Combined Gasoline/Hydrogen Fuel Station Opens

98neon writes "This story from Yahoo! News tells of a Shell hydrogen refilling station that has opened in Washington D.C. Six minivans will be the only vehicles refuelling anytime soon. Apparently some of the neighbors are concerned about having a large tank of hydrogen near their homes. Oh come on, what is there to worry about?"

Comments

Pah

[hypergreatthing]

Like a tank of gasoline isn't anymore explosive than hydrogen?

Re:Pah

[Leroy_Brown242]

People are used to gasoline though. They have been programmed to not worry about it. Hydrogen on the other hand is not something your average person has much knowledge of. So, being unknown, it's deathly scary.

Re:Pah

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. A tank full of liquid gasoline is pretty stable.

The key word is "full".

re: pah

[ed.han]

that is of course an excellent point. i suspect that when most people think of hydrogen and don't immediately think, "ah yes, the first item on the periodic table", they do tend to think hidenburg, as michael evidently did. :>

ed

Re:Pah

[Rei]

It's not anywhere near as explosive as hydrogen at STP. You not only have to get it vaporized, but you have to have it vaporized and mixed with oxygen at just the right ratios. And even still, an optimal gasoline/air mix isn't nearly as explosive as an optimal gasoline hydrogen mix.

Not only is hydrogen more readily combustible in air, but it's already in gasseous form *and* under high pressure.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

er, "as an optimal hydrogen/air mix". Sorry, I was typing too quickly.

I shloud porfraed mroe craefully.

Re: pah

[marcus]

Aside from the suggestion that Michael can think, all are on the right track here.

The same fear of the unkown or simple misinformation applies to nuclear topics as well.

Most don't know that cosmic rays pass through them every second, yet soil their pants when "nuc-anything" is mentioned.

Re:Pah

[Anonymous Coward]

so is hydrogen, in the absence of oxygen...

Re:Pah

[Tellalian]

While all fuels are inherently dangerous, hydrogen is notably safer in several ways, such as it's tendency to dissipate skywards when leaked and the fact that it's nontoxic.

Re:Pah

[codeguy007]

1) Hydrogen isn't explosive, it's combustable.
2) Hydrogen is the lightest substance so if a leak occurs it dispates quickly. You will not get build up like you will with gas vapor, propane or natural gas which is heavier than air.

Re:Pah

[nolife]

Same with nuclear power. Imagine the public outcry if someone planned to build a nuclear power plant in Honolulu or any where on the island of Oahu. Take a trip to the naval base and you can see probably 10 of them tied right next to the pier. The Puget sound area in Washington is even better. They have the multiple reactor compartments and various leftovers from defueled submarines scattered thorough out the shipyard in Bremerton. The submarine base about 15 miles north is home to multiple nuclear submarines and across the sound is Whidbey island.
I guess since these reactors are "portable", no one minds ;)

Re:Pah

[Rei]

Hydrogen is not safer. My father works in the oil industry; what they used to worry about the most, as far as safety goes, was not oil leaks but hydrogen leaks (from cat crackers, et al).

For one, pressurized petroleum products don't tend to ignite; hydrogen does. Petroleum products don't burn with a clear flame; hydrogen's is invisible, and much hotter. Petroleum products need to vaporize before they become a big explosion risk, and have to be mixed at the right ratios; hydrogen has a very wide range, is already gasseous, and tends to go off a lot faster. Etc. It's far more dangerous.

I mean, I support hydrogen research, but you have to be realistic: it *is* a more dangerous fuel. That doesn't mean that there aren't ways to make it more safe.

Re:Pah

[mopslik]

Like a tank of gasoline isn't anymore explosive than hydrogen?

Tell me about it. Just the other day, we had a major explosion at a propane plant just outside of Toronto. Scary stuff.

Re:Pah

[Anonymous Coward]

Well spilled gasoline will not catch fire from the friction of rolling across the floor. LH_2 will if especially if it enounters an abrupt edge.

Re:Pah

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to point out the magnitude of difference in the dangers of gasoline vs hydrogen:

1) One cup of vaporized gasoline is equivalent to 18 sticks of dynamite!

2) The longest distance for a flashback ignition, that is ignition from a distant source burning the vapor trail back to the source of fuel, was well over seven miles! Because the gasoline fumes are heavier than air they do not mix well unless there is a good breeze. Thats why boats usually have a fan in their bilge/engine compartment, because otherwise starting the engine is like lighting the fuse and sitting on the keg of dynamite. You would not want to be in that boat because it could ruin your whole day.

3) Hydrogen disburses too quickly to provide the same flashback situation. It mixes readily with air and is beyond the threshold ratio of hydrogen/oxygen to burn.

4) For the same volume hydrogen has less energy than the equivalent volume of gasoline.

Re:Pah

[anagama]

where is the uproar over propane??

A quick google for comparative explosive propane hydrogen yields:this html conversion of original pdf:

• Hydrogen leaks are dangerous in that they pose a risk of fire where they mix with air (Section 1.3.1). However, the small molecule size that increases the likelihood of a leak also results in very high buoyancy and diffusivity, so leaked hy- drogen rises and becomes diluted quickly, especially out- doors. This results in a very localized region of flammability that disperses quickly. As the hydrogen dilutes with distance from the leakage site, the buoyancy declines and the ten- dency for the hydrogen to continue to rise decreases. Very cold hydrogen, resulting from a liquid hydrogen leak, be- comes buoyant soon after is evaporates.
  
  In contrast, leaking gasoline or diesel spreads laterally and evaporates slowly resulting in a widespread, lingering fire hazard. Propane gas is denser than air so it accumulates in low spots and disperses slowly, resulting in a protracted fire or explosion hazard. Heavy vapors can also form vapor clouds or plumes that travel as they are pushed by breezes. Methane gas is lighter than air, but not nearly as buoyant as hydrogen, so it disperses rapidly, but not as rapidly as hy- drogen.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

1) It is a lot more explosive than gasoline (hence its use in early scramjets, pulse detonation engines, etc). Whether something is a detonation or a deflagration is largely due to mixing, pressure, and a number of other factors, of course (things much more applicable to compressed hydrogen).

2) Tell that to people who work in oil refineries. At one refinery my father used to work at, before he got there, to track down hydrogen leaks in the equipment, they would wave a broomstick along the sides of the pipes (hydrogen burns with a clear flame). Where the broomstick suddenly got cut in half, that was their hydrogen leak.

Hydrogen has this nasty habit of igniting easily when suddenly released from pressure. It gets well mixed instantly, and is already in a completely gasseous form (instead of small droplets for gasoline's optimal combustion). It takes a lot of work to get gasoline to explode (if you don't believe it, watch the mythbusters' episode where they try to recreate the "cell phone gas explosion" myth, and end up having trouble trying to get the gas ignited even with a spark gap). Hydrogen? Not so at all.

Re: pah

[iocat]

Cosmic rays may be passing through YOU, but those of us opting out of the government mind control programs are protected with simple tinfoil hats.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

I wouldn't want a propane fueling station next to my house, either. :) Leaking gasoline and diesel don't pose an explosion hazard; they form a fire hazard. However, propane does pose a fast conflagration or even detonation hazard. It is harder to ignite and requires a more optimal mixture with air than hydrogen, and is less likely to detonate, but poses a risk nonetheless.

Re:Pah

[wash23]

Or a pressurized natural gas line running into your house, or a couple of propane tanks on your R.V. and barbecue, and the big propane refiller at the gas station...

Re: pah

[Teh Anonymous Coward]

Unless there is a floating bomb, err... I mean, zeppelin over their house, why worry? It's not like they store the hydrogen using the same materials as the Hindenburg :-/

Re:Pah

['nother poster]

In regards to 1. That does not jibe with what I have read, but I do not have my research materials with me, so I cannot address this statement at this time with any confidence.

In regards to 2, from my days in chem labs, hydrogen burned with a pale blue flame, not a "clear" flame, whatever that is. The use of dowel rods and broom handles to find leaks in high preasure lines has nothing to do with flames. It has to do with the fact that a pin hole leak in a very high preasure line cuts the soft wood. They used them to detect steam leaks at the coal fired power plant where my father worked.

Re:Pah

[jfengel]

Were there any actual problems with hydrogen leaks?

The advantage of hydrogen is that although it does ignite more easily, it also dissipates more easily. And since it's much lighter than air it tends to dissipate up rather than out, so the worst damage might occur up above a traffic accident.

It sounds like it might depend on the kind of fault that occurs. A puncture will tend to spray a stream of ignitable death, whereas a rupture might dissipate into a hot-but-not-deadly ball.

I don't know how this plays in actual practice. Presumably your father does. If he wouldn't say that hydrogen is safer, would he say it's "as safe"? There are so many advantages to hydrogen (the key one for me being that it doesn't require sending money to totalitarian regimes) that I'd like to see it tried.

Even if it reduces our imports only 25%, since oil is their only product it would have a serious negative effect on their economies. I certainly can't guarantee that destabilizing those countries would have good effects rather than bad ones, but they upset me so much that I'm willing to try.

Re:Pah

[t_bonee]

Yes, so used to gasoline that they feel perfectly comfortable walking across the gas station lot or sitting in their cars at the pump with lit cigarettes dangling out of there mouths.

I just about explode when I see that. Hehe pun intended.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

1) Have you *ever* read anything about scramjets or PDEs? Why on earth do you think that they use hydrogen instead of more conventional kerosene? It not only is more expensive, it has much lower bulk density and a worse fuel/oxidizer density. They use it because it's a lot easier, because it starts both conflagration and detonation far more easily.

2) Hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame indoors or at night. During daytime, the light emitted is weak enough to effectively be clear (except on very large hydrogen flames).

Re:Pah

[hazzey]

Also, burning hydrogen is mostly invisable. I have heard stories of truckers who haul hydrogen carry a straw broom with them so that they can wave it in from of them. The idea is that they will see the broom burning before they walk into the burning hydrogen.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

Were there problems? Yes, there were. They had to track them down with broomsticks ;)

Hydrogen tends to ignite *when* it leaks, not minutes later. So, the dissipation rate is kind of irrelevant. You either have a slow leak (for which dissipation is irrelevant), or a rupture (which is likely to ignite immediately).

Gasoline explosions are very difficult to cause. If you don't believe me, go try it some time. :)

Currently hydrogen *does* involve sending money to totalitarian regimes, since we make it from oil. What you should be pushing for is renewable energy sources, not power. Hydrogen isn't an energy source; it's an energy storage mechanism which gives high energy density but low power density and conversion efficiency.

Re:Pah

[Leroy_Brown242]

yeah, that pisses me off. Ignorant bastards.

Re:Pah

[krunchyfrog]

I worked at a gas station for about a year, and after learning how to measure how much gasoline was left in a tank with some very long dipstick and that the tanks were locked with a cheapo lock you can buy at any dollar store, I wondered what would happen if someone dropped a lit flare (those sticks you light up in case of car accident or other emergencies) in one of them... The explosion should be pretty darn huge.

Of course, I never done anything like that. But since hydrogen is under pressure, that kind of "accident" won't happen as easily.

Re:Pah

[93 Escort Wagon]

Because of propane's weight (which you mention), it can be dangerous in a home or any closed space - even without considering the risks associated with ignition. An indoor propane leak can cause suffocation if enough gas gets into the room, simply because of air displacement.

Re:Pah

[Chagrin]

The hydrogen at this station is contained in a dual wall stainless steel pressure vessel (which is then contained in a fiberglass shell). If anything breaches the first cylinder it is vented to the atmosphere via a specially designed vent.

Assuredly there are numerous valves designed to shut things down if any rapid pressure changes are encountered ... it's just such a non-issue.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

Wow, *finally* an objection to the fear of the use of hydrogen that is realistic. Thank you for not going on with the scientifically inaccurate "hydrogen leaks are less dangerous than gasoline leaks" nonsense.

And I actually agree with you. I just was not about to stand by as people insist that gasoline is more explosive than hydrogen. I'd say the only real risks is hydrogen leaks in the vehicles themselves, or from aging/poorly maintained fuelling facilities.

Re:Pah

[sabernet]

Hydrogen burns, so sayeth my chemistry material Also, it is used to perform explosions in rockets, scramjets, ets, through the mixing of pure hydrogen with pure oxygen. The process that creates water is quite potent and is even used to send things in orbit. By your own statements, the Hindenberg [no spellcheck] would have caused a crater the size of Texas.

Re:Pah

[zakezuke]

Like a tank of gasoline isn't anymore explosive than hydrogen?

In all fairness, a hydrogen tank is a gas under pressure.

E = P0*V0*450 So for a 230 bar 12L tank we have 230*12*450 Joules. 1242000 joules!

A good deal of engery released in a very short period of time. *BOOM*

Re:Pah

[Rei]

In a refinery my father used to work at, they used broomsticks ;) In daylight, you can't see the flame (in darkness, it's light blue)

Re:Pah

[deathazre]

A typical gasoline mixture has a flash point of roughly -40 degrees. Vaporization is not hard at all.

Re: pah

[xaaronx]

Well, if cosmic rays are passing through me, how come I haven't developed amazing powers like the Fantastic Four? Huh?

Re:Pah

[Rei]

What on earth are you talking about?

"Hydrogen burns"

1. Of course hydrogen burns. That's a given. The fact is also, however, that it burns in very non-stochaistic ratios with air, and detonates far more readily (due to greater shocks, partially due to its higher heat of combusion).

"It is used to perform explosions in rockets"

2. If by "explosions", you mean the technical term "detonation", no, it doesn't. Rockets are deflagrations.

"scramjets, etc, through the mixing of pure hydrogen with pure oxygen"

3. False. Scramjets use ordinary air burned with hydrogen.

"By your own statements, the Hindenberg would have caused a crater the size of Texas"

4. Where on Earth are you getting this from? You only would have a large explosion from the Hindenberg if it were not a pure hydrogen envelope, but were either an already mixed hydrogen/air explosion, or a very high pressure hydrogen envelope escaping rapidly through a small leak (encouraging rapid mixing). Neither of these were the case.

Re:Pah

[LWATCDR]

Yes propane is more dangerous than hydrogen. But then your average skuttlefish has heard of a Hydrogen Bomb and my goodness they can destroy entire cities! Look at the Hindenburg it killed thousands of people! Okay these are both not true but since I have seen a website that complained about the environmental impact of dumping an RTG into Saturn I would not doubt that somebody would feel this way.
Truth is we have lived with propane for a long time. We have lived with gasoline for a long time. Hydrogen is new so some people are going to be scared of it for a while.

Re:Pah

[Charcharodon]

Err exactly how much oxygen would be in a tank of hydrogen....hmmmm....let me think....no don't tell me......aahhhh.....HOW ABOUT FREAKIN ZERO?....I told you not to tell me.

We did this experiment in high school and again in college to show how reaction occur at different rates using acetalyne a acetalyne cannon. When the cannon was partially filled with the gas and ignited it fired off more or less like you would expect a cannon to, with a loud bang, but when the cannon was topped off and had displaced all of the air inside it burned slowly only at the opening much like a can of Sterno would.

Unlike in Hollywood things full of flamable substances don't automatically explode upon contact with bullets or automobiles. This even holds true for a tank full of hydrogen. If it were to leak the hyrdrogen gas would dissapate very rapidly as it is even lighter than helium. Even if that leak were to ignite the tank still would not explode since there is no oxygen in the tank to ignite with the hydrogen.

The worst case senerio would be that the tank was corroded and then filled beyond it's holding capacity and then exploded due to pressure which would pretty much kill anyone within 10 or so meters from the shock wave, then to have it ignite which would create a very large explosion that would take out just about every window within a block or two but would still do very little harm beyond the immediate area.

Re:Pah

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the idea to crack water with nuclear power? Voila, no foreign oil.

Re:Pah

[b-baggins]

Gasoline is much less explosive than hydrogen. Only the vapor burns. You can put a match out in a pail of gasoline.

Re:Pah

[budgenator]

It does burn much hotter, in my industry, we sometime use hydrogen/oxygen flames for welding/soldering and typicaly the gas is bubbled through ethanol to cool the flame down from it's normal 5,000+ degree tempeature to make it more usable, we generate the gas in a bench top unit, in goes HOH, KOH + electricity out comes 2H2 + O2 through one tube bubbled through the EtOH, out through one tube to the torch head where we light it!

One Mole of H2 has much less exothermic energy than one Mole of methane or any other hydrocarbon compound. OBTW that big fire ball of the Hindenberg was caused by Aluminum pigment in the Paint. Aluminum powder is used in making thermite, and thermite is used to burn through just about anything. I'd worry more about the pressure bottle physicaly bursting sharpnel ect. more than what's in the bottle.

Re:Pah

[plsander]

Hunting leaks with a broomstick is due to the pressure... the same process is used to find high pressure steam leaks.

Re: pah

[Rotund Prickpull]

It's not just the explosion hazard - it's used in atom bombs - but it can form many dangerous compounds. too.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

First off, trying to be insulting makes for a poor debate. Secondly, it's even worse when you're fighting a straw man. We're not talking about an explosion in a hydrogen tank. We're talking about an explosion of highly pressurized gas *leaving* a tank. When you exit through a small hole, you have intense vorticity effects, which bring about rapid mixing.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

Well, of course if you compare molar ratios you'll get better numbers for hydrocarbons, since H2 is a tiny molecule. Compare mass ratios, however, and you get just the opposite.

Re:Pah

[ifwm]

"Hydrogen tends to ignite *when* it leaks, not minutes later"

You've claimed this several times, but given no evidence as to why this is. Well? What is so special about hydrogen that makes it ignite "when" it leaks?

More importantly, hydrogen does dissipate quickly. Very quickly in fact, so much so that is EXTREMELY difficult to get a high enough concentration to ignite.

While I can appreciate the fact that your Dad used to worry about hydrogen more than other things at the plant, MY dad used to worry about getting a cold because he worked outside in the rain. Needless to say, he was wrong too.

Instead of making dubious (incorrect) pseudo-scientific claims, supported by anecdotes from a man who was more afraid of hydrogen than the highly corrosive, toxic, flammable chemicals that surrounded him, you should perhaps do some REAL research to learn just how wrong you are.

Re:Pah

[jfengel]

The idea is to crack water with whatever's available: coal, wind, hydro, nuclear, solar. There are upsides and downsides to each.

We will still probably need foreign oil for a while: plastics, medicines, older cars, etc. I've heard that the US could be self-sufficient with a trivial decrease in fuel consumption, but I'm not buying it. But it would take only a small decrease in consumption to put a big hurt on OPEC, which is fine with me.

Re:Pah

[Rotund Prickpull]

One Mole of H2 has much less exothermic energy than one Mole of methane or any other hydrocarbon compound.

Compaqring mole for mole is hardly a fair comparison, after all a mole of h2 is - what - a seventh, an eighth of the mass of a mole of CH4.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

Here's something for you: If you can go home, fill a basin with gasoline, put it in any sort of realistic environment that you want, and get it to explode, I'll bake you a dozen cookies and send them to you. Not "burn" - explode.

Gasoline explosions are very hard to achieve. Hydrogen explosions are not, especially given a pressurized source.

Re:Pah

['nother poster]

1. Yes I have. I don't remember anything to do with it being because it was explosive, but because it burns so hot. Once again, I don't have my research materials at hand, but the hydrogen oxygen combustion is hotter, not more explosive. This means that the non combustive portion of the exhaust, nitrogen and such, expand more giving a greater thrust. Delta Vee is everything in these situations.

2. Hydrogen does not stop burning with a blue flame just because it is outdoors, or daytime. It has the same combustion characteristics no matter when or where. I agree that it is harder to see a flame in bright daylight than in the dark, but that applies to any flame, and still doesn't change the color of the flame.

Hydrogen burns. It burns readily and hot, I admit, but it is no more dangerous than handling natural gas or LPG (Liquified Petrolium Gas). Look up the Piper Alpha disaster. LPG has a LOT of energy. Gasoline has a much higher energy density than compressed hydrogen, and is a little harder to ignite, but hydrogen fires go straight up, where gasoline fires spread as the fuel seeks the lowest point. That is why you see the retaining dikes around the big above ground storage tanks. This is to keep the fuel confined in case of a spill or fire.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/ pr oduction/thermochemical.html

The 2 main sources are oil and natural gas (which is itself a form of oil, just with short chains). Only 4% is made from water electrolysis - and since most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels....

So, once again, let me repeat:

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

Re:Pah

[jfengel]

I know gas explosions are hard to cause. I've been around plenty of ignited gasoline.

Once we were having difficulty getting a fire lit in a wood stove in a cabin we'd rented. It was obvious that the reason was that the flue wasn't drawing, but because the roof was icy we'd hoped for some other solution.

When the guys from the next cabin over came and threw kerosene on the fire and it just lay there we finally gave up and went on the roof to clean the chimney screen.

Yeah, I know it's not entirely relevant: the reason the kerosene was because of the lack of oxygen, not its liquid phase. But it was certainly an object lesson that liquid products don't go up all that easily; even the trivial vacuum of a smoke-filled can was able to douse kerosene flames.

But back on topic, I'm totally with you that alternative energy sources are extremely important. Possibly more important than energy distribution, since we're really good at moving around electricity. But storage is a problem, especially since some alternative energy sources (wind, solar, and to a lesser degree coal and nuclear) are best dumped out in the middle of nowhere.

Any idea whether it's more efficient overall to dump a joule of electricity into a lead-acid battery or to crack water into hydrogen? That's probably not the most relevant question, because there are so many other inefficiencies involved: the effort of pressurizing the hydrogen, the weight of lead-acid batteries vs. the weight of pressurized containers for hydrogen, the loss of long electric lines.

I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, and my cynical self doesn't particularly trust the US President when he tells me hydrogen is the way to go. It would suck big time to invest massive infrastructure in hydrogen distribution and hydrogen-cracking plants only to discover that we should have gone electric all along. There is plenty of research to be done on both sides.

Re:Pah

[rainman_bc]

Like a tank of gasoline isn't anymore explosive than hydrogen?

No, it isn't. In order for gasoline to ignite, you need a correct air/fuel mixture. Same goes for Propane. In fact propane is less flammable than gasoline. It has a tighter air / fuel ratio required to ignite. That means propane's less flammable than gas. There's been cases where a propane fueling station has had its tank ablaze, and it's only burned on the outside, and the contents never exploded.

I'm not 100% that any air / fuel ratio works with H, but I'm pretty sure it's broader than the other two and is likely way more explosive than the other two.

Re: pah

[xSauronx]

ive begun to be able to stretch parts of myself longer at will! ha!

Re: pah

[MCraigW]

Yes, and why we continue to pollute with coal burning generation of electricity...

And why NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) is now called MRI (magnetic resonance imaging).

Re:Pah

[Shoten]

Actually, no it isn't. Gasoline in liquid form isn't even remotely explosive, nor is it stored under great pressure, like hydrogen. Only a very specific ratio of air to gasoline vapor is explosive, and even then it's nothing like hydrogen.

That said, I live in Washington, DC, and I've got to say that the neighbors to that tank have far worse things to worry about than that tank. That area is like a war zone.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

This entire conversation is in comparison to gasoline. So...

Activation energy for 1 H2 + 1 O2 = 1 H2O:
H:H=432*1 kJ/mol
O:O=460*1 kJ/mol
-> 892 kJ, 2 mol of gas reactant, 446 kJ/mol of reactant.

Activation energy for 1 C10H22 + 21 O2 = 10 CO2 + 11 H2O:
C:H=413*22 kJ/mol
C:C=356*10 kJ/mol
O:O=460*21 kJ/mol

-> 22306 kJ, 22 mol of reactant, 1013 kJ per mol of reactant.

A hydrogen-oxygen reaction requires a lower activation energy compared to a "gasoline" (I just chose one particular molecule) reaction, even when you look at it per mole of reactant.

Re:Pah

[ifwm]

The kind WE would use. The hydrogen you (and your link) are speaking of is INDUSTRIAL hydrogen production, which we don't use. That's used in the industrial processes it's created for.

And seriously, oil and natural gas the same? God damn man, don't bother replying, you've got no credibility at all any more. The same. Sure.

Re:Pah

[badmonkey]

Electrolisys isn't a real source description anyways, in that in doesn't account for the fuel burned in order to generate the electricity. Apparently this system is really inefficient.
Theres a really efficient way to make hydrogen involving high pressure/temperature water (800-900 degrees F) and iodine as a catalyst. Problem is you really need a nuclear reactor to create that kind of heat. Apparently this will still ultimately be one of the best ways to produce hydrogen in large quantities.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

Modern batteries tend to have very high charge-discharge efficiencies - I usually run into numbers between 80 and 99% when searching around, although I seem to recall reading somewhere that lead-acid batteries aren't very efficient. The best hydrogen fuel cells on the market are around 70% efficient given already pressurized hydrogen; I don't know the numbers offhand as to how much gets lost in compression of the hydrogen (I suppose I could calculate it...). How much gets lost in producing the hydrogen it depends on what source you're getting your hydrogen from; electrolysis can be up to 80-90% efficient from what I've seen, but then you have your losses in producing the electricity. You also lose some when you make it directly from petroleum (where most hydrogen comes from); I don't know the numbers for that.

Now, if you can recapture the waste heat, then you're not actually being particularly wasteful in any system; doing that efficiently is hard in practice, however. Certainly thermoelectrics, the easiest way, won't get you that much power.

Re:Pah

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a lot more explosive than gasoline? And yet your father was never blown to smithereens? Clearly, hydrogen has the potential to be more explosive, but your anecdote implies that hydrogen is in fact not at all explosive at standard pressure, just very very flammable.

Re:Pah

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you have to pull your arm out damn quickly because the burning surface of the gasoline will roast your arm very, very quickly.

Don't believe me? Try it. Gasoline, like denatured alcohol (methlyated spirits) poured into a saucer, will ignite and burn readily. Turpentine, lamp oil, etc. require something to burn on but gasoline will burn nicely.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

An explosion requires a significant amount of pre-mixed fuel/oxidizer, not a steady influx of a small amount of material.

Re:Pah

[Anonymous Coward]

As an example, about 15 years ago, my buddy took his propane-fueled powered ex-taxi to California. Everyone he ran into was flabbergasted that somone would actually drive around with a giant tank of propane in the trunk. People who saw him filling up asked if that was dangerous and, in many places, he had to fill his own car because the gas jockey just couldn't get his head around the idea. Now I'm sure propane stations are common in any reasonably built up area.

Hydrogen is going to be the same way for a while.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

I'm not talking about delta-V calcs, although they are increased by hotter temperature combusion. Pulse Detonation engines, for example, have absolutely nothing to do with delta-V. They're designed to be replacements for aircraft engines - and more expensive, less dense, and harder to handle hydrogen is an *inconvenience* for the airline industry, not a convenience. Seriously, come back once you've read about a PDE, or read why they use hydrogen for scramjets.

2. "Hydrogen does not stop burning with a blue flame just because it's outdoors, or daytime." Oh please, give me a break. You knew very well that I was talking about how its flame is invisible in daytime, outdoor conditions. Don't turn this into a "who can be more literal" war.

"It is no more dangerous than handling natural gas or LPG"

We're not talking about natural gas or LPG. We're comparing a hydrogen fueling station with a gasoline fueling station, remember?

Re:Pah

['nother poster]

Ok. Your math doesn't quite make sense to me, but it's been many years since high school chem.

You still haven't said how hydrogen leaks are somehow self igniting, which you have stated several times. The hydrogen is under pressure in the system. When you get the leak the hydrogen moves fron the no longer closed system to atmosphere due to the pressure differential. As it enters the atmosphere it expands. Quickly. This expansion is and endothermic reaction. It sucks heat from the surrounding enviroment, so it isn't supplying it's own ignition source there. Where is the energy coming from for this self ignition you claim?

To get the scenerios that you keep proposing, you would have to get a massive amount of hydrogen into an oxygen rich environment really quickly, and then an ignition source would have to set it off.

I'm not seeing it, and you are not supplying us with any sources. Please point me to some sources that show that hydrogen leaks from pressurized systems are somehow inherently explosive.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

Natural gas is a type of oil (petroleum) - specifically, one composed of short chains (CH4, C2H6, C3H8, and C4H12) that are gasseous at room temperature. Reduce the temperature or increase the pressure, and they'll behave quite similarly to other forms of petroleum (as you can see in LNG tankers, LOX-Propane rockets, etc).

"The kind WE would use."

Almost all hydrogen produced today *IS* industrial. What on earth do you mean by "the kind WE would use"? Are you saying that the economics of hydrogen production are going to magically change in that inefficient methods (like your mythical large amount of hydrogen production from electrolysis) will become efficient?

Re:Pah

[Rei]

Sorry, I mistyped: C4H10, not C4H12. :) Now *that* would have been one strained molecule! :)

Re:Pah

[Rei]

Expansion is an endothermic reaction. However, vorticity and viscosity trade kinetic energy (produced by the expansion of the gas) for heat. The smaller the leak, the higher the influence of viscosity; expanding into an open area, vorticity is a significant player immediately outside the opening. Immediately near a pinhole leak, consequently, you have an increase in temperature. Larger leaks have less viscosity and vorticity effects relative to the volume of gas being heated, and don't have as much of a problem.

As an example of this, look at the space shuttle reentering the atmosphere. The inside of the shuttle's superstructure is a near-vaccum as it reenters the atmosphere (and pressure isn't equalized until the craft slows). However, a hole in the superstructure doesn't cool the flow as it enters the craft - it heats it. This is because the flows's kinetic energy is lost to heat through vorticity effects. If you've ever heard anyone mention how a hole in the shuttle acts like a "blowtorch", this is the effect being referred to.

But furthermore your logic is in accurate. No gas has a uniform heat distribution; there's a range of collision energies. If it was homogenic, most hyperglolics wouldn't work. What causes things to spontaneously ignite are the higher energy collisions in the gas. While hydrogen at atmospheric pressure isn't at risk of this, high pressure hydrogen is.

Re:Pah

['nother poster]

Ok.

1. Pulse Detonation is a modified version of the pulse jet that has a detonation as part of the cycle instead of only deflagration. The most common engine, which is experimental like all PD engines, uses a deflagration to detonation conversion. You are right that they don't want hydrogen for these engines. It's not because it is so dangerous, but because it has lousy energy density. Kerosene has a lot more energy per kilo lifted into the air than pressurised hydrogen. Therefore the plane is lighter, and can go farther. A car doen't have to drive across a continent in a couple of hours. You don't have to have that kind of energy density.

2. I was being a bit pedantic.

As to the last, there ARE LPG vehicle fueling stations. Several companies and municipalities have converted their vehicles to run on LPG. As for natural gas, they pipe it into about half of the buildings in the USA, which is where I live. In neither of these situations is this some type of major safety issue.

p.s. Before you bring it up, yes, there are a few house explosions a year. There are also fires at petrochemical plants and refineries. Fuels are dangerous. All of them.

Re:Pah

[Jason1729]

Liquid gasoline is quite stable. You can put out a lit match in a vat of gasoline, it's only the vapor that is flamable, and the gas tank on a car is carefully designed to keep the gas from getting out and vaporizing.

I've seen someone throw a lit cigaratte into an open steel drum of gasoline and the cigarette just went out when it submerged. (He thought it was water and turned white as a sheet when he realized what he'd done).

Re:Pah

['nother poster]

Ok. The space shuttle incident involved transporting a lot of heat from the external atmosphere that was generated by braking friction to the interior of the lander. The air was heated a lot by friction, slightly more by being compressed, and then cooled slightly by the expansion. The net was still really hot air. A couple of thousand degrees. No vorticies needed.

Hypergolics work because the compounds involved are "HIGHLY" unstable. Things like hydrazine and nitrogen tetraoxide. Hypergolics are chemical reactions that are extremely exothermic. There is no heat needed to initiate the reaction. This is like pouring vinegar on baking soda, except that that reaction isn't energetic enough to lift a rocket. ;)

Re:Pah

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently some of the neighbors are concerned about having a large tank of hydrogen near their homes.

Fuckwits.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

You're wrong, though. Do you know anything about viscosity and vorticity? Do you even know what they are? Here's some quick analogies for you:

Losing energy due to viscosity is like running your finger through tar (the energy you put into moving the tar gets transferred into heat). At the microscopic scale, every fluid acts like tar (that's why microorganisms can't swim via reciprocal motion). Consequently viscosity is a major player in pinhole leaks.

Vorticity is what causes scour holes in river rock. Do you know what scour holes are? A small indentation in a rock parallell to the current causes a vortex (and that vortex causes small vortices, etc, producing a net vorticity effect). The vortex slowly erodes the rock. The deeper it gets, the more stretched the vortices become, which speeds them up (the same thing that makes air move so fast in tornadoes), eroding the rock all the more. Vorticity's net effect, however, is that of viscosity. Since a vortex leads to smaller vortices recursively, eventually the vortices reach the level where the fluid's viscosity resists motion between counteracting vortices, and the energy is turned into heat. The more strained the vortices are, the faster their energy they transfer to heat. Small holes lead to strained vortices.

You're also wrong about hyperglolics. Hyperglolics still have an activation energy requirement. The reaction don't occur in case a bond is broken, and breaking bonds takes energy. This input energy, in hyperglolics, comes from the higher-energy collisions. The bonds don't just "fall apart" - bonds *never* just "fall apart".

Should I even bother to debate with you when you don't know basic chemistry? I mean, seriously - if you don't know that, then you've clearly either forgotten or never learned high school-level chemistry. It's a fundamental part of the basic energy of formation calculations.

Re:Pah

[Jherico]

Since enough people have already discredited your broomstick argument as having anything to do with hydrogen, I'll approach the 'invisible flame' argument.

First off, even if the flame is almost completely invisible in daylight, any flamejet that is big enough to be a serious concern is probably going to cause the air the start to incandece. Second, companies are perfectly capable of adding adulterants to make the flame any color they want. For instance, the reason you can smell natural gas leak is because the gas company adds a rotting eggs smell. Otherwise your house could fill up with natural gas and you wouldn't know before you were dead. A tiny fraction of some other gas added to pure hydrogen would probably easily be able to make the flame a bright and obvious color.

Re:Pah

[KillerDeathRobot]

First off, trying to be insulting makes for a poor debate.

So does your antagonizing tone.

Re:Pah

[StikyPad]

That's correct.

I'm sort of talking out of my ass here, but if you drop a match in a tank of gasoline, there would be a brief flash of the vapors combusting, but that's about it. If the tank was close to empty, there might actually be enough vapor to cause an explosion, but a tank full of gasoline isn't very explosive at all.

Tanks full of compressed gas, otoh, are inherintly susceptible to rupture as the metal becomes fatigued from the constant changes in pressure. There are tanks that are less susceptible to fatigue, but none that are immune, that I'm aware of. Aside from that, there's the fact that hydrogen doesn't need to evaporate to become combustible, since it's already a gas. So yes, a tank of gasoline is less explosive than a tank of hydrogen.

At the same time, I'm not particularly worried about the possibility of either tanks exploding near me, since they're both relatively unlikely to happen spontaneously. Maybe in a serious crash, but I'd be more concerned with the sudden stop involved there.

Re:Pah

[Anonymous Coward]

EXACTLY. Finally you managed to hit the nail, unfortunately it was not the one you've been aiming for...

Steady influx of relatively small amounts of hydrogen with no oxygen is precisely what you get in a case of hydrogen leak from a container.

Re:Pah

[juhaz]

It is a lot more explosive than gasoline (hence its use in early scramjets, pulse detonation engines, etc).

Yup, very highly explosive, in optimal mix. Pray tell, how do you get that when we're talking about leaks? One that stays around too, long enough to make a big explosion at ground level, outside setting.

Feel free to provide a scientifically valid scenario for both low and high pressure tanks. You've yet to say anything other than repeat "hydrogen is frigging dangerous" without any proof, whereas blaming other folks for unproven claims.

Nobody is planning to create tanks full of 2:1 O/H mixture.

Re:Pah

[juhaz]

Nobody is planning to create tanks full of 2:1 O/H mixture.

And that's a typo, I mean 1:2 of course.

Re:Pah

[smithmc]

Tell that to people who work in oil refineries. At one refinery my father used to work at, before he got there, to track down hydrogen leaks in the equipment, they would wave a broomstick along the sides of the pipes (hydrogen burns with a clear flame). Where the broomstick suddenly got cut in half, that was their hydrogen leak.

Anything under enough pressure can do that. I know a few people in the power plant industry, and they've told me similar stories about steam leaks. High pressure gas plus tiny pinhole equals flesh-cutting jet.

Re:Pah

[budgenator]

Are you trying to say that 2 grams of H2 gas occupying 33L of volume at STP has more potential energy than 86 grams of hexane occupying the same 33L? Liquids don't burn only gases and a mole of one gas has the same volume as any other gas at the same temperature and pressure as in PV=nRT.
A Stanford
paper seems to suggest

Hydrogen is the lightest of the elements with an atomic weight of 1.0. Liquid hydrogen has a density of 0.07 grams per cubic centimeter, whereas water has a density of 1.0 g/cc and gasoline about 0.75 g/cc. These facts give hydrogen both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that it stores approximately 2.6 times the energy per unit mass as gasoline, and the disadvantage is that it needs about 4 times the volume for a given amount of energy. A 15 gallon automobile gasoline tank contains 90 pounds of gasoline. The corresponding hydrogen tank would be 60 gallons, but the hydrogen would weigh only 34 pounds.

that Hydrogen in liquid form has 1 quarter of the energy of gasoline, and as a gas would have 2/86*2.6= 0.060 as gasoline energy when burned. This is dissregarding the heat of fussion and amount of heat required to bring each to its flash-point.

The other thing everybody dissregards is that hydrogen burner hotter so if it's used in a Combustion fuel, it would produce much more NxO and O3 emmission than hydrocabon fueled combustion; so we better stick to fuel cells rather than engines.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

WRONG. A pinhole leak does excellent fuel-air mixing. In fact, liquid fuel vaporizers tend to be little more than clusters of pinholes. Small pinholes create strong vorticity effects.

Of course, even larger ruptures should be able to mix hydrogen amply; however, autoignition won't be nearly as likely.

Re:Pah

[Rei]

> Are you trying to say...

Why did you start out a sentence with "are you trying to say" and then state something that wasn't at all what I was saying? I stated quite clearly that hydrogen has more energy when you look at mass ratios; why on earth are you back to talking about volume ratios, and pretending that I was the one doing so?

> Liquids don't burn

It depends; a phase shift to gasseous form isn't necessary for the breaking of the bonds of the reactants, although clearly once the bonds are broken, we're going to be high-energy monoatomic particles and undoubtedly gaseous.

> at the same temperature and pressure

Thank you for proving my case, since we're talking about *Highly Pressurized* hydrogen vs. gasoline leaking from a tank and slowly vaporizing at STP.

> Hydrogen in liquid form

Why don't you actually read what is being discussed? We're talking about pressurized GH2 storage tanks, not LH2. This isn't rocketry here.

Here is the comparison that you *should* be doing:

Hydrogen Gas At Tens Or Hundreds Of Atmospheres Vs. Gasoline Vapors At STP.

Of course, even that is unjustly favorable to gasoline, since gasoline vapors do not readily form stochaistic ratios at all.

Re:Pah

[Firethorn]

Wouldn't this be more of a torch? The gas can't burn until there's oxygen available, which won't be available for the first little distance.

Don't grills work on the principle of "highly pressurized gas leaving a tank". Except they also have a device to oxegenate the propapne, and the flame still doesn't enter the burner.

Re:Pah

[Charcharodon]

Yes you are quite correct. Other wise the gas company would explode every time you tried to fire up the stove to make some breakfast.

Re:Pah

[Charcharodon]

Yes rapid mixing of the gas outside the tank, it will make a nice flame, but still wont cause an explosion inside or outside of the tank. (Also gas that is leaving the tank is no longer pressurized). Nor will H2 linger around long enough to fill an area with gas to blow up as it not only likes to expand but it also likes to rise like mad.

Now maybe if you are talking about a massive structual failure would you get enough gas outside at once to cause the kind of explosion you are thinking of but that is a very rare thing considering the maturity of high pressure storage systems and the thoroughness of the inspection and certifying agencies. I go out diving on a regular basis. Scuba tanks are 3000psi cylinders, the same pressure the hydrogen filling stations will be providing. Out of the half a million in use less than 10 rupture in any given year. (Usually it's some knuckle head that let water get in and corrode his gear and then not get the anual inspection done.

Speaking of highly pressurized gases exiting a small hole. Maybe you should be sure you're not talking out the wrong hole when you post something on slashdot if you get so easily insulted.

Re:Pah

[roseblood]

"First off, even if the flame is almost completely invisible in daylight..."

The book _DARK_SUN_:_The_Making_of_the_Hydrogen_Bomb (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/068 4824140?v=glance)
describes how excess H2 was burned off before a nuclear weapons test. The author makes the claim that, except for the atmospheric disturbance causes the the grat heat, burning H2 is effectively undetectable by visble observation. Then again, the H2 used in nuclear weapons testing is probably a bit closer to pure than the stuff we'll put into our future cars.

"Second, companies are perfectly capable of adding adulterants to make the flame any color they want. . . . A tiny fraction of some other gas added to pure hydrogen would probably easily be able to make the flame a bright and obvious color."

Yeah, what he said! Just watch out for that 100% H2 burning. Once it's been doped it's likely to be visible to most people.

Re:Pah

[Dyolf Knip]

Modern batteries tend to have very high charge-discharge efficiencies - I usually run into numbers between 80 and 99% Bull crap. You'd seriously better back that claim up. I'm finding actual efficiencies of 30-40% for lead acid and maybe 60-70% for nickel metal hydride. The absolute best effective efficiencies you can get are ~80%. Most chemical batteries involve some pretty toxic materials, and on top of which, the number of charge/discharge cycles is strictly limited. Oh, and you can really give the "try to ignite a pail full of gasoline" schtick a rest. Nobody ever drops a match into a car's gas tank. But you puncture a gasoline tank and watch it piddle around on the ground and _then_ light it, it'll catch fire very easily.

Re:Pah

[juan2074]

For instance, the reason you can smell natural gas leak is because the gas company adds a rotting eggs smell.

Yeah, sulfur is cheap and easy (and smells like rotten eggs), but why couldn't they make it smell like strawberries or watermelon?

Re:Pah

[Jherico]

Because people tend to keep things like strawberries and melon's around the house. No one keeps rotten eggs around the house, so its an immediate indication that something is WRONG. When selecting an adulterant, you don't want someone chasing after it because they like the smell.

Re:Pah

[GoPlayGo]

Gasoline vapors are heavier than air and can creep along the ground. That makes gasoline more dangerous than hydrogen. An outdoor tank of gasoline is more dangerous than an outdoor tank of hydrogen. Burying a tank of gasoline has the additional risk of contaminating groundwater and soil.

The Hindenburg burned because the fabric skin was doped with a mixture of Aluminum and organic compounds (cellulose acetate butyrate). It burned first and fastest.

Please don't try to sabotage the Hydrogen economy by buying into and propagating fearmongering that is ignorant of basic science.

Re:Pah

[cybpunks3]

Programmed not to worry about it but watch plenty of action movies where cars and gas stations explode even more than they do in real-life.

first

[exspecto]

molecule on the atomic table

Re:first

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe, i corrected myself. the frenzy to get first post can seriously inhibit critical thinking skills. flaying a dick sounds like fun though.

Re:first

[Anonymous Coward]

in its common form it IS a molecule, H2, isn't it?

Re:first

[notthe9]

It most common form on earth is probably in water or organic hydrocarbons.

Even if so, H2 is not what is on the table. /. needs to allow <sub> codes.

Re:first

[Anonymous Coward]

Hydrogen has the honor of being the first element on the periodic table, and ALSO being the lightest molecule. (Pure Hydrogen is usually in the diatomic molecule H2, rather than free H atoms)

Re:first

[La Gris]

By the way, hydrogen atoms attach themselvs by pairs forming H2 dihydrogen molecules.

Re:first

[BattleTroll]

By the way, hydrogen atoms attach themselvs by pairs forming H2 dihydrogen molecules.

Add a little oxygen there and just think of the consequences! Beware the side effects of buring hydrogen as fuel. If we're not careful we'll be flooded in H20.

Hindenburg

[krog]

The Hindenburg didn't go down because it was filled with hydrogen; it burned because its skin was basically made of thermite. The hydrogen didn't explode.

Re:Hindenburg

[azav]

It's skin was basically made of thermite?

WHAT?

I find that rather hard to believe.

How about the aluminium internal frame?

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as thermite. It's called Thermit or thermit.

Re:Hindenburg

[AKAImBatman]

Actually, the hydrogren DID explode. It just wasn't the ignition or the cause of the continuing fires. If you watch the video, you can see it start to catch fire, followed by a massive blowout. The blowout was most likely the hydrogen. As the Hindenburg sank, however, it continued to burn furiously. Since there was no hydrogen left, it couldn't be the hydrogen that's continued burning. Rather the SKIN of the ship (which also shouldn't burn) was on fire. That was most likely caused by the sealant.

Re:Hindenburg

[krog]

Proponents of the "flammable fabric" theory contend that the extremely flammable iron oxide and aluminium impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate coating could have caught fire from atmospheric static, resulting in a leak through which flammable hydrogen gas could escape. After the disaster the Zeppelin company's engineers determined this skin material, used only on the Hindenburg, was more flammable than the skin used on previous craft. Cellulose acetate butyrate is of course flammable but iron oxide increases the flammability of aluminium powder. In fact iron oxide and aluminium can be used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite.

from http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/h/h i/hindenburg_disaster.html

Re:Hindenburg

[Metzli]

Very true, the skin was the main culprit. Check this link for info.

Re:Hindenburg

[narl]

And the most important thing to remember about the Hindenburg:

Despite a highly flammable skin around highly flammable hydrogen, and despite exploding mid-air, more than half the people on board survived:
"Of the ninety-seven aboard, thirty-six died, including thirteen "civilian" (paying) passengers, the first passengers of this kind killed in a dirigible accident. "

Compare the survival rate with your average airline accident...

Re:Hindenburg

[codeguy007]

I've seen the video. A flair out is not an explosion. What you saw was the burning of rapidly escaping hydrogen. Not an explosion.

If the blimp had exploded no one would have survived.

Re:Hindenburg

[lucabrasi999]

Compare the survival rate with your average airline accident...

The beautiful thing about the internet is that you can easily compare the Hindenberg's survival rate with the average airline accident survial rate. I found the following when I searched "airline accident survial rate' using Vivisimo.com:

http://airsafe.com/airline.htm

Re:Hindenburg

[jrcamp]

That looks like to be a copy of Wikipedia, which was already linked to in the main story. Do you have something to gain from the ads on that site or something? I don't know why anybody would use such an ad infested place that's just a copy of Wikipedia.

Re:Hindenburg

[lucabrasi999]

Sorry. I forgot to include the tags.

Try this link.

Re:Hindenburg

[Waffle Iron]

Compare the survival rate with your average airline accident...

There's one little difference: most of the major dirigibles that were ever built were destroyed in accidents. They were death traps.

The survival rates for accidents that occurred at altitude weren't usually so rosy as the Hindenburg's outcome.

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

adjust your tinfoil hat -- I referred to that site because it's the top link when googling for "hindenburg thermite".

-krog

Re:Hindenburg

[Smidge204]

Technically speaking, it was an explosion. An explosion in the general sense does not necessarily mean a whopping big bang and a crater. The key here is that the hydrogen was not under pressure and the reaction was not contained. That's why the blimp was not a flying bomb.

A high pressure storage tank would be, though! ('cept for maybe the flying part...)
=Smidge=

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

[adjusts tin-foil hat]

Ah yes, that's better now...

Nope, I'm still getting conspiracy.

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically speaking, it was an explosion. An explosion in the general sense does not necessarily mean a whopping big bang and a crater. The key here is that the hydrogen was not under pressure and the reaction was not contained. That's why the blimp was not a flying bomb.

"Technically schpeaking," it's not a blimp, it's a Zeppelin! Balloons is fer kiddy-vinkies!! Get out!!!!

(throws Smidge from the cabin...)

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the /. pet hindenburg theory or what? If it's so sound, howcome there are still opponents of it? Why the controversy?

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

And once again, it turns out that journalists distort science with balance.

Re:Hindenburg

[RPI Geek]

Noo, Everyoen knows it was REALLY caused by a sadistic time-traveller

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

(throws Smidge from the cabin...)

No ticket?

Re:Hindenburg

[CGP314]

Give credit to the real source and not the ad whores. Wikipedia on the Hindenburg Disaster.


-Colin

Re:Hindenburg

[Deadstick]

The hydrogen was contained in hundreds of individual cells called ballonets, and it was impossible for all of them to go up at once. As each one caught fire, it burned only at the ignition point at first, because there was no oxygen anywhere else in it. Once the fire ruptured the ballonet, its gas escaped, mixed with air, and burned with a big flame that ignited adjacent ballonets, and the process continued.

Watch the film and you will see patches of fire appearing in the middle of stretches of unburned skin, which shows quite clearly that the skin is not the major fuel source; the fire is spreading internally from one ballonet to the next.

rj

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Zeppelins were flying passengers around the world for years (if not decades) before the Hindenberg disaster made them unfashionable. The Graf Zeppelin for example circumnavigated the globe several times (with paying customers) without a single incident.

The only reason the Hindenberg disaster was able to capture the publics concern so strongly was because it was the 1st disaster to be caught on film & shown to millions.

While its true that the USAF's foray into dirigible technology didnt fare well, the German Zeppelins were by far the safest form of transport at the time.

Re:Hindenburg

[einhverfr]

Maybe there was a combination-- a tiny leak combined with a spark (several Zeppelins and other hydrogen-lifted airships had previously exploded causing greater loss of life). Maybe that hydrogen *which burns hot* ignited the skin and caused the skin to burn.

It is clear, however (and nobody disputes) that 1) the skin burned and 2) that the skin, fuel, etc. continued to burn once the airship hit the ground. The question is-- what caused initiated the disaster and what could have been reasonably done to prevent it. There may always be a lot of discussion about these two questions from a historical (albeit academic perspective).

It is also worth noting that the hydrogen explosion theory was the official theory advanced both by the Nazis and the US Gov't.

Re:Hindenburg

[ifwm]

"Actually, the hydrogren DID explode"

"The blowout was most likely the hydrogen"

I love this, first insist that the hydrogen exploded, then state that it may have. Nice. Let's just do this thread a favor and admit that it's impossible to know for sure what happened.

Oh wait, you're all know-it-alls who've never been wrong about anything. Sorry, my bad.

Re:Hindenburg

[Rotund Prickpull]

the German Zeppelins were by far the safest form of transport at the time.

Indeed. The RAF (maybe they were still the RFC) had immense trouble getting the buggers to burn during the early part of WWI, and it wasn't through want of trying.

Re:Hindenburg

[Waffle Iron]

Not true. Zeppelins were flying passengers around the world for years (if not decades) before the Hindenberg disaster made them unfashionable. The Graf Zeppelin for example circumnavigated the globe several times (with paying customers) without a single incident.

The Graf Zeppelin is remembered mainly because (along with the Los Angeles) it was one of the very few that wasn't destroyed in an accident. A single lucky example comes nowhere near demonstrating that airships were generally safe.

While its true that the USAF's foray into dirigible technology didnt fare well, the German Zeppelins were by far the safest form of transport at the time.

Even in the 1930s, airplanes weren't falling out of the sky at the rates of dirigibles. If they were too dangerous for the US Navy to operate safely (even though they were filled with helium, out of a fleet of 4, 3 were lost and the fourth nearly lost), they didn't hold much promise for commercial transport. (BTW, there was no USAF back then.)

Re:Hindenburg

[Rotund Prickpull]

despite exploding mid-air

mid-air? The atmosphere is just a few hundred feet high, then?

Re:Hindenburg

[Rotund Prickpull]

Give credit to the real source and not the ad whores

ad whores? do you have anyone specific in mind?

Re:Hindenburg

[imsabbel]

Those sides coying wikipedia articles and slapping them on webpages with ads. Its allowed, yes, but you dont have to like or promote it.

Re:Hindenburg

[juhaz]

A high pressure storage tank would be, though! ('cept for maybe the flying part...)

High pressure storage tank full of hydrogen would obviously not have any oxygen in it, and thus would not burn at all. Being at high pressure would also prevent any oxygen from getting in, until it's nigh empty and at about atmospheric pressure.

Also, since hydrogen is so light, any that would leak out would quickly rise rather than create an explosion prone standing fuel-air mixture near tank. Part of it would burn on exit (well, assuming high enough temperature to ignite), but that's basically it, a jet of flame, perhaps, but not a bomb.

Re:Hindenburg

[drinkypoo]

It's better to link to the ad whores and let them pay for all the bandwidth.

Re:Hindenburg

[Smidge204]

It takes very little energy to get pure hydrogen to oxidize. If a tank is under enough pressure, the energy released from the expanding hydrogen leaking out will be enough to get it going.

And pure hydrogen "flames" have no color. It burns invisible!

If there should be a rupture somewhere, which is more likely if there is a leak and a flame that nobody will be able to detect unless they walk into it, then you're in trouble. Ka-boosh!

Gasoline is actually much safer, even though it is easy to light on fire it is not prone to bursting into flames by itself, and can't explode unless under pressure and pretty exact fuel-air ratios.
=Smidge=

Re:Hindenburg

[juhaz]

It takes very little energy to get pure hydrogen to oxidize. If a tank is under enough pressure, the energy released from the expanding hydrogen leaking out will be enough to get it going.

Expanding gas is endothermic, it won't release any energy. If we're talking about really small hole, looks like it could heat up due to other factors though, so let's assume this is true and it indeed does auto-ignite at the moment it leaves the tank.

If there should be a rupture somewhere, which is more likely if there is a leak and a flame that nobody will be able to detect unless they walk into it, then you're in trouble. Ka-boosh!

Invisible flame is bad news if you happen to be the one to walk into it, or it sets other structures nearby to fire, but other than that, what kind of trouble? When does it go "ka-boosh"? Looks like the flame would go on as long as there is fuel left, but nothing more.

How do I get classical big "fireball" explosion when part burns as soon as it leaves the container, and rest dissipates instead of creating a ground-hugging fuel-air mixture cloud that can go boom?

Mod the Shell station....

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

... wait for it ...
-1 Flamebait

--

Re:Mod the Shell station....

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, just wow.

Oh so scary

[Microlith]

I'm sure having a volatile, quickly burning, quickly dissipating gas is lots more dangerous than a huge tank of a volatile, slow burning, slowly dissipating petrochemcial.

Something tells me that it'd be a lot easier to prevent a fire with hydrogen than with gasoline (seeing as how hydrogen doesn't stick around once released.)

Re:Oh so scary

[mikeee]

Heck, the most serious danger of either isn't fire; it's that the underground gasoline tanks will leak and contaminate local water supplies.

Re:Oh so scary

[demachina]

The nearby resident should be somewhat more concerned about the health hazards of the gas fumes. They should also contemplate the consequences of spillage and underground gas tanks leaking toxic gasoline to the soil and ground water, the additives in particular being historicly nasty.

The additive MTBE is a classic example of gasoline additive gone bad. It is designed to oxygenate gasoline and make it burn cleaner to improve air quality. Unfortunately its been classified as a carcinogen and its started showing up in ground water and drinking water across the country (drinking water for 15 million in one study I saw). In very small quantities it makes water undrinkable due to its nasty turpentine odor and taste and of course it may cause cancer. It was a key reason the Bush administration's energy bill lost because it was going to exempt the oil companies from liability for the clean up and apparently in New England in particular there is a massive cleanup problem, so moderate Republican senators from New England voted against it over MTBE liability alone. Of course I think Congress mandated it in the first place, to improve air quality, so they are equally to blame.

Re:Oh so scary

[iamacat]

Actually I am surprised they are not designing H2-powered airplanes after 9/11. If one hits a tall building, the stuff is not going to stick around and melt the supports. Most of it will be probably just blown away by a small explosion, since hydrogen can not burn until pre-mixed with oxygen.

This could even be cost-effective, because a regular airplane must burn a lot of fuel to lift it's fuel. A plant that generates hydrogen from natural gas will not have this waste.

Re:Oh so scary

[CrimsonAvenger]

Hydrogen doesn't store as well as kerosene. Even in liquid form, it has a density of only 0.07 Kg/l. Which would mean HUGE fuel tanks.

Say, about as large as the passenger compartment. Counterproductive, eh?

Re:Oh so scary

[Joe5678]

The 9/11 reports have confirmed that it wasn't the jet fuel that directly caused the supports to melt. The jet fuel is essentially like lighter fluid, and burned up almost instantly. The problems were that it caused a huge fire to start, and that the force of the planes blew the fire retardant off the support beams, exposing them to the newly created fire.

Re:Oh so scary

[pentalive]

It wasn't congress, it was the EPA. In california at least the California EPA went to the federal EPA and begged them "Mandate MTBE pleeaase", the Fedeal EPA said "Yup!" and all the
california oil companies said "4- profit!!!".

They could now 1-charge more for gas, because CA was a captive market and they had a monopoly. 2- They could put MTBE in the gas, before that they had to PAY to get rid of it as it was a hazardous waste, now they can sell it $$$

Once MTBE started getting in the water, There was a big push to
have it removed. So now the state says remove it ASAP (as soon as possible-hmm possible only in about 20 years. It's still in there except one major state chain (they put ethanol in))

Re:Oh so scary

[iabervon]

Perhaps the Hindenburg link isn't so inappropriate. Tanks of hydrogen gas are generally pretty safe. But it might not be such a good idea to store them near propellants. About the only major problem I could see with a hydrogen tank would be if there were a leak in it with a persistant fire outside the leak, which would probably cause a long jet of flame.

The hydrogen could be a hazard in that it is a pressurized gas, so it could form a jet and blowtorch the neighbor's house, rather than just turning the gas station into a raging inferno. Assuming, of course, you had something keeping the jet ignited.

Re:Oh so scary

[RedWizzard]

The additive MTBE is a classic example of gasoline additive gone bad. It is designed to oxygenate gasoline and make it burn cleaner to improve air quality. Unfortunately its been classified as a carcinogen and its started showing up in ground water and drinking water across the country (drinking water for 15 million in one study I saw). In very small quantities it makes water undrinkable due to its nasty turpentine odor and taste and of course it may cause cancer.

It's worth keeping in mind that gasoline is carcinogenic as well. Just about every molecule with a benzene ring is, and there are plenty of them in gasoline.

Re:Oh so scary

[WhiplashII]

The advantage is that if you use as fuel cell, energy retrieval can be 80-90% efficient. At that efficiency, the tank size goes back down to somewhat reasonable.

Re:Oh so scary

[greg_barton]

I'm sure having a volatile, quickly burning, quickly dissipating gas is lots more dangerous...

And you'd be surely wrong. See, hydrogen, being the lightest element and thus lighter than air, goes straight up when released. Gasoline vapor density, being heavier than air, causes the vapor to "pool" around the lowest point near the point of release.

Do you want the flammable gasses you use to stick around if they leak out?

Didn't think so...

Re:Oh so scary

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your sarcasm detector is on the blink.

Re:Oh so scary

[CrimsonAvenger]

Most airplanes don't really use fuel cells all that much. They use jet engines, mostly.

I'm none too confident that we could develop a fuel-cell powered jet engine

That said, using liquid hydrogen (which has other issues as a replacement for avgas), if you could get 90% efficiency, if a jet engine gets 30% efficiency, if you want about the same range, then you're still talking quadrupling the size of the fuel tanks. a 747 would need an extra 720,000 liters of fuel tankage.

Since a 747 has 865,000 liters of passenger space, that amount of fuel would reduce passenger space by 83%, leaving them about one sixth the passenger space.

Assuming, just for grins, that half that extra fuel could come out of cargo space (the 747 doesn't actually have 360,000 liters of cargo space), then we'd only reduce the passenger capacity by 42%.

And this doesn't even count the fuel cells, which aren't known as high-density electrical generation devices.

Re:Oh so scary

[Rich0]

Of course, what disturbs me isn't that MTBE makes water taste bad, but the fact that people seem unconcerned about all the other stuff apparently leaking into their water supply which doesn't taste bad, but is likely to be at least as bad for your health.

There wouldn't be MTBE in water supplies if gas tanks didn't leak. And if there is MTBE, there is probably other stuff which is harmful. However, that stuff isn't cosmetically apparent, so why bother fixing the real problem (leaking tanks)?

Re:Oh so scary

[WhiplashII]

To beat this horse even further...

747 Maximum Fuel Load: 43,625 L

Kerosene (Pretend its Jet A) Energy per Liter: 33 MJ/L

Hydrogen (Liquid) Energy per Liter: 8 MJ/L

Assuming a 45% efficient jet turbine, and a 90% efficient fuel cell, the hydrogen fuel is about twice the volume of the kerosene fuel. That could be easily handled with a small modification of the plane's design.

As you say, making the fuel cells powerful enough to drive a 747's turbine would be tricky, to say the least...

It's just engineering, though! (Fuel cells produce electricity. Large electric motors are incredibly efficient, and so are electric fans.)

Re:Oh so scary

[demachina]

I stand corrected. You are correct it was apparently done via EPA regulation and it appears the oil companies did in fact lobby to put it in there in the first place though now they deny it. It was either Ethanol or MTBE, Ethanol presumably being much the better of the two but the oil companies got the EPA to do MTBE. And yes it is a toxic byproduct of gasoline refining they had to dispose of before. Now they just dump it in your gas tank though 16 states of outlawed it.

It is yet another slimy example of corporations wagging the dog.

Billy Tauzin(R Louisiana) appears to be spearheading the campaign to get the oil companies immunity from the devastation its causing, and you can't find a slimier congressman than him today. He also spearheaded Medicare Reform which is nothing but a giant transfer of tax dollars to drug and healthcare companies. He was supposedly retiring and taking a 2.5 million dollar consulting job with the drug lobby as payola for the Medicare bill. I think his probably equally corrupt son was trying to take his place though I didn't see if he won. There something about Louisiana politicians and corruption.

Re:Oh so scary

[CrimsonAvenger]

And some more:

747 Maximum Fuel Load: 43,625 L

747-ER carries 240,379 L, according to Boeing. Using your assumptions, that version of the 747 would require an extra 240 m^3 of fuel.

Looks like a 747-400 carries 67,000L of fuel, which is somewhat more achievable without too adverse an effect on passenger capacity.

Note that changing the shape of a wing has a non-trivial effect on performance, and that most of the fuel is carried in the wing (apparently, the 747-400 also carries fuel in the horizontal stabilizers). So the extra 40-odd to 240 Kl will be coming out of the body...

Yah, it's just engineering. It's not a trivial exercise, however.

Re:Oh so scary

[iamacat]

Well, that's mostly because hydrogen is light. And you don't really you want your fuel to be heavy, just to produce lots of enery. Liquid H2 has about 1/4 of energy of gasoline per unit of volume, but about 4 times more per unit of mass. Meaning the plane will be lighter at lift-off, meaning fuel tanks can be smaller, meaning the plane will be lighter yet... I don't know where the numbers will converge, but the fuel tanks might be managable after all.

Also, methane would still be lighter than air and dissipate quickly while having a higher volumetric energy density should hydrogen prove unsuitable.

Re:Oh so scary

[iamacat]

So would I be able to bring down a tall building by scrubbing some fire retardant off the supports and starting a fire with a can of lighter fuel?

I rather suspect the fire burned with abnormal intensity because of existing high temperature and didn't need to produce as much additional energy to rich melting point of the metal.

If the fuel was lighter than air and mostly burned as a fireball in the sky or dissipated, we would still have WTC, several hundred victims and a sane president.

Re:Oh so scary

[WhiplashII]

Just a nit - the 240,379 L version is a fuel transport version, with practically no cargo. It's not trivial engineering, and it may not be even practical, I'm just saying it's not meritless or impossible.

Re:Oh so scary

[CrimsonAvenger]

Never thought it was impossible. Well, a qualifier - converting an existing aircraft to H2 burner is most likely impossible.

Designing a plane from scratch to use H2 is possible, and worth doing, once we have an infrastructure that supports H2 everywhere the plane might have to fly.

Re:Oh so scary

[Dyolf Knip]

Yeah, H2 fuel cells kick ass in every respect except fuel storage. There's been some success in storing it in hydride form, binding it with polonium or some other reactive metal. I've not been able to find estimates on the energy density you can achieve with this method.

It's just engineering, though

Indeed! The beauty of the fuel cell is its separation of parts. The power usage is independent of the fuel cell is independent of the fuel storage and the fuel itself is independent of where you get it. So the same fuel cell could power an airplane, a car, a boat, or a building, and will work with H2 stored in liquid, compressed, or hydride form, and the H2 itself could be derived from fossil fuels, water electrolysis (with power from the grid or a standalone station running on solar or wind or whatever), refuse from agriculture, or some kind of H2-generating algae, whatever. Each component can be improved, modified, and swapped out more or less independently from the others.

Re:Oh so scary

[Anonymous Coward]

And hydrogen won't contaminate a water supply, and the byproducts of a hydrogen fire is just water so that wouldn't cause any contamination either (unlike all the fun carcinogens which get spewed out from the combustion of gasoline).

What about...

[LegendOfLink]

Getting a Mr. Fusion to power a vehicle? I mean, they did it back in 1985!

And that was with a DeLorean.

Re:What about...

[kc0re]

and it traveled through time... on a serious note I can only hope that this catches on a lot more than it has at this point. Reducing America's dependancy (the world's dependancy) on fossil fuels is a great thing to strive for. I can only hope that other countries follow suit and make this world a better place to live. (Cheese Factor 9.8)

Re:What about...

[pi42]

Actually, I believe the Mr. Fusion only powered the time circuits.

The fuel to move the vehicle was still regular gasoline.

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

you idiot. Mr. Fusion only powered the flux capacitor.

Re:What about...

[Nemesis099]

Are you kidding do you know how much trash the US alone would consume with those things. We would then have to make more disposable products just to keep up.

For those that can't tell I am joking

Re:What about...

[websaber]

Hollywood != reality. And they don't control reality either for proof see the last election!

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I've wondered why exactly Doc Brown couldn't simply make the DeLorean electric drive once he went to 2015 and obtained "Mr. Fusion." You'd think if such a device could provide the appropriate amount of power to the flux capacitor, pushing a car to do 88 mph would be a breeze. Of course, then, I suppose Back to the Future III would have been a very short move....

Re:What about...

[glenebob]

That didn't catch on because is was clearly was inferior to other power sources of the day. I mean, come on, the thing couldn't go any faster than 88 MPH!!!

first/second/third/15th post!

[Anonymous Coward]

this is downright uninformed.

The hindenburg only went up because of it's coating of paint that was pretty much rocket fuel, not because of the hydrogen itself.

Someone mod it down.

Re:first/second/third/15th post!

[Rei]

Why did this get modded informative? It's not true. The skin was soaked in many chemicals, which certainly contributed, but there is absolutely no way the relatively tiny volume of the skin could have produced such massive flames. The majority of the fire from the Hindenburg *was* from the hydrogen. The skin just acted as a fire starter.

Secondly, the skin wasn't coated in "rocket fuel" persay, unless you've ever heard of a rocket that runs on cellulose acetate or cellulose nitrate. Although, to be fair, it was flecked with aluminum to increase its reflectivity, which is used in some SRBs.

Lastly, hydrogen in a pressurized tank is a *lot* more explosive than that in the hindenburg was. Namely, because there wasn't nearly the "incentive" for the hydrogen in the hindenburg to mix with air. Hydrogen leaking from a ruptured, pressurized tank, however, will mix very quickly.

Re:first/second/third/15th post!

[narl]

Well, that and the fact that The Hindenburg was designed to use non-flammable Helium instead, but was forced to use Hydrogen instead when the U.S. refused to sell it to the Zepplin company (fearing that Germany would use Zeppelins to bomb Britain again like they did in WWI)

Re:first/second/third/15th post!

[TheKidWho]

Hydrogen doesn't have a visible flame.

Only the skin could have produced that visible flame.

Re:first/second/third/15th post!

[Rei]

Small hydrogen flames are invisible in daylight. It burns a faint blue in darkness or when the flame is quite large; a large, hot flame in the air can produce other colors.

Look for example, at a launching shuttle. Ignore the big flame from the boosters, and look at the fainter flame from around the SSMEs. You'll notice that it's not only visible, but that it contains both the faint blue and brigher red/orange, especially downstream after the mach triangle.

http://www.epower-propulsion.com/epower/gallery/ RP -SSME.jpg

silly

[alecks]

nevermind the large tanks of gasoline on every other corner...

Opium addicts of the world unite!

[uberjoe]

Finally a place where I can get my H legally.

Hydrogen the next nuclear?

[AKAImBatman]

When nuclear energy first came on to the scene, many people were afraid that contamination could happen from one person to another. Anyone who'd handled nuclear materials or was exposed to such materials, was treat as a lepor.

Now we have people worried about Hydrogen (which floats UP while it explodes) instead of the far more energy dense gasoline that will continue burning everything after it explodes. Ah, progress. :-)

Re:Hydrogen the next nuclear?

[heptapod]

And you can blame Slashdot for being as bad as other journalists mentioned in this story for troll comments in the blurb like "Oh come on, what is there to worry about? " I'm sure other, respectable media outlets will jump on the chicken little bandwagon and maintain the status quo.

Seriously, what is there to worry about?

[qi3ber]

I mean, they've already got a giant tank of explosive gasoline near their house, can a little hydrogen really be that much worse?

Re:Seriously, what is there to worry about?

[Leroy_Brown242]

Too them it is worse. The unknown is scary!

Re:Seriously, what is there to worry about?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I mean, they've already got a giant tank of explosive gasoline near their house, can a little hydrogen really be that much worse?

I wonder, if the gasoline tanks were ablaze, blackening the sky with toxic smoke, could you touch off the hydrogen tank (remotely detonated c4, robot delivered, whatever) to stop the fire?

Kind of like they did with the oil wells in Kuwait after Saddam Hussein lit them off on his retreat?

Having the hydrogen tank there might actually be safer.

Re:Seriously, what is there to worry about?

[randmairs]

To go 300 miles in a fuel cell Camry, Toyota used carbon wound tanks and had to presurized them to 700 bar. 700 bar is a polite way of saying 5 tons per square inch. The Camry used 3 of these tanks. There are 200 million cars on the road. Can industry build 600 million tanks so that there is not a defect that causes an explosive rupture in a hand full of tanks?

Boom!

[Lurker McLurker]

Apparently some of the neighbors are concerned about having a large tank of hydrogen near their homes

Do they think gasoline can't explode?

Re:BOOM!

[Knara]

Flour.

F-L-O-U-R

Now see what you've done? It looks funny to me after typing it more than once on its own.

Hydrogen Power.

[musingmelpomene]

Hydrogen isn't an "energy source," it's a (somewhat inefficient) way of storing energy. You can't just "get" hydrogen with no electrical expenditure to begin with. It must be produced by getting it from water at considerable energetic expense. So that electricity comes from power plants - in the US, that means mostly coal and oil. So congratulations to the "green" consumers choosing their hydrogen - I mean coal - powered cars!

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[thpr]

Actually, hydrogen is most commonly produced from steam reforming methane. Something like CH4 + 2-H20 = CO2 + 4-H2, if my ancient chemistry classes are serving me.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[AKAImBatman]

Hydrogen isn't an "energy source," it's a (somewhat inefficient) way of storing energy.

The technical term is "fuel". :-)

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Billy the Mountain]

Hydrogen isn't an "energy source," it's a (somewhat inefficient) way of storing energy.

Gasoline isn't an "energy source" either, it's an extremely inefficient way of storing what was ultimately energy from the sun. That's why we call fossil fuels non-renewable.

Hydrogen IS an efficient way of storing energy derived from solar, nuclear, wind, hydro or other sources. It's efficient because it can be moved around using existing natural gas infrastructures.

BTM

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Shinglor]

Just because it took energy to produce doesn't mean that the final product is not an energy source.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Suidae]

So congratulations to the "green" consumers choosing their hydrogen - I mean coal - powered cars!

Absolutely. At least coal (which is far more abundant and cheaper than oil) can be burned to produce power in large power stations which are easier to keep efficent and clean (clean relative to the smog-plants we currently put in cars, it can still be pretty dirty stuff).

Now, would a commercial system end up being cleaner and more efficent than what we've already got? Good question. I know of only one way to find out for sure.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

IIRC, electricity isn't required. You can get hydrogen from several hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon conversion to hydrogen is probably cleaner than burning it.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[sonicattack]

So that electricity comes from power plants - in the US, that means mostly coal and oil.

Yes, but that can change, and electricity can be produced from alternatives, giving hydrogen fuel from "green" electricity.

Try doing something similar with oil-based fuel. Not as easy.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking of the Sun: Hydrogen is an "energy source".

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Ellis D. Tripp]

"CH4 + 2H20 -> CO2 + 4H2" So the production of hydrogen is STILL reliant on a fossil fuel (methane, AKA natural gas), and STILL generates a greenhouse gas (CO2) as a byproduct of the process. So what is the benefit of going through all the chemistry (and loss of energy density) when you could just run the cars on methane?

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Tumbleweed]

You can't just "get" gasoline or diesel with no electrical expenditure to begin with, either, FYI.

Actually, most hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels at this point, and that's likely to be the main method in the future when the Bush Administration's proposed energy plan is put in place (which now seems assured). There are other hydrogen production methods on the horizon that may eventually replace both methods, but they likely won't be scalable for decades. (I'm referring to using nanotubes and/or bioengineering here.)

Either way, whether the fuel is hydrogen, or gas/diesel, a fuel for vehicles will always be less efficient than electricity coming from a modern power plant. The _point_ however, is to have a fuel _for vehicles_. Until battery technology becomes vastly better than what we have now, that's what we're left with.

Also, the advantage of hydrogen over gas/diesel that you're leaving out is that either way, with the less efficient fuel of hydrogen or gas/diesel, with hydrogen, at least, the exhaust of a hydrogen fuel cell (as opposed to burning hydrogen in an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) is _water vapour_. That changes the equation somewhat.

The big problem? Efficiency. Hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen ICEs aren't anywhere near as efficient as gas/diesel engines at this point. When you read articles on these things (I do, and I sometimes write about them for an energy industry publication), you'll often see things like "will eventually be up to x% more efficient than". Lots of phrases like "is hoped to be," and "could be" are generally used. _Noone_ has yet produced a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE that produces both the same amount of power, or has the same range, as an equivalent gas or diesel engine. Mazda's hydrogen-burning (not fuel cell) version of their Renesis rotary engine produces about half the power of its gasoline version. Ugh. I've yet to get any real information on the exhaust of a hydrogen ICE; writers always seem to assume it's the same exhaust as a fuel cell (which is just water vapour), but I've gotten some vague information recently that leads me to believe otherwise. Noone's talking, though, even when I ask. It seems obvious to me that the Hydrogen Economy being pushed by Bush is a smokescreen to sell more fossil fuels, while trying to look good to the greens.

I see the "Hydrogen Economy" for vehicles as a stepping stone to an electric vehicle era. Unfortunately for us, hydrogen vehicles won't be practical for awhile yet (10 years, or more, due to both technology and _infrastructure_), so until then, I'm a big proponent of biodiesel, where appropriate. Combine that with the lower-sulfur diesel that's mandated by 2006 or 2007, and you'll be reducing emissions enormously. Now we just need some automaker other than VW to make decent diesel engines for passenger vehicles. Pretty rare, still, and many of VW's best engines aren't even available in the US, apparently due to the crappy qualify of diesel sold here. I'd love to have a Jetta with the Passat's 2.0L TDI engine. Too bad the Jetta is about to become boring with the new body style coming next year. *sigh*

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[WindBourne]

Actually, most of the federal research is going into stripping h2 from hydrocarbons. In particular, from oil. Surprise.

But the good news is that if we move to H2, then H2 can come from a number of sources, many of which generate electricity. That includes not just coal, but nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, etc.

In fact, with the ups and down of energy demand, this will allow the nucs and hydro power to generate fuel during the night or during fall/spring.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than water, it is even more efficient to extract hydrogen from fossil fuels, which are hydrocarbons. They have much more hydroden and it is way easier to break it out of hydrocarbons than it is to break it out of water.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually, hydrogen is most commonly produced from steam reforming methane"

Exactly. I wish all the tree hugging hippies would shut the hell up about getting away from the carbon economy.

From the article:
This will be, in fact, the first step toward the real transition in the economy from the carbon-based economies
of the past to a hydrogen economy of the future," Abraham said.

Where the hell does the hydrogen come from? Natural gas. Um, yea... so long carbon economy.

Incidentally, it's gonna take a freakin miracle to replace the stored solar energy of the past few billion years that we've pretty much depleted in the last 100 or so. The way I see it, unless we plan on covering the entire earth with solar collectors and converting our oceans into mounds of salt and lots of H and O, we're gonna need something better. Sorry hippies, but that's nuclear (fusion hopefully)

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[WindBourne]

Actually, I do not believe that it can. The pipeing and the joints were never designed to deal with H2. While the pipes will not allow the H2 to leak, weld seams and fittings may allow H2 to leak.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Bastian]

As always, you have to consider who is pushing a given side of a given issue.

Hydrogen fuel cells are being pushed by the energy lobby, because hydrogen fuel cells pose no threat to their industries. As long as we're burning obscene amounts of fossil fuels, they're happy.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[taitertot]

Not a very effective way to reduce dependence on oil, though. Right now, it takes about 6 gallons of oil to produce a quantity of hydrogen with the same energy content as 1 gallon of oil.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't just "get" hydrogen with no electrical expenditure to begin with.

Sure you can. The process is called "Big Bang". It is a self sustaining process that only requires the occasional removal of a few unwanted byproducts that tend to contaminate the mix.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not burn Hydrogen instead of coal?

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[musingmelpomene]

Exactly. It's hysterical to me to see Shell oil's commercials promoting "clean energy"...like natural gas, and hydrogen! See, they really do care about something other than their bottom line. Except that those industries just mean more money going to Big Oil.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

da heck you said?
kid, you need to study physics/chemistry a bit.
hydrogen is an element. it's basically a proton+neutron - pretty-much the simplest form of matter we've found, on an atomic scale, or larger. it's also the most common element in the universe.
according to your description of hydrogen, i guess that Sol[the sun]'s made up of -- what? some baloons, a swimming-pool and a big friggin' battery?

mod parent down -4 ignorant

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you look up thermal depolymerization, you'll see that it's relatively easy to turn just about any waste into fuel. Right now there's a turkey processing plant that's doing the first large scale tryout.

aQazaQa

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[pavon]

I agree with you that the only "primary" sources of energy available on earth are nuclear and gravitational, but where are you getting your info on the comparative effeciency of those two fuels? As far as I know:

• Hydrocarbons are far more energy dense than any other way of storing hydrogen.
  
• Plants are far more efficient at turning sunlight into hydrocarbons than any method we have for generating hydrogen.
  
• Hydrocarbons are much easier to handle and transport as their natural state is liquid, not gas.
  

If hydrogen was so much more efficient than gasoline, or even biomass fuels, then we would be using it.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Nerviswreck]

It is very true that hydrogen is an energy storage medium, a battery if you will. However using a battery rather than a heat engine in your car has two advantages over the old technology:

1. Your car is no longer subject to the Carnot cycle, therefore you can use most of the energy stored within the battery (hydrogen) you are carrying. Now, you may be thinking, the coal used is subject to the carnot cycle, but coal is not generally burnt but is reformed by steam to form hydrogen and CO2, which is largely more efficient than electrolysis via burning the coal.

2. The CO2 production becomes a Point Source at the Hydrogen production plant (instead of being produced at each car), and thus can be treated more efficiently using emerging scrubbing techniques or Carbon Dioxide sequestration.

The Major problem with Moving totally to H2 cars is that we would see a drop in CO2 emmisions, but there would be little to no drop in NOx, SOx, Volitile Organic and Particulate Matter emissions (all of this data can be found from goverment databases). The problem is that coal has large amounts of mainly Nitrogenous and Sulphurous impurities, and there isnt technology in place to scrub enough of those impurities out of the CO2 after combustion or reformation.

