Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Three viable technologies for storing hydrogen fuel on cars are currently available: compressed gas, metal hydride adsorption, and cryogenic liquid. However, each of these has significant disadvantages: volume, weight, boiling losses, or energy to compress or liquefy the hydrogen. Two alternative approaches are analyzed in this paper: pressure vessels with cryogenic capability and a combination of a metal hydride and liquid hydrogen storage. These alternatives are compared to baseline compressed hydrogen and liquid hydrogen (LH2) storage in terms of volume, vehicle range, dormancy, energy required for fuel processing, and cost. The results indicate that the alternative methods can result in a reduced volume, if packaging is a constraint; or in an extended range, if this is a desirable feature. Cryogenic pressure vessels, with one-fifth the insulation of LH2 systems, have comparable or better dormancy than LH2 systems. Energy requirements and cost appear favorable for the alternative systems.
Berry et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: