Hydrogen Energy Risks Tied to Poor Design, Not Hydrogen Properties, Says New Report

Hydrogen is increasingly being positioned as a cornerstone of the global energy transition, offering a potential route toward decarbonizing transport, heavy industry, and long-term energy storage. However, despite its promise as a clean energy carrier, hydrogen has also developed a reputation for being volatile and difficult to manage safely. A new comprehensive study, led by Dr. Augustin Guibaud, Assistant Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at NYU Tandon School of Engineering, in collaboration with researchers from University College London, challenges some of the assumptions about hydrogen’s inherent dangers.

Li, Y., Torero, J., & Guibaud, A. (2025). Differentiating hydrogen-driven hazards from conventional failure modes in hydrogen infrastructure. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 183, 151155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.151155

The research team systematically examined more than 700 reported hydrogen-related incidents in the Hydrogen Incidents and Accidents Database, known as HIAD 2.0. The goal was to distinguish between failures that were truly unique to hydrogen and those that were the result of more familiar engineering and human errors. The findings reveal a more nuanced understanding of hydrogen risk, suggesting that most hydrogen incidents stem not from the gas itself but from the same types of design flaws, maintenance issues, and operational mistakes that affect other industrial energy systems.

Dr. Augustin Guibaud, from NYU Tandon School of Engineering stated,

“However, the way it interacts with materials and the environment is fundamentally different. The danger comes from misunderstanding those differences.”

According to the study, nearly sixty percent of incidents were caused by conventional problems such as faulty system design, inadequate maintenance, or human oversight. Only around fifteen percent could be traced directly to the unique physical and chemical properties of hydrogen. The remainder lacked sufficient information to determine the exact cause. These results indicate that hydrogen, while requiring specialized handling, is not inherently more dangerous than other industrial gases when properly managed.

Dr. Guibaud emphasized that this distinction is essential for creating effective safety standards and for building public trust as hydrogen infrastructure expands. “When we look closely at the data,” he explained, “most failures are not hydrogen-specific. They are rooted in general design and management issues that we already understand how to prevent. The real danger comes from misunderstanding hydrogen’s differences and failing to integrate those differences into design and operation.”

Hydrogen possesses several physical properties that make it both an attractive and challenging energy carrier. It is the lightest element, diffuses rapidly, and ignites easily under the right conditions. These traits mean that hydrogen leaks and combusts differently from other gases such as methane or propane. Yet the study’s data show that accidents are rarely caused by hydrogen’s combustibility alone. Instead, they arise when hydrogen’s unique characteristics interact with weaknesses in design or maintenance.

The researchers describe several hydrogen-specific phenomena that can quietly compromise system integrity. Hydrogen embrittlement, for instance, occurs when atomic hydrogen diffuses into metals and weakens the bonds between atoms, making steel and other alloys brittle and prone to cracking. Hydrogen-induced cracking can develop when pressurized hydrogen accumulates in microscopic voids, eventually leading to sudden ruptures. Another known issue is high-temperature hydrogen attack, where hydrogen reacts with carbon within steel structures to form methane, eroding the internal lattice and reducing strength over time.

These processes take place at the microscopic level but can have catastrophic consequences. A small flaw in a pressure vessel or pipeline, invisible to the naked eye, may escalate rapidly when hydrogen is present. Such weaknesses are often not accounted for in conventional industrial design codes, which are based on experiences with natural gas and other hydrocarbons rather than hydrogen.

One case frequently cited in hydrogen safety discussions is the 2019 explosion at a hydrogen refueling station in Sandvika, Norway. Investigations later revealed that the cause was not an uncontrolled chemical reaction or spontaneous ignition, but a mechanical failure of a high-pressure component. Hydrogen’s behavior under pressure exacerbated the failure, transforming what might have been a minor defect in another system into a large-scale explosion. The event underscored how hydrogen’s small molecular size and high pressure can turn even routine mechanical issues into severe incidents.

Similar lessons have been drawn from pipeline and storage system failures, where routine fatigue cracking and material defects became amplified under hydrogen service conditions. Hydrogen can diffuse into microscopic cracks, accelerating their growth over time and weakening critical components. In these cases, the issue was not that hydrogen is inherently unsafe, but that it requires more precise engineering and monitoring to prevent familiar problems from evolving into serious hazards.

To reach these conclusions, the research team analyzed a large body of incident reports compiled within HIAD 2.0, a global database that catalogs hydrogen-related accidents and near-misses. The database includes information from public records, industrial safety reports, and academic case studies. Each entry was reviewed and classified by root cause.

The researchers noted, however, that one of the challenges in analyzing hydrogen incidents is the uneven quality of available data. Many reports lack crucial details, such as the pressure and temperature of the system, the exact materials used, or the environmental conditions at the time of the incident. This makes it difficult to draw clear statistical conclusions. Nonetheless, by focusing on the subset of reports with sufficient detail, the team was able to identify consistent trends in failure mechanisms.

They found that hydrogen’s specific material effects—such as embrittlement and hydrogen-induced cracking—do appear in the dataset, but they represent a minority of total failures. Most of the problems originated from errors that could occur in any high-pressure gas system: improper installation, inadequate inspection, substandard materials, or overlooked maintenance schedules.

The findings suggest that improving hydrogen safety does not require a complete reinvention of engineering principles. Instead, it demands disciplined application of well-established best practices, informed by an awareness of hydrogen’s special behavior. Dr. Guibaud and his co-authors argue that overly cautious safety regulations, based on worst-case assumptions, can hinder hydrogen adoption by making infrastructure unnecessarily expensive or complex. Conversely, regulations that underestimate hydrogen’s material challenges risk leaving dangerous gaps in safety.

The researchers call for safety standards that are risk-informed and evidence-based. Rather than applying uniform safety distances or generalized design rules across all hydrogen facilities, they propose tailoring regulations to specific contexts—whether the system is a stationary storage tank, a mobile refueling station, or a pipeline network. They also advocate for a stronger culture of data transparency, so that every incident can contribute to a growing understanding of hydrogen safety.

In practical terms, this means updating inspection protocols, revising materials standards to better account for hydrogen diffusion, and improving maintenance cycles. For instance, welds and joints in hydrogen systems should be designed and tested with more attention to microscopic defects, since hydrogen can exploit even tiny imperfections. Materials that resist embrittlement and advanced coatings that block diffusion may play a growing role in the next generation of hydrogen technologies.

Another key message from the study is that the hydrogen industry still lacks robust, standardized data collection. The HIAD 2.0 database remains one of the most comprehensive repositories of hydrogen incidents, yet it covers only a fraction of what occurs worldwide. Many events are underreported or described in vague terms, preventing meaningful statistical analysis. The researchers recommend international collaboration to develop unified reporting frameworks and consistent terminology for describing incident mechanisms.

Improved data could enable predictive models for hydrogen safety, allowing researchers to identify early warning signs before catastrophic failures occur. Some groups are already experimenting with machine learning tools that can analyze narrative descriptions of incidents and infer missing details, helping to fill gaps in existing records. Such approaches could complement traditional forensic engineering, offering faster insights into emerging risks.

Beyond data collection, the team highlights the need for further study into hydrogen-assisted damage mechanisms at the microscopic level. While embrittlement and cracking are well-documented, predicting when and where they will occur remains difficult. Future research could focus on new alloys and coatings designed to resist hydrogen diffusion, as well as more accurate models of how hydrogen interacts with different materials under varying pressure and temperature conditions.

Dr. Guibaud and his colleagues stress that their work should not be interpreted as downplaying hydrogen’s risks. Instead, they hope it will shift attention toward the real engineering challenges that must be addressed to make hydrogen safe at scale. The future hydrogen economy will depend not only on breakthroughs in production and storage but also on disciplined design, maintenance, and regulation informed by evidence.

As hydrogen systems expand from industrial facilities into urban fueling stations, residential heating, and grid-scale energy storage, understanding the true nature of hydrogen-related failures will become increasingly important. The researchers suggest that the most effective path forward lies in learning from incidents quickly, sharing data openly, and refining design standards based on scientific evidence rather than assumption or fear.

“The goal,” Dr. Guibaud concludes, “is not to eliminate all risk—that’s impossible in any energy system—but to understand where the real vulnerabilities lie. Hydrogen isn’t inherently more dangerous than other fuels. It’s just less forgiving of poor design.”

The study represents a step toward that understanding, offering engineers and policymakers a clearer picture of how to manage hydrogen safely as it moves from the laboratory into the global energy landscape.