Anyways, the only way we are going to be able to do this is to start transitioning to green sources of energy soon, and anticipate the use of hydrogen as a "fuel" in the next 20 years or so. If we are going to use coal (like Bush wants us to) serious technological advances need to come into place, otherwise we may end up in a WORSE spot enviromentally.

--nerviswreck

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[micromoog]

Really there's no such thing as an energy "source", per se . . . just energy storage (hydrogen, gasoline, batteries, etc.) and energy converters (engines, power plants, the Sun, etc.). "Source" implies energy is being created, which, so I hear, can't happen.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[kesuki]

You're dead wrong... oil produces only about 3% of the us electrical requirment... while nuclear power provides nearly 30% you're right about coal, which produces about 60% of the us electrical power, but oil barely plays a role.. except in heating... which isn't electrical production, now is it...
I'm citing numbers found at the DOE http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table es1b.html

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[iabervon]

Hydrogen gas isn't generally produced from electricity. It's generally produced from crude oil. Then it's generally allowed to escape, because there's not yet enough demand to make it worth capturing. It's produced as a byproduct in the process of refining oil into gasoline.

(Actually, the hard part isn't producing hydrogen gas. It's separating the hydrogen sulfide which is produced along with hydrogen gas from sulfer-bearing impurities in the crude oil. Also dealing with the concentrated hydrogen sulfide you end up after removing it from the hydrogen gas mixture it was in.)

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[chunkwhite86]

Yes, but that can change, and electricity can be produced from alternatives, giving hydrogen fuel from "green" electricity. Try doing something similar with oil-based fuel. Not as easy.

Actually, it is.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[rubberbando]

Hydrogen isn't an "energy source," it's a (somewhat inefficient) way of storing energy. You can't just "get" hydrogen with no electrical expenditure to begin with. It must be produced by getting it from water at considerable energetic expense. So that electricity comes from power plants - in the US, that means mostly coal and oil. So congratulations to the "green" consumers choosing their hydrogen - I mean coal - powered cars!

Yeah! What they need to do is make nuclear power plants dedicated strictly to powering hydrogen fuel plants.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Richthofen80]

Yes, but in retrieving the energy from Hydrogen, we let a lot less bad crap out into the air. Also, It takes a lot of resources and power to retrieve and transport oil. Hydrogen can be produced locally and requires less energy overhead to transport.

There are real reasons to move from gasoline to hydrogen even if we make hydrogen using conventional fuels. Its a better storage medium. Then coal can be phased out by nuclear and other energy mediums.

Its a step in the right direction. The key is to make it cost less to power a car by hydrogen. make hydrogen cars comparibly priced. I think shell is doing a good thing.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[solodex2151]

Funny thing is that the best, most efficient way of generating hydrogen from water hydrolysis is through WIND power....... Turns out that the company Hydrogenics already has an industrial grade hydrogen converter from wind power already on the market. Several of these are enough for an entire gas (well, now it will be "fuel") stations to meet demand.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Charcharodon]

True, true you have a point, but at the same time one of the biggest problems in major cities is the health affects of smog, so at least we can clean up the air as the power generation plant would be outside the city. It also would make it easier to deal with the polution since it would be a single point source rather at every tailpipe on the road.

Of course the real goal is to find a better way to get energy in the first place, solar is looking better every year. In the past ten years they've doubled the output of your typical solar panel and doubled it again on the ultra expensive ones NASA uses on spacecraft. Of course until people start adding this to their homes or the government mandates that all new home have some sort of solar power built in, this is a long way off from solving our problems.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's efficient because it can be moved around using existing natural gas infrastructures.

No it can't. Hydrogen is much to thinner to be contained by pipe systems designed for natural gas. That's part of what make the storage of this gas so expensive. Most walls won't keep hydrogen, even if they are solid, because the molecule is much too small.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[bhv]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2002/04/14/whyd14.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/04/14/i xworld.html

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Deadstick]

Quite right: if you used electricity to make hydrogen, you'd have to burn a fossil fuel and release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But if you convert the hydrocarbons directly into hydrogen, all you have left over is...well, ummm...carbon dioxide. Mother Nature can be a bitch.

rj

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

biodiesel is not oil-based ( oil as in petroleum )

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

"that the Hydrogen Economy being pushed by Bush is a smokescreen to sell more fossil fuels, while trying to look good to the greens"

Why should he care given his re-election and majority in the Congress?

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[slashdot.org]

Hydrogen IS an efficient way of storing energy derived from solar, nuclear, wind, hydro or other sources.

Well, how efficient is it really? I'm hearing that generating Hydrogen by electolysis is _not_ very efficient, but by using natural gas is.

Also I'm hearing that the output is not _just_ water.

I'm no expert on this subject so can anyone shed some light on this?

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Jason Hood]

Honda's "hydrogen engine" is a basically a modified diesel engine. They have not made a true hydrogen engine yet so it really isnt a wonder why it had 60% of the power. Hydrogen engines will likely be made out of harder metals and utilize more and smaller valves than todays cars. No more v4 or v8, more like a v32 that fits in a geo metro. It will be a very compact, light engine thats primary goal is to simply withstand the enourmous heat it will generate.

The fuel generation ideas currently include, fossil fuels (in the near term and for commercial use) and large water vats driven by solar cells in your backyard (for home use and light duty applications. Will the be less poluting than petrol in the near term? Without a doubt immediately. In the long term? By definition yes.

Water will become a precious commidity some day. One of the most replenishable and renewable energy sources has been right in front of us for years. In ten years? I doubt it, I would guess more like 6-8 when consumer models will be available. But a full conversion to hydrogen would take decades unless the gov starts taxing the crap out of petrol.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Amadawn]

If a car company wants to make some kind of business in Europe the need to have some competitive diesel engine, as they account for more than half of the cars sold there. Peugeot and Renault make very good TDI engines for example. It is just a pity that diesel has such a bad reputation in the USA.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[iwadasn]

Good points across the board. In fact, hydrogen is a real pain to work with, and they might be better off converting it to something like methanol (or perhaps ethanol, if that can be done). Such conversions from raw hydrogen to simple alcohols can often be done with somewhat better than 50% (maybe 75%) efficiency already, and would have the side effect of making the fuel much easier to work with.

The real consumer of hydrogen is actually industry. A good means of producing hydrogen fairly cheaply (*cough* nuclear-thermal-breakdown *cough*) could help industry immensely by replacing most of the natural gas needed for producing things like gasoline and amonia by way of hydrogen. They could also pretty easily thermally de-polymerize trash (and any sort of organic waste) into oils and gasses of virtually any composition by adding more or less hydrogen as needed.

That's the realy tactic we should take, but of course we won't, because environmentalists despise all things nuclear, andwould much rather have hydrogen generated from electricity from coal burning power plants than an actual clean and carbon free fuel.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[mark-t]

First of all, if the hydrogen is produced/extracted in large refineries, stricter pollution control measures can be in place on a stationary facility than what would be feasable to enforce on mobile vehicles all across the nation. So you cut down on pollution that way.

Secondly, because it would be getting done on such a large scale, altenative energy sources such as geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, and even solar or nuclear energy could be used in these facilities, where none of them may actually be practical for use in mobile vehicles.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Solilok]

Petrol is an energy source. Do you know of anything else that will spring by itself from the ground and can readily burn and therefore produce energy? That is dense and liquid hence easily stored and moved around?

Hydrogen has to be produced by spending energy. It is a secondary source, which is only good for relegating pollution to uninhabited/poor/no-one-cares areas.

Nothing else cuts it the way petrol does...

No wonder countries will fight for its control.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

If hydrogen was so much more efficient than gasoline, or even biomass fuels, then we would be using it.

The problem isn't one of efficiency but of practicality. Sure, hydrocarbons are efficient in storing energy. It's just that it takes a hell of a lot of time to do it. It's like saying that gzip is an efficient basis for a file system. Sure, you can fit more in it, but that doesn't make it the best choice.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Shinglor]

"Source" implies energy is being created, which, so I hear, can't happen.

It doesn't though, it only implies that you're taking energy from something, which is true. Once there's energy stored in something it can be used as an energy source.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Mr Rohan]

The big problem? Efficiency. Hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen ICEs aren't anywhere near as efficient as gas/diesel engines at this point. When you read articles on these things (I do, and I sometimes write about them for an energy industry publication), you'll often see things like "will eventually be up to x% more efficient than". Lots of phrases like "is hoped to be," and "could be" are generally used. _Noone_ has yet produced a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE that produces both the same amount of power, or has the same range, as an equivalent gas or diesel engine. Mazda's hydrogen-burning (not fuel cell) version of their Renesis rotary engine produces about half the power of its gasoline version. Ugh. I've yet to get any real information on the exhaust of a hydrogen ICE; writers always seem to assume it's the same exhaust as a fuel cell (which is just water vapour), but I've gotten some vague information recently that leads me to believe otherwise. Noone's talking, though, even when I ask. It seems obvious to me that the Hydrogen Economy being pushed by Bush is a smokescreen to sell more fossil fuels, while trying to look good to the greens.

Perhaps you might be mistaking energy density with efficiency. IIRC Hydrogen Gas has a lower energy density than Gasoline - that's the reason you get less power.

The efficiency of fuel cells in conversion of the energy can (theoretically) be much much higher than we can ever get from an engine relying on thermodynamics. With electric motors available with 90+% energy conversion efficiency, much more of the available power can be used. You car engine has below 50% efficiency (I think it's more like 20% but I don't have the numbers).

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[NeuroManson]

And unlike gas, when hydrogen is "burned" (simply recombined with O2 to form water), it can be reclaimed.

As it goes, it's the closest thing to a renewable fuel source available. Add solar "hydrogen ranches" to extract hydrogen from water, and you would essentially close the loop.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[pavon]

It only takes one season. Given modern crops that means harvest can be happening year round. This is especially for algae based biodiesel (the only one capable of being produced in the quantities needed), which can effectively be produced continuously. It has the added benefit that it's production can simultaneously serve as a waste management process at coal burning and human waste treatment plants. It can be burned in any diesel car with little or no modifications (at most replacing some seals) - in fact it is a better lubricant than the additives we currently use. The only obstacle is to get the cost down (it is nearly 2x the cost of gasoline), or wait for oil shortages to bring the cost of fossil fuels up to where it is economically justifiable to switch.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Dyolf Knip]

Because you don't _have_ to get H2 from methane. It's simply the most efficient means we have right now (better than 100%, really; you get more H2 energy out than it took to convert the methane). With gasoline, you're pretty much limited to getting your fuel from crude oil. H2 can be derived from any number of sources, including water.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[tkw954]

_Noone_ has yet produced a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE that produces both the same amount of power, or has the same range, as an equivalent gas or diesel engine.

The Saskatchewan Research Council has produced a hydrogen/diesel truck which had "as much if not more power and the accelerator pedal inputs were more responsive." http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/040721.h tm

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Tumbleweed]

That's not a hydrogen-only vehicle - it's running a combination of hydrogen and diesel at the same time, so my point still stands.

While it's not a hydrogen-only engine, it _is_ quite interesting. Thanks for the link.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[DarkVein]

I don't have exact numbers either. However, going by memory, no combustion engine can be more than ~33% efficient.

Now, the complaint against fuel cell efficiency is entirely directed against PEM fuel cells. There are fuel cells which are in the order of 80% efficient, with the more common ones around 60% efficient. However, these high efficiency fuel cells either operate at extremely high temperatures (4000K) or rely on toxic catalysts. The PEM fuel cell is the "breakthrough" technology for consumer fuel cells, as they operate at room temperature range, and rely on no toxic chemicals for catalysts. However, PEM technology is new. The PEM kits you can buy are around 12% efficient. PEM blocks have been constructed that are ~33% efficient, but they're ungodly expensive right now. The majority of PEM being used and proposed right now are about 25% efficient. In theory, 40% efficiency should be easy to achieve soon. In theory, 90% efficiency should be possible at a later date.

Re:Hydrogen Power.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some possibilities that the hydrogen could be produced by growing algae....no burning or electricity anywhere in that picture:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,5445 6, 00.html

http://www.futurefarmers.com/survey/algae.html

A green explosion

[Anonymous Coward]

At least when it explodes there won't be any polution. If you're going to have a disaster make it evironmentally friendly!

Hindenburg comparison isn't fair

[thpr]

Using the Hindenburg as a comparison isn't fair. Recent studies have shown that the paint used is a near chemical relative to rocket fuel. Hydrogen is no longer blamed for the accident. See this video for more information. (requires realplayer)

Re:Hindenburg comparison isn't fair

[Binestar]

Recent studies have shown that the paint used is a near chemical relative to rocket fuel.

Caffeine is a near chemical relative to morphine, but you don't see it being used as a pain reliever.

Agreed…

[Izago909]

Who would want to live next to a gasoline station when this happens all too often? Hydrogen is much less volatile than one would think.

Re:Agreed…

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... having a boiling point of -252.87 C at atmospheric pressure makes it so volatile that you would never even use that word in reference to it. I'm guessing you meant to say something about energy density instead.

Re:Agreed…

[mrmagos]

...and I would think Google would have some images. I'm so disappointed. :(

Re:Agreed…

[kesuki]

just to be fair, that gas station in the congo was engulfed in a lava flow! and the one in iraq was linked to terrorists, and several of the exposions in the states were linked to arson....

NY-Times

[jm92956n]

Also covered by the NY Times here.

Wha? wha? what?

[fizban]

Apparently some of the neighbors are concerned about having a large tank of hydrogen near their homes.

As opposed to what, a large tank of GASOLINE near their homes? Or maybe that large tank of heating oil sitting right outside their home? Or perhaps the direct natural gas feed right INTO their home?

Christ, some people are stupid.

Re:Wha? wha? what?

[superpulpsicle]

Tell me about it. Umm... yeah, we should ban microwaves too. Since it CAN explodes with aluminum foil.

Re:Wha? wha? what?

[Garabito]

Christ, some people are stupid.

Christ:"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"

Re:Wha? wha? what?

[LiquidCoooled]

Well, I can manage to fit my head into the microwave (was a tight fit, my beany nearly fell off).

But I can't find any way to get it going to test it.

Re:Wha? wha? what?

[kesuki]

My brother in law was in road construction, and his company was doing a new underpass near the main natural gas feed into fargo, nd. if the pipeline had been ruptured, basically everyone in that part of the city woiuld have been given up as dead, and everyone within a couty line would have been warned to evacuate -- not because of the possibility of the gas combusting, but rather because of poisoning, because the chance of it igniting was minimal, but the probabability of it killing tens of thousands of people was highly probable, since the main line doesn't have any kind of shutoff valves...

About Time...

[StarWreck]

Its about time they got those pesky carbons out of the way so we can get straight to the hydrogen.

Hindenburg reference

[FiReaNGeL]

If the poster took the time to read his wiki link, he would have realized that the Hinderburg didn't not explode because of the hydrogen, but because of a new highly flammable fabric used for the skin of the zeppelin.

From the wiki link :

"Most current analysis of the accident assumes that the static spark theory is correct. There is still a debate, however, as to whether the fabric itself or the hydrogen used for bouyancy was the fuel for the initial fire.

Proponents (http://www.dwv-info.de/pm/hindbg/hbe.htm) of the "flammable fabric" theory point out that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminium-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate. Cellulose acetate butyrate is known to be flammable and iron oxide is well-known to react with aluminium powder. In fact, iron oxide and aluminium are sometimes used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite. (However, the oft-cited claim that the ship was "coated in rocket fuel" is a significant overstatement.) While the coating components were potentially reactive, they were separated by a layer of material that should have prevented the reaction from starting.

After the disaster, the Zeppelin company's engineers determined this skin material, used only on the Hindenburg, was more flammable than the skin used on previous craft and changed the composition for future designs. Nonetheless, the Hindenburg had flown for over a year (and through several lightning storms) with no reports of adverse chemical reactions, much less fires on the fabric.

The proponents of the "flammable fabric" theory also point to fact that the naturally odorless hydrogen gas in the Hindenburg was 'odorised' with garlic so that any leaks could be detected, and that there were no reports of garlic odors during the flight or prior to the fire."

I'm tired of seeing this example used by "hydrogen is dangerous" folks...

Re:Hindenburg reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should read this wiki link

Re:Hindenburg reference

[jangobongo]

There is still a debate, however, as to whether the fabric itself or the hydrogen used for bouyancy was the fuel for the initial fire... "flammable fabric" theory

So it's still a theory, one of three plausible ones that I could see at the wikipedia article. Also from the wikipedia article:

Others (http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/zf/LZ129fire.h tm) suggest that present-day proponents of hydrogen as a transportation fuel have forwarded a revisionist "flammable fabric" analysis of the fire in order to deflect public concern about the safety of hydrogen.

Re:Hindenburg reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I think for a hydrogen refrence this is a better one, although it was a combonation of hydrogen, oxygen, and a solid fuel rocket ripping into them.

Re:Hindenburg reference

[RedWizzard]

I'm tired of seeing this example used by "hydrogen is dangerous" folks...

What I find interesting is that most people seem to overlook the fact that most of the passengers and crew survived: "Of the 97 people on board, 13 passengers and 22 crew-members were killed. One member of the ground crew also died, bringing the death toll to 36". That compares very favourably to modern air disasters. Yet most people would only be able to name a few modern air disasters (e.g. flight TWA 800, Lockerby, Concorde, and 9/11). The only reason the Hindenburg is still seen as a big disaster is that it was the first disaster with extensive, graphic news coverage. It's become a sort of legend, despite the fact that the loss of life was relatively low.

Re:Hindenburg reference

[mark-t]

It would seem to me that the poster _DID_ take the time to read that link... he was being _serious_, not ironic, when he asked "what is there to worry about".

I do not think the poster was trying to advocate the premise that hydrogen is actually dangerous, _especially_ since he provided that link.

From the article

[frankthechicken]

1. Step One - Stand-alone projects with restricted access (like depots for hydrogen-fueled buses)

2. Step Two - Second generation sites, with public access, but separate from existing gasoline stations (e.g. the facility Shell opened in Iceland in April, 2003 which supplies hydrogen made from water to three city buses)

3. Step Three - Fully integrated fuel stations (traditional fuels and hydrogen)

4. Step Four - Within the next five years, mini-network "Lighthouse Projects" (semi-commercial, public-private partnerships involving multiple energy companies, governments, and fleets of 100 or more vehicles)

5. Step 5 - 2010-2020 connecting the mini-networks with corridors and filling in the white spaces

So does this mean that Shell believes hydrogen will begin to reach the mass market by 2020?

If so I kind of think they're being a bit optimisitc in their estimates. I just cannot see a public push towards the new energy, without government intervention (i.e. higher fuel taxes etc.) which I feel would be highly unpopular.

Re:From the article

[SpiffyMarc]

Tax breaks for hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles would be a nice step in the right direction.

Imagine writing a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle off on your taxes. That would do it for me.

Re:From the article

[zakezuke]

If so I kind of think they're being a bit optimisitc in their estimates. I just cannot see a public push towards the new energy, without government intervention (i.e. higher fuel taxes etc.) which I feel would be highly unpopular.

Keep in mind the ease to convert a gasoline engine to a gaseous fuel. The last time I looked into a natural gas conversion it was about $2000 or so installed. The idea was simple, once you cut off the liquid fuel supply just your gas with air and suck it in your air intake. You do have to change your timing but they offered a box that would do this, and you need tanks and an air regulator.

2010-2020 optimistic? This is hard to say. I've been waiting 14 years for a natural gas filling station to open near me. I'd convert but the nearest place to get the fuel is 40 miles away.

Re:From the article

[DarkVein]

They don't actually have to raise taxes on petroleum. They just have to lower the subsidies. Then the US would be paying the same gas prices Europe and England pay (e.g., $6/gallon). Allowing a write-off on new energy also helps.

Blah.

[rackhamh]

Let me know when they start stocking helium... heeheeheeheehee!

Re:Blah.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can do the same with hydrogen, just make sure you don't smoke .

maheeheeheehee

Wikipedia

[miikrr]

Don't you just love how anyone can edit any wikipedia article? You don't even need an account to be a jackass!

