit CGA PS-26, CGA PS-2, ASME BPVC, NFPA
52
External Hydrogen Storage Cylinder CGA PS-26, CGA PS-2, ASME BPVC, NFPA
52
Hydrogen Dispenser NFPA 52, SAE J 2600
Fuel Cell Lift Truck SAE J 2572, 2574, 2578, NFPA 52, SAE J 2600,
SAE J 2719
Ford H2ICE E-450 shuttle bus NFPA 52, SAE J 2600
Fuel cell Ground Support Vehicle SAE J 2572, 2574, 2578, NFPA 52, SAE J 2600,
SAE J 2719
HOGEN® H Series Electrolyzer CSA No. 5.99, UL 2264B, ISO 16110-1
Altergy Freedom Power™ Fuel Cell CSA FC 1, CSA No. 33, UL 1741, NFPA 853,
NFPA 70 Art 692, NFPA 110
APFCT® Fuel Canister Refilling Station CGA H-2, NFPA 52
APFCT® Fuel Canister CGA H-2
APFCT® Fuel Cell Scooter CGA H-2, CSA FC 3, SAE J 2572, 2574, 2578,
NFPA 52, SAE J 2719
Jadoo FillPoint™ Refilling Station CGA H-2, NFPA 52
Jadoo XRT™ Extended Runtime CGA H-2, CSA FC 3
Adaptor
Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines ASME B31, CGA G 5.4, CGA 5.6
Hydrogen Vent Systems CGA G-5.5
Hydrogen Fueling Station ISO/PAS 15594
Installation & operation OSHA: 29 CFR 1910.103
All equipments NFPA 55
 53

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] http://www.hydrogencontest.org/pdf/rules_0708.pdf. Hydrogen design Contest

2007-2008 rules, December 2008

[2] http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/safety.html. U.S. DOE hydrogen Program –

Safety, December 2008

[3] http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/factSheet_safety.pdf. Hydrogen

Safety Facts - Facts Sheet Series, December 2008

[4] http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf.
Hydrogen Facts - Facts Sheet Series, December 2008

[5] Jung-Ho Wee, “Application of proton exchange membrane fuel cell systems,”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review (2006)

[6] GTI Proposal Number: 10109.1.74 Design, Installation, Commissioning, and

Training for a Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure for The University of Missouri
Rolla, December 5, 2007

[7] http://www.altergy.com/pdf/fcm5_product_sheet.pdf. The Altergy Freedom

Power™ FCM -5 Product Information Brochure, December 2008

[8] http://www.utcpower.com/fs/com/bin/fs_com_Page/0,11491,0254,00.html.
PureCell® Model 200 System-Overview, December 2008

[9] Neef H.-J., “International overview of hydrogen and fuel cell research,” Energy
(2008)

[10] http://www.utcpower.com/fs/com/Attachments/data_sheets/DS0118_101408.pdf.
Literature Technical Data Sheets, Pure Cell® System - How it works, December
2008

[11] http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/transportation.html.
Fuel Cells for Transportation. U.S. DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy’s Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program,
December 2008

[12] University of Missouri Rolla First Responder Training Presentation – Mathew

Fast- Ford Hydrogen Shuttle Bus, June 2007

[13] http://www.hydrogenics.com/power/pdf/HyPM-Success.pdf. HyPM Success in

Mobility Applications brochure, December 2008

[14] ZES IV.5 Zero Emission Scooter Product Brochure

 54

[15] http://www.jadoopower.com/PDF/2007/5-2007_1219_The_State.pdf. The State,

Segway’s new way, December 2008

[16] http://www.jadoopower.com/Applications/Products/XRT.aspx Jadoo Power,

December 2008

[17] http://www.distributed-energy.com/hydrogen_generation/onsite/hogen_h.html.
HOGEN Technical Specifications Brochure, December 2008

[18] http://h2bestpractices.org/safety_planning/. Safety Planning, H2 Safety Best

Practices, December 2008

[19] Marko Gerbec, Vladimir Jovan, Janko Petrovcic, “Operational and safety
analyses
of a commercial PEMFC system,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
(2008)

[20] http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/quickstats/index.shtm. U.S. Fire

Administration, QuickStats, The Overall Fire Picture – 2007, December 2008

[21] http://www.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/resources/Swain-H2-Car-Video-
Description.pdf Dr. Michael R. Swain, “Fuel Leak Simulation,” December 2008

[22] http://epw.senate.gov/107th/bay_0530.htm. Statement of Judith Ann Bayer

Director, Environmental Government Affairs United Technologies Corporation.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Field Hearing Durham, New
Hampshire May 30, 2001. , December 2008

[23] University of Missouri-Rolla lease agreement with Ford Motor Company

[24] https://www2.ameren.com/ACMSContent/Rates/Rates_umbe67rt11M.pdf .
Electric Full Service Rates for AmerenUE, Large Primary Service Rate,
December 2008

[25] https://www2.ameren.com/ACMSContent/Rates/Rates_umgs6rtgensvc.pdf. Gas

Full Service and Delivery Service Rates for AmerenUE, General Service Rate,
December 2008

[26] Yan Ma, George G. Karady, Anthony Winston III, Palomino Gilbert, Robert
Hess, Don Pelley, “Economic feasibility prediction of the commercial fuel cells,”
Energy Conversion and Management (2008)

[27] P.P Edwards, V.L. Kuznetsov, W.I.F. David, N.P. Brandon, “Hydrogen and fuel
cells: Towards a sustainable energy future,” Energy Policy (2008)

[28] U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), "Record 5017: Air Quality and
Population,"
 55

[29] http://www.utcpower.com/fs/com/bin/fs_com_Page/0,11491,0255,00.html .
PureCell® Model 200 System - Clean Energy, December 2008

[30] Software: GREET 1, Version 1.8b Copyright © 1999 UChicago Argonne, LLC

[31] http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/laws-regs/state/policy/p1104.pdf Mercury-

containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act, December 2008

[32] http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/battery.htm U.S. EPA Wastes -

Resource Conservation - Common Wastes & Materials – Battery, December 2008

[33] http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/noise/01.htm U.S. EPA - History - EPA

Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare EPA press release - April 2,
1974, December 2008

[34] Voluntary Airport Low Emission Program – Technical Report 5

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental/vale/media/vale_tec
hrep_v5.pdf, December 2008

[35] Airports International Council – Passenger Traffic Final 2007

http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=a
ci&cp=1-5-54-55_666_2__, December 2008

[36] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n6338343 Rockford Airport's

Renewable Hydrogen Project Releases Request for Qualifications -RFQ- ,
Business Wire, Nov 9, 2004. December 2008

[37] http://www.transtats.bts.gov/OT_Delay/OT_DelayCause1.asp?pn=1. Bureau of

Transportation Statistics, Airline On-Time Statistics and Delay Causes, December
2008

[38] Google Maps - http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=stl&um=1&ie=UTF-

8&sa=N&tab=wl

[39] http://www.fuelcellstandards.com/index.htm Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Codes &

Standards, December 2007
 56

VITA
Mathew Thomas was born in Kottayam, Kerala, India on December 24, 1983. He
completed his Bachelor of Technology degree in Mechanical Engineering from Rajiv
Gandhi Institute of Technology - Kottayam. (Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala, India)
in May 2005. He joined Missouri University of Science and Technology in Fall 2006 for
a Master of Science program in Mechanical Engineering and received the degree in
May 2009.
57