Gasoline

[macdaddy]

Does anyone know if Hydrogen is more volatile that Gasoline vapor? I wouldn't think that Hydrogen would be any more volatile than that. The article says that the Hydrogen tanks are underground, like most gasoline or diesel tanks, and are under 24/7 monitoring, also like gasoline or diesel tanks. I'm sure the have the required amount of insurance as well. Are peoples' fears justified?

Re:Gasoline

[anagama]

Here are some numbers from a google pdf-html conversion:

• Specifically, the amount of energy liberated during the reac- tion of hydrogen, on a mass basis, is about 2.5 times the heat of combustion of common hydrocarbon fuels (gasoline, diesel, methane, propane, etc.) Therefore, for a given load duty, the mass of hydrogen required is only about a third of the mass of hydrocarbon fuel needed.
  
  The high energy content of hydrogen also implies that the energy of a hydrogen gas explosion is about 2.5 times that of common hydrocarbon fuels. Thus, on an equal mass basis, hydrogen gas explosions are more destructive and carry further. However, the duration of a conflagration tends to be inversely proportional to the combustive energy, so that hydrogen fires subside much more quickly than hydrocarbon fires.

However, elsewhere in the article, it says that because hydrogen is so light, leaks can be safely be dispersed by wind, passing cars, or fans. Propane for example is heavier than air and collects in depressions, making it hard to disperse. It seems fair to say that if hydrogen goes off, it's a bigger explosion, but that it might actually be more difficult to get to that damaging situation than with other fuels.

Re:Gasoline

[Control Group]

On a per-mass basis, yes. But, under normal circumstances, you're dealing with far less mass of hydrogen than you would be with gasoline (density being what it is).

Aside from an unignited hydrogen leak dispersing itself harmlessly, you'd always be dealing with less hydrogen (by mass) than you would be with any of the hydrocarbons (particularly gasoline, which can be treated pretty much as octane for mass purposes: C8H18, fifty-seven times as massive).

So not only is hydrogen as fuel safer due to secondary effects, it's safer due to lower total energy available under circumstances you'd see in use.

Re:Gasoline

[WhiplashII]

Good information, but in my opinion wrong conclusion (in the article). The amount of energy stored is set by the amount of energy needed. So the tank will store the same amount of energy whether it is gasoline or hydrogen. A hydrogen tank's fuel will weigh half as much but be twice as large (assuming fairly high compression). A gasoline tank will weigh more, and be smaller. Talking about energy density per unit mass and relating that to hazard level is pretty shaky. It is probably better to relate energy density per unit volume to hazard level, though as I say in general the total energy storage of a tank is is kept constant between fuel types (200 miles travel/tank of fuel, or in this case 1000 fillups=200,000 miles of travel/tank).

Re:Gasoline

[macdaddy]

Thanks for the info. So I guess it comes down to the likelyhood of hydrogen igniting then. I would think with all the safety measures currently in use for liquid fuel that there is surely enoug safety measures to handle hydrogen gas. My only thought is what would happen if a spark actually reached an underground tank (not that it would or could but what if)? A spark in a underground tank of gasoline won't do jack if there isn't any oxygen. It also won't do anything for a full tank of fuel. A full can of fuel is safe. An empty can is what's dangerous. Perhaps they could replace the hydrogen with an inert gas of a different weight to keep oxygen out. For example, replace the hydrogen as you're pumping it into your vehicle with something heavier than hydrogen. Then make sure you pump off the tank from the top where it should always be hydrogen. You'd have to have a sensor array to detect when the content of inert gas was close to the tank's outlet. Similarly you could use a lighter gas and pump off the bottom. Whatever works best. The biggest hurdle at this point is not having to double your costs by supplying each station with two gases. You need a way of storing the inert gas and reusing it. As you pump in hydrogen from a truck you could allow the heavier inert gas to be pumped back into another storage tank. Do it all with pressue and strategically located inlets and outlets. I'm sure they'll figure something out.

How apropos.

[Anonymous Coward]

How appropriate. A ridiculous Hindenburg reference just two articles above "Journalists Distort Science with Balance". Thanks, Michael; I'd attribute this to intentional irony, were it not for the rest of your incompetence.

Informative Wiki

[DogDude]

I love the informative Wikipedia link to the Hindenburg disaster. As always, leave it to Wikipedia to inform!

Re:Informative Wiki

[LordKronos]

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but that link has given me some odd contents. The first time I clicked I got the Wikipedia sidebar and the "Hindenburg disaster" caption, and then the first paragraph it showed was from this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Nigger_Ass ociatio n_of_America

I closed the browser, started again, clicked the link and got the correct page. I clicked refresh and THEN I started getting pages with the Wiki sidebar and correct caption, but the body looked like a pda version of Google.

Wikipedia sure is acting strange today.

Re:Informative Wiki

[Anonymous Coward]

It now says: hey fu slashdot

Re:Informative Wiki

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the pages history, it's being constantly vandalised. So much so that they've had to stop the ability to edit the page for a while.

What the fuck is with it with some of the people who read /.?

Childish fucks.

People who desire to be bullies, were it not for any decent physical, intellectual and conversational abilities. No one in real life could possibly take bullying with these people seriously, so they need out on easy web targets to prove their power.

Mother fucking childish fucks.

Re:Informative Wiki

[LordKronos]

Look at the pages history, it's being constantly vandalised

Thanks for the info. I knew anyone could contribute to Wiki, but I didn't know they could edit the live content of the page. That seems like a really bad idea to me....kinda like troll heaven.

HydrogenAI factory in Becancour (Quebec) exploded.

[DeeJayTwo]

A gazeous hydrogen factory just exploded tonight in Becancour (between Quebec and Montreal). Right on time for this topic ;) This is in french: http://lcn.canoe.com/lcn/infos/regional/archives/2 004/11/20041111-130058.html

Hydrogen Generation

[ARRRLovin]

*Waits for the halt to this energy "source" because none of the NIMBYs want a nuke plant nearby*

No one burned to death...

[Guysdrinkingbeer]

I have read and seen on a show on the Discovery channel that no one burned to death. All the death except for the poor guy on the ground died because they jumped. If you look at the footage of the crash you can clearly see the skin is burning, not the hydrogen. The skin of the airship was coated with powered aluminum and iron oxide, which close to solid rocket fuel. The discovery channel demonstrated this by making an exact duplicate of the shin and the coating. When the test piece was touch to a small spark, POOF, up in flames.

Just my two cents.

Re:No one burned to death...

[gothzilla]

I saw that show also. In the video you can see the ship burning while still staying in the air. If the hydrogen is what initially burned then it would have dropped like a rock. The hydrogen didn't burn until some time after the fire started.

wikipedia vandalized

[Anonymous Coward]

it's off topic but the wikipedia page was vandalized.
Was it one of you?

sigh

[el_guapo]

"Apparently some of the neighbors are concerned about having a large tank of hydrogen near their homes."
not very well thought out concern, anyone? and they don't give a 2nd thought to that huge tank of combustile gasoline at regular gas stations?
also, h2 has a nice habit of dissipating once released from storage, whilst gasoline has this nasty habit of pooling...

Re:sigh

[fred fleenblat]

"also, h2 has a nice habit of dissipating once released from storage, whilst gasoline has this nasty habit of pooling..."

Propane is kind of sneaky too...it's heavier than air so it won't just harmlessly float up and away (like hydrogen does) plus since it's a gas it mixes well with air plus it isn't as picky about stochiometric ratio as gasoline is.

Re:sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

H2 also has a nice habit of dissolving in H20, and disassociating to make H3O+, given any happy electron scavaging elements near bye (Sulfur, Halogens -- heck, NOx (a product of combustion in our wonderful nitrogen rich atmosphere) works great, too.)

It's D. fucking C.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the naturally-occuring death rate goes down after the explosion.

Won't this suck out our atmosphere?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reaction is 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O, turning our precious air into vulgar water.

Re:Won't this suck out our atmosphere?

[Anonymous Coward]

if they get the hydrogen from water, there will be plenty of oxygen leaving the plants where it is extracted... i'm guessing a lot of people will move closer to these plants so that they can breathe.

Slashdot abuses Wikipedia!

[Xpilot]

Ok, who's the troll who defaced the wikipedia entry by replacing it with some stupid shit? This place has hit a new low.

Re:Slashdot abuses Wikipedia!

[Anonymous Coward]

Low, yes, but there's nothing new about it. This sort of crap happens whenever a Wikipedia article is linked to on Slashdot.

Re:Slashdot abuses Wikipedia!

[Anonymous Coward]

Some wannabe who can't hack anything tough, I suppose. Looks like GNAA-level of ability.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The hydrogen burned, it did not explode.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

ex plode Pronunciation Key (k-spld)
v. ex plod ed, ex plod ing, ex plodes
v. intr.

1. To release mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy by the sudden production of gases in a confined space: The bomb exploded.
2. To burst violently as a result of internal pressure.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly... and whether or not the gas was in a confined space is what's under debate. It's kind of confined in the zeppelin, but no where near the pressure you'd find in your average holding tank on the ground.

It was a rapid combustion in so much that it happened rather quickly, but can it be defined as violent?

Help It's a hydrogen bomb!

[samberdoo]

The same ignorant folks who still believe Sadaam ordered the 9/11 attacks probably will confuse hydrogen fuel with a fusion bomb.

Re:Hydrogen

[ivan256]

How could they put this 50 yards away from a school?

Probably with a backhoe, a dump truck, a steamroller....

Seriously though, are you implying that it's bad to have this near a school without giving any credible reasoning. Why don't you compare and contrast for us the merits of the hydrogen fuel station 50 yards away from the school with what's likely the natural gas line and furnace that likely runs driectly to and resides inside the school?

Ballard's factory blew up because of hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

The challenger explosion and Hindenburg are examples of how dangerous hydrogen is. Just wait until that filling station goes up in a fireball!

What you're all forgetting

[briancnorton]

These people live in the murder capital of the world and they're worried about the most abundant substance in the universe. Sound's like DC to me.

Re:What you're all forgetting

[srock2588]

If in fact somehow the tank blows a huge hole in DC, hell I could here that from house, this is the only possible quote from any part of the DC Legislature: "Bitch set me up." - Former Mayor, incoming Councilmen Marion Barry http://www.aaaugh.com/jokes/marion_barry.html

So would this help?

[FerretFrottage]

1. Put the tank(s) in a giant vacuum (just be careful when entering and leaving and NO marshmellows allowed within 100m of the tanks)

2. Remove all the O2 from the DC area (mostly likely already in progress based on things we've seen coming from congress and the house...they are breathing something, but I doubt it's just air)

Re:So would this help?

[MonkeyCookie]

...they are breathing something, but I doubt it's just air

Sometimes I wonder if all the legislators aren't just having a giant marijuana smokeout in the Capitol.

"Hey man, wouldn't it be cool to pass this crazy law?"

"Yeah man! That would be totally awesome! Now pass the bong."

"This stuff is really good, almost as good as the stuff we were smoking at time Bush got us all baked before we voted to go to war with Iraq. That Texas "sagebrush" that he's always harvesting is some quality stuff. Good times."

Re:So would this help?

[Abnormal Coward]

3. Profit !

Re:So would this help?

[Al Dimond]

Well they might be smoking marijuana, but... when the people in DC got a ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana, congress did some black magic to prevent the vote from ever being counted, so that it could not pass.

So proabably not.

Re:So would this help?

[solodex2151]

You can't put them in a vacuum without serious redesign. Keep in mind that in order to store suitable quantities of hydrogen, the tanks are pressurized to several THOUSAND psi. Taking away a stabilizing pressure that is pushing back, like the atmosphere is trouble, big trouble. Not to mention that it is to costly for a proposed safety item that does no good.

Re:So would this help?

[Kehvarl]

A better idea than vacuum would be to put the hydrogen containment vessels inside another containment vessen and pump the gap between them with a non-reactive gas (helium for example). This way you can maintain the support of atmospheric pressure, and still have a margin of safety if the inner tank starts to leak.

Or just design the tanks so they could not possibly leak, ever. (not that I thik this would really work)

Re:So would this help?

[Anonymous Coward]

You *do* realize that psi is actually relative to the external atmospheric pressure, right?

Take away the atmospheric pressure around a 3000psi vessel, and the effective pressure the tank would have to be able to withstand (since it no longer has the additional support of atmospheric pressure) would go up by about 1% or so (I don't remember typical atmospheric pressure off-hand). I think that's probably *WELL* within the saftey margin for such a tank.

No argument with your last point, though. It would be too costly for a saftey measure that didn't do anything useful.

Even better

[Anonymous Coward]

H2 has to be better than H!

Re:Even better

[John Courtland]

Tell that to GM :)

I get the hindenberg reference

[Anonymous Coward]

These must be VW minivans.

Folks are more afraid of hydrogen

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

MANY people have noted that the potential in a tank (or set of tanks) of gasoline is much worse than the potential in a tank of hydrogen. You're missing the point.

The average Joe has never heard of a "gasoline bomb" but she/he has certain heard of a "hydrogen bomb"

ps: This also applies to the irrational fear of "nuclear power plants" and the comfort with the far-more-deadly "coal power plants"

--

Why hydrogen makes sense

[xutopia]

Yes hydrogen has to be produced, yes it isn't the most efficient. However it does pack more energy than a conventional battery. I think this fact alone should be mentionned as to why hydrogen is of interest.

Sure right now the hydrogen is most likely produced by some polluting ways. Eventually though we'll have a complete framework that doesn't depend on burning anything to get hydrogen/electricity.

One step at a time

[hey]

Step one: Hydrogen buring cars don't polute. Next step: make the hydrogen in a green way. Or is it better to just do nothing.

Re:One step at a time

[Deadstick]

No, it's better for you to invent a green way of making hydrogen. Be sure to donate one of your many millions to /.

rj

6 minutes on slashdot.....

[zippity8]

Looks like we've got a few bored people in the past few minutes making use of the ability to modify a wiki entry.

Here's the last GOOD copy that I found in the history-- Hindenberg disaster , not that the majority of you don't know what it is anyways.

Shell is smart

[hsmith]

The first to innovate the fuel market with the next generation fuel and become the donimant producer WILL be king. If they get in first and pump enough cash into it, it WILL pay off.

Re:Shell is smart

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not the first to open hydrogen fueling stations (with many other examples to be found if you search for them). And based on the estimate in the article of 2015 to 2025, they don't look like they're pursuing hydrogen fuel very aggressively either. My bet is that somebody else will come along and either blow them out of the water, or force them to pick up the pace.

Re:Shell is smart

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we cut off user registrations after 800,000. This douche is a case in point.

Remove Wikipedia link

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up with the stupid link to Wikipedia that says

The Gay Nigger Association of America, or GNAA, is a self-aggrandizing troll organization which primarily targets Internet communities in an effort to disrupt their normal activities. Members have flooded weblogs, produced shock sites, prank-called technical support phone lines, as well as flooded, mass-invited, and trolled IRC and Soulseek channels. GNAA members are generally perceived as nuisances by the communities they attack, who frequently respond with technological and social anti-trolling measures (such as comment moderation) to limit future disruption caused by trolling.

Nice WikipediA link....

[Andorion]

"Hindenburg disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
hey fu slashdot"

Good job.

Hindenburg had survivors

[amorsen]

Only 35 out of 97 people aboard died. Most crashes involving heavier-than-air aircraft kill everyone aboard.

Re:Hindenburg had survivors

[dj51d]

Most crashes involving heavier-than-air aircraft kill everyone aboard.

Actually if you look at the accident reports most crashes of heaver-than-air aircraft kill none onboard

Re:Hindenburg had survivors

[Anonymous Coward]

Not remotely close to being correct on the heavier than air side. Most crashes of heavier than air aircraft kill nobody. Of the fatal accidents, most do not kill most people aboard. Full details available at the NTSB site - down to detailed reports of each accident.

Re:Hindenburg had survivors

[amorsen]

However those accident reports include stuff like this:

"AMERICAN AIRLINES, AAL-149, A BOEING B-738 ACFT, DECLARED A MEDICAL EMERGENCY AFTER A CREW MEMBER EXPERIENCED A SEIZURE, THE ACFT DIVERTED AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO"

I don't think that counts as a crash.

this line is included to pacify the lameness filter. let us hope it works, or i shall have to inflict more.

Re:Hindenburg had survivors

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just not true. Most are relatively expensive but with few deaths.

Actually gasoline is less explosive...

[sczimme]

Like a tank of gasoline isn't anymore explosive than hydrogen?

Liquid gasoline/petrol is indeed less explosive than hydrogen: the gasoline must evaporate before it becomes explosive. Liquid gasoline will burn but IIRC only the gasoline vapors will explode. In most cases hydrogen is already gaseous and thus more ready to explode/burn.

Because of this a partially-empty gasoline tank is more dangerous than a completely full tank: the full tank has no air space to support evaporation (assuming the tank is sealed/capped).

Re:Actually gasoline is less explosive...

[Control Group]

Liquid gasoline doesn't even burn. You can only have combustion with gasoline vapor. Any gasoline "explosions" are a matter of gasoline vapor remaining relatively concentrated while mixing with the air for a period prior to ignition.

You can test this yourself with a coffee can and some gasoline: fill the coffee can halfway with gasoline, wait around a few minutes, then toss a lit match in (from a little distance). You'll get a moment of blue flame and a *fwoomp*, then nothing.

Then repeat the test, but fill the coffee can full and throw the match in right away: you'll just put the match out.

Anecdotally, they had this problem when filming Payback: there's a seen where Gibson lights a rivulet of gasoline from a punctured fuel line by dropping a lit cigarette into it: on screen, you see the trail of flame race towards the car, then the huge detonation when it reaches the tank. In reality, they tried using gasoline, and it just kept putting out the cigarette. They ended up having to use rubber cement.

More anecdotally (and conversely): you have to be careful with your standard gasoline cannisters. A friend of mine had a two-gallon cannister half full of gasoline, with the spout open and the cap off. In this case, a cigarette (I don't remember whose) lit the fumes outside the spout, and we had a sustained torch for several minutes (I'm guessing the flame drew vacuum, pulling air through the open cap into the half-full cannister, evaporating the gasoline and mixing with it to continue the fire, but I don't actually know).

Also interestingly, you can drink gasoline with no ill effects. Just don't breathe the vapor for longer than you can help. ;)

Would this stop fires at pumping stations

[Nemesis099]

First off I'm not sure if it is true or not that you can cause a fire at a gas station by getting in and out of your car and then touching the gas pump first.

If that is true I have to ask would having hydrogen pumped into a car instead of gas stop this or would it make it worse? Would it explode but then blow itself out?

I think these are some questions that need to be answered if the first asumption is true.

Re:Would this stop fires at pumping stations

[jridley]

Yes, you can create a static spark and ignite the gasoline vapors coming from the filling port.

This is usually not a huge deal. Hitting the emergency cutoff will usually stop the fire (you do find the emergency cutoff while fueling, right?), because it's only the vapor burning, and it needs a good mix of vapor and air (O2) to burn well. The vapor in the tank will not burn because there's just not enough O2 in there. So the flame will stop at the filler.

The problem is, most people freak out and grab the nozzle and yank it out of their tank. At that point they're holding a flamethrower, pumping burning gasoline all over the ground, their car, the pump, themselves, etc. This is where the big hurt comes from.

Hydrogen pumps are not going to leak fumes like gas pumps do, since they'll by necessity be sealed; what your pumping is a gas, so you'll have lock down pressure fittings at the pumps, just like the compressed natural gas fittings that are already at some filling stations.

So I think they will be much less likely to ignite, and if it does and some idiot takes the nozzle off (which is harder to do, you have to unscrew it instead of just pulling), as soon as you unscrew the fitting, both the tank and the fill nozzle have valves that will close.

Even if it did ignite and it did have a leak, you've got a flame that goes out and up. Drop on the ground and you're pretty much out of the way of the flame and can crawl/roll away from it. In contrast, get a gasoline fire, you're fscked. There's burning gasoline on the ground, and you're standing in it. Say hello to months of pain in the hospital, if you don't go straight to the morgue.

Also, there's no O2 in the tank or in the fill system. So those can't explode. Worst case is that you have a leak that ignites, giving you a jet of flame where the leak is. The flame can't propagate into the tank (no O2). I have seen people put propane camping tanks next to flares and shoot them from a distance. They don't explode, you just get a big gout of flame coming out of the side of the tank, and if the tank isn't strapped to something, it flies around for a second.

In short, I'd MUCH rather be trapped in a car with a hydrogen leak than one with a gasoline leak.

Scientific Illiteracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see evidence of scientific illiteracy at slashdot, the site ain't what it used to be. Reminds me of the idiotic chain email letter going around comparing butter to the evils of margarine. "Margarine is only one hydrogen atom away from plastic!!"

Given the choice, this Anonymous Coward would surely choose to be standing in proximity to a hydrogen explosion than a similar quantity of gasoline.

hydrogen somewhat benificial

[Anonymous Coward]

The main downer with hydrogen is that you have to use fuel to create it. So, use coal, gas etc to make hydrogen. There might be some energy savings from using an electric motor. But overall there is a net enrgy loss. It really depends on how efficiently the hydrogen is made. If the hydrogen is made super efficiently without energy loss then it might be a winner.

The benifit I see is getting the fossil fuel out of the car. So, we have an intermediate fuel called hydrogen. When the oil runs out then create hydrogen from some other means like coal etc. Thus, when oil runs out the car infrastructure is not lost. When Saudi Arabia runs out you wont be forced to buy a new car.

Maybe the realistic scenerio is the gasoline fuel cell. The key to this one is the car would use an electric motor. A combustion engine only harneses about 20% of the power. An electric motor might be triple as efficient. So, cars might save a bit of energy. The downside being, again, you have fossil fuel in the automotive infratructure.

MOd pARenT dOWn

[Anonymous Coward]

No seriously, this dipshit is karma whoring for those who won't RTFA or the link. You've contributed nothing to the commentary or discussion of the submission.

Enjoy your 250 megs at fireang3l@hotmail.com.

"What is there to worry about?"

[Minwee]

What, is the hydrogen tank going to be painted with rocket fuel or something?

It wasn't the hydrogen that started that fire, and it's nowhere near as dangerous as the article summary is implying it is.

Of course, this is Slashdot. Learning from history isn't nearly as much fun as repeating its mistakes.

Hydrogen or LPG?

[MobileC]

What's the difference between having a large pressurised tank of hydrogen and having a large pressurised tank of LPG?

Where does you fuel come from?

[Zeal17]

The real question is where does the Hydrogen come from? The easiest way is to use electrolosis on water, which requires electricity, which comes from the coal plant down the street. None of the alternate fueled cars (with the possible exception of solar powered cars) will really be a solution until the power plants actually are better.

Re:Where does you fuel come from?

[EvanED]

I've heard the most cost-effective way is from hydrocarbins (read: oil). Anyone want to clarify?

Re:Where does you fuel come from?

[shawb]

There is also Biodiesel which would be quite adept at moving our vehicles in a more eco-friendly manner.

The major problem that I have seen mentioned about biodiesel is the fertilizer used to grow the corn (or other oily crop) is usually derived from natural gas.

This problem could be mitigated by using different farming techniques and finding alternative sources of fertilizer.

Or even designing city spaces in such a way to take advantage of more efficient machines. We'll assume a baseline of the Volkswagen Passat TDI"> which gets approximately 38 MPG from diesel fuel, which would be comparable to the mileage from biodiesel.

A 180 pound person will use about walking at 4.5 miles per hour. That is the number of calories in one Tablespoon of corn oil, the main constituent of biodiesel. Considering there are 256 teaspoons per gallon, that comes up with an efficiency of 256 miles per gallon of corn oil. The human body can also use much more tasty fuels than drinking pure corn oil, although they might have lower energy densities and higer prices. And then walking places will actually bring the efficiency up as weight goes down!

Re:Where does you fuel come from?

[WhiplashII]

It all comes down to efficiency. A normal car gets maybe 10-15% of the energy of the fuel. A hydrogen car (using a fuel cell) gets 80-90% of the energy. Steam reforming oil to make hydrogen is 70-90% efficient. That means that oil-gas-car is 10-15% efficient, while oil-hydrogen-car is 56-81% efficient. Essentially, you use a LOT less oil (up to 1/8 normal usage) if you convert it to hydrogen frist. (ICE just cannot get to a fuel cell's efficiency)

The problem is that fuel cells are expensive. The hope is that they will be cheaper when mass produced.

Re:Where does you fuel come from?

[shawb]

Grr... Why is the submit button so close tbe preview button.

There is also Biodiesel which would be quite adept at moving our vehicles in a more eco-friendly manner.

The major problem that I have seen mentioned about biodiesel is the fertilizer used to grow corn (or other oily crop) is usually derived from natural gas.

This problem could be mitigated by using different farming techniques and finding alternative sources of fertilizer.

Designing city spaces in such a way to take advantage of more efficient machines could have a much greater impact:

Assume a baseline of the Volkswagen Passat TDI which gets approximately 38 MPG from diesel fuel, which would be comparable to the mileage from biodiesel.

A 180 pound person will use about 120 calories per mile walking at 4.5 miles per hour. That is the number of calories in one Tablespoon of corn oil, the main constituent of biodiesel. Considering there are 256 teaspoons per gallon, that comes up with an efficiency of 256 miles per gallon of corn oil, or greater than six times the efficiency of the Passat TDI (which is a fairly efficient vehicle already.)

The human body can also use much more tasty fuels than drinking pure corn oil, although they might have lower energy densities and higer prices. Additionaly, walking places will actually bring the efficiency up as weight goes down! Other side effects would be reduced stress, lower health and auto insurance premiums, strengthened immune system, and a body that is not repulsive to the opposite sex.

If the commuter needs higher speeds, they can get on a bicycle and increase their speed while actually increasing efficiency to about 912 miles per gallon at 15 miles per hour, nearly thirty times the efficiency of that Passat.

Okay, I've convinced myself. I'm gonna go put on some shoes and take a walk now.

Re:Where does you fuel come from?

[Rotund Prickpull]

... finding alternative [google.com] sources of fertilizer.

Michael Sims produces the oldest of the alternatives in enormous quantities.

Chain Reaction

[sward]

Just keep Keanu Reeves away from the station and it'll be fine [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115857/].

So

[Anonymous Coward]

Which third-world shithole will we invade to "liberate" their hydrogen supply?

Do you mean flammable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Volatile means how easily something transitions to a gaseous state, not how reactive or flammable it is. Hydrogen is EXTREMELY volatile, as it will transition to a gaseous state as soon as it is exposed to atmospheric pressure.

Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman?

[Enigma_Man]

If my information is correct, most hydrogen is generated through breakdown of other substances (primarily water) by electricity.

Why not just cut out the middle man and go direct to electric power? It seems like you're adding in so many steps (each with its own losses in energy due to inefficiencies in energy transformation) that are completely unnecessary. Electric energy could go directly from a Nuclear/Solar/Wind plant into a battery/capacitor bank, and then out the battery into the electric motor. With hydrogen, you've got the electricity from the plant, which "turns into" hydrogen, which is compressed, which is burned and physically pushes on pistons or rotors or turbines, and then turns back into water. There are going to be tons more losses with the hydrogen route.

I understand that it's difficult to switch from one technology (gasoline) to another (electricity) without some intermediate steps (alternative fuel) to get the idiot masses used to the idea of doing things differently, but I just don't understand why so little research on batteries and electric motor technology. Eventually, it's going to be the only way to go; there isn't much for fossil fuels or water to break into hydrogen in space.

-Jesse

Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman?

[FriedTurkey]

Hydrogen stores the energy in a condensed form. Direct electricity requires batteries with the capacity that is not yet invented. Also a battery to recharge in a convenient amount of time to "fill up" needs to be developed. If I am doing a cross country trip, I can't stop for 5 hours to "fill up" with electricity.

Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman?

[Vegeta99]

OK, you miss the big reason.

Go get a hydrogen bottle refilled. How long did that take you? How much energy is now stored in that bottle?

Go recharge a battery. How long did that take you? How much energy is stored in that battery?

I can't plug a battery into a charger, go inside, get a coffee, pay for the recharge, and take off and go any significant amount of distance. I can with gas, and I can with hydrogen, LNG, or any other alternative fuel.

Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman?

[elal1862]

If my information is correct - Which isn't...
Why not just cut out the middle man and go direct to electric power? (...) Electric energy could go directly from a Nuclear/Solar/Wind plant into a battery/capacitor bank
Hint: Batteries are grossly inefficient beasts.
It takes shitloads of energy to produce one, they have an extremely short lifespan and need to be processed at the end, since they're full of heavy metals and cautic chemicals.
During this short lifespan, they have a pathetic power/weight ratio and an effeciency (1.6 joule in = 1 joule out)
but I just don't understand why so little research on batteries - They're an inherently inefficient design. Get over it. Lots of effort required with meagre returns here...
and electric motor technology - It's a pretty mature technology now. The real problem is the electric suppy, here!

Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman?

[huge colin]

I think the short answer is: hydrogen gas storage methods (i.e., tanks) are better than electric power storage methods (batteries).

Batteries are heavy and stupid, but gas is light.

--Colin

Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman?

[Anonymous Coward]

because of the ineffenciency, weight and cost of lead acid batteries... that is why direct electric isn't used.

Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman?

[Enigma_Man]

Good replies everybody. I hadn't thought it through far enough. I have been reading about creating an electric car lately, and battery technology is _really_ crappy right now, but there are some things on the horizon that address each one of these issues. I guess I'm just wishing for more research into batteries than extending the use of conventional explosion+surface to push on = wheels go 'round.

From what I understand, there are new sulfur-based batteries that can be recharged nearly as fast as you can dump power into them that are also fairly lightweight and have a high energy per weight and volume density. You would be able to recharge your batteries at any place power is available in a few minutes (or a few seconds, if we had specific "power stations" that could deliver a lot more current than standard household). Unfortunately they are in the lab stages of development right now, and would be prohibitively expensive to get out into the real world.

Yo Colin!
-Jesse

Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman?

[levin]

I understand that it's difficult to switch from one technology (gasoline) to another (electricity) without some intermediate steps (alternative fuel) to get the idiot masses used to the idea of doing things differently.

Actually, intermediate steps are there less for the idiot masses and more for the greedy asses. Oil companies get pissed off when people try and undermine their business overnight and, frankly, oil companies pull a lot of weight with a lot of people.

Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman?

[kesuki]

Well, there are a lot of reasons, weight... convenience, recharge time... and electric vehicle system would require some sort of modular battery system, in order for people to be able to 'refuel' as quickly as with gasoline or hydrogen fuel or ethanol fuel...
as far as space goes, there are planet in our system where hydrogen is so plentiful that you don't even need to extract it from water...

Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman?

[srock2588]

Oil Companies are the ones making all this shit. In fact, I would argue there are no 'oil companies' only energy companies. An energy company will supply its customers with energy however they can at the highest profit, wether it be oil, hydrogen, solar, or cold fusion (hahahah). Blind hatred for an industry makes no sense at all.

Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman?

[smithmc]

Why not just cut out the middle man and go direct to electric power?

Two words: battery technology?

Not Me Man

[Greyfox]

My local electric company has an option you can pick for alternate energy sources. So I get all MY power from burning orphans!

Re:Not Me Man

[tbone1]

My local electric company has an option you can pick for alternate energy sources. So I get all MY power from burning orphans!

That is sick! They are far too tasty to be wasted as a fuel, particularly when spotted owl nests burn so much hotter.

Re:Not Me Man

[Charcharodon]

I get mine from the Humane Society. They don't let those 300,000 puppies and kitties they kill every year go to waste.

Did you know at one point their charter covered the care and disposal of orphans of the human variety too?

Exaggeration

[kylegordon]

The Hindenburgs main problem was the chemicals used on the skin of the vessel. Don't be a fscking alarmist. If you're going to write a Slashdot article you could at least make an attempt at a decent job.

Re:Exaggeration

[Anonymous Coward]

Hindenburg's skin (aluminum paint coated fabric) burned and ignited the massive hydrogen storage bags. The aluminum frame didn't twist and melt because of the thin skin burning, it melted from the huge hydrogen fire.

Hydrogen is dangerous stuff because its a gas. When a car burns for example, the energy released by gasoline is done over a period of time because only a tiny fraction of gasoline volume is exposed to oxygen compared to hydrogen gas which explodes rather than burn, especially under pressure.

Hindenburg used no pressure which is why the fire lasted longer than an explosion from a ruptured pressurized hydrogen tank, but still a huge fireball rose within seconds.

Hydrogen in mass public distributuion will kill people, lots of people!

Re:Exaggeration

[narcc]

Hydrogen in mass public distributuion will kill people, lots of people!

So what's the problem?

Approx figures for "green hydrogen"

[lxt]

According to The Guardian (a UK paper, which had an interesting article today on the same topic), "green" hydrogen (hydrogen produced from bio-mass etc, instead of fossil fuels), would be between $10 - $20 per gallon of petrol equivalent...

Re:Approx figures for "green hydrogen"

[anagama]

Studies show that living fast and dirty is cheaper overall. Living to be 80 or 90 will cost much much more than burning out in your 20's. Consequently, the wisest course of action is for people to think only about their immediate pleasure and have no concern for the future. The cost of foresight is just too damn high.

Re:Approx figures for "green hydrogen"

[Virtex]

I would expect that advances in technology and manufacturing will lower the cost of "green" hydrogen in the future. On the other hand, I see no sign of gasoline ever coming down in price. It's only a matter of time before hydrogen becomes the less expensive choice. The only question is when that will happen.

Re:Approx figures for "green hydrogen"

[jclinux]

$10/gallon does seem like a lot... but think about this...
Petrol in london according to this article, , is 85p/litre.
Now if my conversions are correct, that's $1.57 per litre...
And to go from litres to US gallons, $5.94/gallon.
So is it really that bad, since its in its infancy and will eventually be made cheaper?

kaboom

[to_kallon]

where was the kaboom? there was sposed to be an earth shattering kaboom....

Re:kaboom

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, every time that i blew up some hydrogen, back in school, i thought that it sounded like a giant seal barking...

cost per mile?

[Anonymous Coward]

does anyone know how much hydrogen will save as far as how many miles per dollar of fuel?

Hydrogen is a nonsensical proposition

[rqqrtnb]

Don't be fooled. The Oil Junta loves to tell you that we must invest in hydrogen now.

Experts all agree that these investments are nonsensical, since hydrogen is not a transitional fuel, it's way too futuristic, and we must first go via biodiesel.

By proposing hydrogen NOW, oil criminals can go on with their business and tell us 20 years from now that the Hydrogen experiment failed.

Meanwhile, they refuse to develop REAL alternative fuels.

WE MUST EXPOSE THE FRAUD BEHIND THE HYDROGEN PROPOSITION.

OMG! HOW COULD THEY?!

[majid_aldo]

Terrorists will have access to hydrogen!!
Let's stop this!

NIMBY JERKS!

[rqqrtnb]

Hey stupid! A gas truck can explode near a school too!

Finally some hope that we can become free of the devil's blood (oil). Some hope that maybe even if it's 20 years from now we might see a balanced trade deficit (it wont happen as long as we import oil).

They could put one of these stations in my back yard and I would wash windows for free! Hooray lets get off the oil barrel!

It has to start somewhere

[t1nman33]

One of the big issues I think many people have with alternative fuels is the practicality. Sure, I might get 800 mpg with soy-o-line or whatever, but where am I gonna fill up at 2 a.m. on a Thursday?

D.C. was probably picked because we're very politically visible here, and if Shell really wants to make a serious push into alternative energy, it makes sense to put a filling station where government lawmakers can see the technology at work. If it works one place, it'll slowly trickle out into other metro areas, and eventually the rural regions. But it has to work here first.

As far as safety goes, I think there are more pressing issues in D.C. than one lousy hydrogen tank.

Wiki edit on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the page's history, it's being constantly vandalised. So much so that they've had to stop the ability to edit the page for a while. What the fuck is with it with some of the people who read /.? Childish fucks. People who desire to be bullies, were it not for any decent physical, intellectual and conversational abilities. No one in real life could possibly take being bullyied with these people seriously, so they need to take out their pathetic fury on easy web targets to prove their power. Mother fucking childish fucks.

Dirty fuels

[FooAtWFU]

(clean relative to the smog-plants we currently put in cars, it can still be pretty dirty stuff).

Coal may be "bad", gas may be worse... but you know what's really dirty? Burning wood.

Biodiesel is way better

[rqqrtnb]

Hydrogen is very unefficient. It takes huge amounts of energy to create it. If you want to replace all oil use for transportation in the UK, you need 500 nuclear power plants to produce the energy needed for hydrogen production.

It makes no sense.

Moreover, you need trillions for investments in infrastructure and storage.

Biodiesel is way cheaper, and doesn't need huge investments. That's why it is quickly becoming the preferred fuel in eco-conscious societies like the EU.

Re:Biodiesel is way better

[cakefool]

numbers from your ass mean nothing

If hydrogen is so dangerous...

[Zangief]

Why don't they use helium?!

Wait a minute, you mean that cold fusion doesn't exist?

--
Wiki de Ciencia Ficcion y Fantasia

Wiki edit on /. (formatting)

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the page's history, it's being constantly vandalised. So much so that they've had to stop the ability to edit the page for a while.

What the fuck is with it with some of the people who read Slashdot?

Childish fucks.

People who desire to be bullies, were it not for any decent physical, intellectual and conversational abilities. No one in real life could possibly take being bullyied with these people seriously, so they need to take out their pathetic fury on easy web targets to prove their power.

Mother fucking childish fucks.

three little words...

[aunchaki]

Oh come on, what is there to worry about?

"Oh, The Humanity!"

Can we keep this discussion clean

[rqqrtnb]

Can we at least try to keep this discussion clean of politics. Okay, let's get it all out of the way now.

• Gore invented Hydrogen
• We can get plenty of gas out of Michael Moore's fat Ass
• Bush wants hydrogen gas to fail so his oil buddies can get rich.
• Kerry was for hydrogen before voting against it.
• I am shaking in anger at hydrogen gas.

Well, not really

[tsqr]

> Flammable (or explosive) range is the range of vapor concentration that will burn or explode in the presence of a source of ignition. Below the range, there's not enough fuel in the mix to support ignition; above the range, there's not enough oxygen. The range (in percent) for hydrogen is 4 to 75; for gasoline, 1.4 to 7.6. While it's true that hydrogen won't hang around in puddles waiting to be burned, it's much more likely to be touched off in the first place.

L.U.S.T. problems

[Cade144]

Correct.
There is a thriving industry removing Underground Storage Tanks (USTs). Nifty lingage on the dangers of gasoline-USTs can be found here and here and here

What's cool is that LUST is the acronym for Leaking Underground Storage Tank.

Live near Boulder Colorado? See the active LUST sites near you!.

Pah to your Pah.

[Anonymous Coward]

> For one, pressurized petroleum products don't tend to ignite; hydrogen does. Petroleum products don't burn with a clear flame; hydrogen's is invisible, and much hotter.

So you want to say burning hydrogen is more dangerous than burning oil? This is true but does
not really matter.

>Petroleum products need to vaporize before they become a big explosion risk, and have to be mixed at the right ratios; hydrogen has a very wide range, is already gasseous, and tends to go off a lot faster.

First of all, when "petroleum" is mixed in the right ratio, like it is in every tank of a car,
there is no difference between them. (Some say petroleum is more explosive, but this is simply a matter of parameters). Beeing instantly gasseous
is an advantage together with beeing so lightweight, as it is away before it matters.

You do not want to have it burning (but you do not want to have any gas station burning). Given that firefighters might be trained to cope with burning liquid oil may give both a comparable risk.
(You may be able to see it, but I prefer things things I cannot see, if that are the things not comming nearer).

You do not want to cope with hydrogen in closed rooms, as there it is almost as dangerous as oil.

Also hydrogen is more dangerous when handled in the same materials like oil, as it is so tiny to leak out of things build for non-hydrogen. But so
is gasoline if sold in paper-coffe-cups.

I think the only real risk in the sorrounding of
a hydrogen filling station is not hot but cold:
If you get a leak anywhere, it will most probably not burn, explode or such, but simply freeze apart any humans extremeties to near to the leak.

If you still do no believe it, ask yourself a question: In a refinery or anything else coping
with oil, do you really think people would think
about oil or made from oil as dangerous? where they cope with it the whole day and know all of its behaviour? I think if they had not had hydrogen problems, your father would have told you water is much more dangerous than oil, as the only deaths there were due to wet floors.

Re:Pah to your Pah.

[Rei]

> First of all, when "petroleum" is mixed in the
> right ratio, like it is in every tank of a car

False. The optimal mixing ratio isn't achieved until fuel injection.

> If you get a leak anywhere, it will most
> probably not burn, explode or such, but simply
> freeze apart any human extremities near to the
> leak.

Wrong. A pinhole of pressurized hydrogen can cut a broomstick. A larger leak could be ignited to either strong deflagration or detonation by any significant spark in the area (unlike gasoline, which requires tiny particles and a proper mixing ratio)

> where they cope with it the whole day and know
> all of its behavior

They also cope with hydrogen as much. Cat cracking involves using hot catalysts and large amounts of hydrogen to split long chains of oil. Try again!

Re:Pah to your Pah.

[rpdillon]

Gosh Rei, you're really replying like mad.

Just a couple of things. Drop the "broomstick" thing. That has nothing to do with hydrogen any more than any other high pressure gas. Trust me. The broomstick trick is a classic in high pressure (600 or the old 1200 lb) steam plants in the Navy. I know because I worked in one.

Second, while I think you do in fact have your facts straight, I think your dad was right to be more worried about hydrogen mostly because petroleum products on the whole are very difficult to ignite. Gasoline comes off of the top of the column though, and it very high octane compared to other petroleum products, so it would be more dangerous from a flammability standpoint than other petroleum products (for example, those present in your dad's workplace).

You can put out matches in standing deisal fuel.

As for the issues of mixing ratios, I don't know much, but I gather that letting an amount of gasoline stand in an enclosed space will fill the space with gasoline vapors (gas has pretty high volatility, right?) which are directly ignitable. This results in those studies that find that driving with a full tank of gas is actually safer in case of accident than driving with a tank almost empty, because the empty tank has more room for the gasoline vapor/air mixture.

Re:Pah to your Pah.

[Rei]

I should have corrected people about the broomstick thing a while ago, but oh well - I'll do it now. It is *not* because it is just for highly pressurized gasses. For example, read NFPA 50A: Standard for Gaseous Hydrogen Systems at Consumer Sites". (NFPA = National Fire Prevention Agency; sorry, I can't find a copy of it online). Or perhaps read NASA's standards; they're pretty similar:

http://smad-ext.grc.nasa.gov/gso/manual/chapter_ 06 .pdf

Hmm... it looks like they've removed the old method in favor of optical sensors now. Well, at least during the Apollo days, they recommended either hay broomsticks or throwing sawdust in front of you, specifically for hydrogen *fires*. Not pressure leaks, but fires.

Still, you should at least scan over the regulations. There are a lot of risks to hydrogen that you might not think of (for example, how it pools under overhangs and ceilings; how buried H2 lines are banned because any leaks tend to penetrate into unpressurized lines above them (like sewers) and flow into unprepared buildings; how hydrogen pipes should be the topmost when being run overhead, because their leaks ignite easily and will burn through pipes above them; etc.

Re:Pah to your Pah.

[True Grit]

Here's a site talking about the use of a broomstick to detect a hydrogen fire.

I still don't understand what your're trying to argue here though, Rei. Ok, hydrogen is flamable, and may ignite easily under high pressure. However, you started out by claiming it was "explosive", and thats the part where you still haven't made any sense.

If high-pressure hydrogen is so explosive, why is don't these tanks that NASA used to check with a broomstick explode? In fact, the higher the pressure, the less likely an explosion is possible, because the oxygen from the air can't get into the tank to mix with the rest of the hydrogen, only the hydrogen coming out of the leak could possibly explode, except that its already burning, there is no time for mixing large amounts of oxygen with large amounts of hydrogen to create the situation where a powerful explosion is even possible.

You haven't responded to the links given showing that hydrogen cars are much less likely to be dangerous because the hydrogen comes out fast, goes up fast, and burns fast. Flamable, yes, explosive, no. I've seen the videos of those demonstrations before. Gasoline is far more dangerous because it will stick around and continue to burn for awhile, long after the hydrogen has all burned up and/or dissipated.

So which argument are you making? That hydrogen is "dangerous" because its so flamable? Or hydrogen is dangerous because its so explosive? If its the former, then I won't argue because I don't see the point, lots of things we use today are flamable, but if its the latter, then you still haven't made a case for that yet.

Re:Pah to your Pah.

[Rei]

Thank you for backing me up about the broomstick. Now we're going back to the ability of hydrogen to do detonations as opposed to deflagrations in ordinary air? Lets spend around 60 seconds on google.

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS/browse.p l? 2002/CR-2002-211889.html
http://www.ubka.uni-karl sruhe.de/cgi-bin/psview?do cument=/fzk/6584&search=/fzk/6584
http://www.cfdr eview.com/application/04/01/05/1557 231.shtml

Gee, that was hard, now wasn't it?

If you've read anything about DTD transitions on hydrogen, you'd be well aware that deflagrations progress to detonations faster the greater the pressure is. Consequently, high pressure hydrogen is a much greater detonation risk.

However, that isn't the only way to cause a detonation. While high pressure hydrogen has a shorter DTD (Deflagration To Detonation) transition time, low pressure hydrogen can have a DTD transition if it has expanded to a large enough area. Furthermore, combustion need never exist in the deflagration stage at all; the source of ignition can have enough energy to start detonation immediately. I suggest you read more about DTD transitions in the context of pulse detonation engines to get some more background on the subject.

You keep repeating the faulty "goes up" argument for hydrogen safety. If you'd read the NASA doc on how to handle hydrogen, you'd realize that the fact that it rises can be a greater risk factor; it tends to concentrate in overhangs and room ceilings. I've responded to this several times, and it's one of the reasons I provided the NASA link.

Once again, I'll reiterate, in response to your "Gasoline is far more dangerous because it wil stick around" - Fires That Stick Around Aren't Dangerous. There's a reason that we drop bombs full of materials that detonate, instead of ones that deflagrate. Fast combustion is far more dangerous to human life than slow combustion.

Re:Pah to your Pah.

[True Grit]

Your first two links don't work, and the third one is about a hydrogen/air inflated safety bags, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we're talking about, since that hydrogen is deliberately mixed with air.

The rest of your post is goobly-gook. DTD transitions theories are interesting but I'm more interested in real world proof. You still haven't answered the obvious question: If hydrogen is as explosive as you say, why don't all those NASA tanks explode? If the danger of explosion is so real, why would NASA allow its personnel to get really close and use a broomstick for fire/leak detection? Why doesn't all these experimental cars explode intead of just the hydrogen burning off fast? Theories are only interesting if they explain real world events. Where are all of the pure-hydrogen explosions you claim should be happening?

Fires That Stick Around Aren't Dangerous

Long burning fires are more dangerous, because they can ignite other things.

And its not only because hydrogen goes up fast, it does that because it is so much lighter than the air, so not only does it go up but it expands and dissipates rapidly too. You would need an air-tight compartment to keep the hydrogen from spreading, but obviously thats not what we're talking about with hydrogen cars. The only air tight compartments in such a vehicle is possibly the vehicle's cabin, where the hydrogen isn't stored anyway, and the hydrogen container itself, and thats what we're assuming has a leak.

There's a reason that we drop bombs full of materials that detonate,

Nice attempt at a segue, but you still haven't shown hydrogen is as dangerous as a bomb yet.

Forgot Steps 6 & 7

[WingNut7]

1. Stand-alone projects with restricted access (like depots for hydrogen-fueled buses)
2. Second generation sites, with public access, but separate from existing gasoline stations (e.g. the facility Shell opened in Iceland in April, 2003 which supplies hydrogen made from water to three city buses)
3. Fully integrated fuel stations (traditional fuels and hydrogen)
4. Within the next five years, mini-network Lighthouse Projects (semi-commercial, public-private partnerships involving multiple energy companies, governments, and fleets of 100 or more vehicles)
5. 2010-2020 connecting the mini-networks with corridors and filling in the white spaces

6. ???
7. Profit!

Right but

[einhverfr]

The Hydrogen is lighter than air, so you get a huge explosion in mid air. Yes, this is dangerous, but nowhere near as dangerous as being *in* a Fuel-Air explosion by, say, Gasolene (which is heavier than air and so it hugs the ground, where, coincidentally, we tend to be).

My question, however, is how do you detect a leak? Do they add bad-smelling chemicals to the hydrogen (like, say, hygrogen sulfide)? It seems that this is somewhat important when you are dealing with hazardous gasses.

Also, I should mention that we do have a much more dangerous pressurized gas-- propane-- available at a variety of locations. Propane is also heavier than air, but it is also a gas and pressurized.

Re:Right but

[Rei]

That's not a realistic scenario. Hydrogen explosions occur at the time of leak. Why do people keep invisioning some floating cloud of hydrogen?

Gasoline explosions in non-controlled circumstances are incredibly difficult to occur. Hydrogen explosions are not, by any stretch. That's the only thing that matters.

Re:Right but

[TheClassic]

I doubt they would want to add hydrogen sulfide (or any other impurity for that matter) as it would cause more pollution, including acid rain.

Re:Right but

[Christopher Thomas]

Gasoline explosions in non-controlled circumstances are incredibly difficult to occur. Hydrogen explosions are not, by any stretch. That's the only thing that matters.

It's a lot easier to get gasoline vapours or leaked _propane_ pooling where it can ignite. Hydrogen goes straight up, _fast_, if the leak is outdoors. If the leak is indoors, it still dissipates quickly - most substances are permeable to hydrogen, to the point where it's hard to contain for any length of time when you _want_ to.

Realistically, a hydrogen leak would produce a torch at the leak point, and not much else. A propane leak would produce a ground-level sea of fire.

Re:Right but

[einhverfr]

Gasoline explosions in non-controlled circumstances are incredibly difficult to occur. Hydrogen explosions are not, by any stretch. That's the only thing that matters.

What about propane? I think it is likely to be much more dangerous than hydrogen. You have more potential energy/L and you have something which is heavier than air.

That's not a realistic scenario. Hydrogen explosions occur at the time of leak. Why do people keep invisioning some floating cloud of hydrogen?

Right-- they can't occur much after the leak because the hydrogen will dissipate *upwards* and away from possible sources of ignition. Gasolene on the other hand, has been known to explode in poorly maintained gas stations (I am recalling on in Africa). Not common but has been known to occur.

Probably neither Hydrogen nor Gasolene is likely to be anywhere near as dangerous as Propane.

Propane is a near-perfect explosive gas for disasters-- it is explosive, heavier-than-air (which means that in the case of a leak, it will dissipate but collect in low-lying areas, ditches, etc). A propane leak could allow a *much* larger amount of gas to accumulate for an explosion in most circumstances and lead to *much* more damage than hydrogen because of its weight.

Look, for example, at the Hindenburg. When it caught fire, where did the hydrogen go? Up and away from the craft. Remember that 2/3 of the people on board the Hindinburg survived, and falling was a much bigger cause of injury and death than burns were.

I have known of several other cases of gas explosions (most due to human error such as using it to clean electric motors in the vacinity of where they would be used again) which have occured near where I have lived at the time. I have also played extensively with small quantities of hydrogen (and set off a few explosions). I have found that in general, hydrogen is far more difficult to get to explode than may people think precisely because it dissipates upward.

Re:Right but

[Rei]

"It's a lot easier to get gasoline vapours ... pooling where they can ignite"

No, it isn't.

When you get home today (if you're not already home), pour a basin full of gasoline. Put any sort of simple container you want around it. If you can get it to explode without extensive effort or a situation unlikely to occur in the real world, I'll bake you a dozen cookies and mail them.

Re:Right but

[Ralph Wiggam]

Natural gas companies add a sulfur compound, mercaptan, to create the "gas" smell. I've never heard of that being a pollution problem.

Mercaptan can be detected by humans at amazingly low concentrations thanks to our evolutionary aversion to rotting things.

-B

Re:Right but

[Rei]

Propane dissipates laterally, and requires more precise stochastic ratios than hydrogen. It also autoignites much less readily. So, at best, I'd put it "as dangerous or less" than hydrogen.

> Look, for example, at the Hindenburg.

Why should we look at a relatively unpressurized unoxygenated mass of hydrogen with a horrible surface area to volume ratio? That's completely inapplicable.

> I have played extensively with small quantities of hydrogen ... under hundreds of atmospheres of pressure?

Re:Right but

[einhverfr]

My experiments with hydrogen (playing around with Mg and acetic acid) were probably relatively interesting in that in a couple of instances, I actually got a system where I could have a pressurized plume. My experience was that it was *very* difficult to get it to explode. Indeed the only two times when I was able to get it to explode were:

1) capturing the H2 in a soap foam, oxygenating a secontion of it by aerating ot and then igniting it. This has no relevance to this type of article and

2) A pressurized plume of hydrogen will usually ignite. It disipates up, and even if ignited close to the point of contact, will simply provide a "plume of blue flame" rising upwards. Now, I decided to add an assembly to my torch to mix air with the hydrogen, and again, I got a plume of flame. No explosion. Only when ignited *in* the aeration assemply could I get an explosion. I think that this is relevant here because you would have to have a massive leak combined with very special circumstances in order to get an explosion.

I would think that, like gasolene, it is more likely to pose an explosion hazard in a car than in a station. I would think, however, that a leak in a car, even in an enclosed space, would not provide much hazard of a large explosion (gasolene can).

Re:Right but

[Twanfox]

The hindenburg is a horrible example to use for this. For two reasons:

1) It was airborn and easily vented in huge quantities should the whole fragile structure of the balloon rupture (similar to how it did). People did survive, but when the balloon ruptured, it opened gaps larger than would happen in surface-based tanks. It was unlikely the balloon was under as much pressure as surface tanks would be either.

2) The outer layer of the zeplin was extremely poorly designed, to the point that (if my info is correct), it was a latent form of Thermite, a highly flamable substance.

Put those two together and that aircraft was a disaster waiting to happen. Besides, as I recall, it was something like static discharge or lightning that touched off the explosion, and even then it wasn't really an explosion but more of a fast intense burn, starting on the skin of the balloon and using what hydrogen didn't escape to further fuel the fire.

Both those conditions make the comparison between the Hindenburg and a hydrogen fuel station a far reach for similarity.

Re:Right but

[Anonymous Coward]

"our evolutionary aversion to rotting things"
Except for homos who zoom in on the ONE place where I keep my rotting things and want to stick their wee-wee in it.

Re:Right but

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, think of farts. Think of all the farts that have been farted in the history of the world. If you think that's a bit extreme think of all the farts that got farted just last week. If gas stays in a homogenous cloud, why aren't we all constantly moving in and out of random pockets of fart?

Oh that's right - gas disperses. Hydrogen is a gas. You must have had a brain fart when you wrote that.

Re:Right but

[einhverfr]

I would expect that a large enough H2 leak coupled with a suitable ignitian source at the right place could set off an explosion, but that the explosion would actually be dramatically different than a similar explosion from say a Propane tank.

If you have a propane leak couple with ignitian under suitable conditions you will get a latterally-spreading fireball. Damage within this fireball would be intense. Damage outside would not as the shockwave would diminish quite quickly when not inside the flamable area anymore.

If you have a hydrogen leak, the hydrogen rapidly dissipates upward. This means that your ignition point requires some very special conditions, but when it does, it will create a localized blastwith most of its force directed upward. Some force will be directed out and down, but this is fairly minor. Damage is likely to be greater in the effected areas than with propane, but the effected areas are less likely to coincide with people or structures because of the vertical nature of the plume. Now passing bird on the other hand....

My reference to the Hindenburg was primarily because it illustrates the fact that the gas dissipated upwards and that very little of the damage or loss of life was related to the hydrogen itself. (Yes, the H2 burned, but that is not what burned the people, and falling was much more of a problem than burning.)

Re:Right but

[Christopher Thomas]

"It's a lot easier to get gasoline vapours ... pooling where they can ignite"

When you get home today (if you're not already home), pour a basin full of gasoline. Put any sort of simple container you want around it. If you can get it to explode without extensive effort or a situation unlikely to occur in the real world, I'll bake you a dozen cookies and mail them.

You're going to be waiting about six months, because it's winter here, and I'm not trying this indoors.

Find a nice, open patio that's been receiving direct summer sunlight for a morning. This represents hot asphalt or concrete.

Put a lit candle or two near the edge of the experiment area. This represents the spark or other ignition source causing the accident.

Take a cup or two of gasoline and pour it thinly around the middle of the accident region. This represents a puddle of gasoline from the hypothetical leaky hose or what-have-you.

Stand well back.

Nice, thin film on a nice warm surface gives you lots of vapour.

Lots of vapour plus ignition source -> fireball on your patio.

You can do the same thing with a propane torch simulating a propane leak if you're feeling suicidal. This works best in _cooler_ weather.

You _cannot_ do the same thing with hydrogen, outdoors, at least. That is the point of this discussion.

Re:Right but

[Rei]

No, it won't ignite. I've seen people try to do stuff like this before - not only in open areas, but in an enclosed chamber even with an actual spark gap. They did this on mythbusters, as just one example :)

For the comparable hydrogen situation, take a *pressurized* hydrogen container (we're not talking about a balloon of hydrogen here), and open it near that candle.

Re:Right but

[Christopher Thomas]

I have played extensively with small quantities of hydrogen ...

under hundreds of atmospheres of pressure?

If you have hydrogen coming _out_ of the tank at hundreds of atmospheres, you have a lot bigger problems than a fire hazard. Compressed gas canisters are treated with respect for a reason.

Any leak that would occur under normal conditions would result in leaked hydrogen being at low pressure.

Re:Right but

[Cybrr]

According to NASA:

Tests were devised in which tanks containing liquid hydrogen under pressure were ruptured. In many cases, the hydrogen quickly escaped without ignition. The experimenters then provided a rocket squib (a small powder charge) to ignite the escaping, hydrogen. The resulting fireball quickly dissipated because of the rapid flame speed of hydrogen and its low density. Containers of hydrogen and gasoline were placed side by side and ruptured. When the hydrogen can was ruptured and ignited, the flame quickly dissipated -, but when the same thing was done with gasoline, the gasoline and flame stayed near the container and did much more damage. The gasoline fire was an order of magnitude more severe than the hydrogen fire. The experimenters tried to induce hydrogen to explode, with limited success. In 61 attempts, only two explosions occurred and in both, they had to mix oxygen with the hydrogen. Their largest explosion was produced by mixing a half liter of liquid oxygen with a similar volume of liquid hydrogen. Johnson and Rich were convinced that, with proper care, liquid hydrogen could be handled quite safely and was a practical fuel-a conclusion that was amply verified by the space program in the 1960s. At the time, however, Johnson and Rich filmed their fire and explosion experiments to convince doubters.

The confidence of Johnson and Rich in hydrogen handling was not always shared by their hydrogen consultant, Russell Scott, who was often amazed at what he saw going on in the test areas of Fort Robertson.14 The facility, however, was well equipped with an explosion-proof electrical system, non-sparking safety tools, hydrogen sniffers or monitors, and other safety devices. In the three years of work and the handling of thousands of liters of liquid hydrogen, there was not a single accident caused by hydrogen. There was, however, one close call. In keeping with Kelly Johnson's philosophy of austerity, the ovens used for simulating hot wing temperatures of Mach 2.5 flight were made partially of wood. There were five such ovens, and early one morning, about 2 a.m., one of them caught fire. The Skunk Works personnel, including Rich, were summoned because the fire department could not be called, for security reasons. At the time there were 2000 liters of liquid hydrogen stored in the area and Rich decided that the best course of action was to dump the liquid hydrogen on the ground. It was winter and very humid; the cold hydrogen quickly filled the revetment with fog about five feet thick. Rich and about two dozen other people were in the revetment and all they could see of each other were their heads, an eerie sight. Luckily, the hydrogen did not ignite.

I wonder if it's as idiot proof as gasoline, though...

Re:Right but

[Rei]

First off, we're not talking about LH2 - we're talking about GH2. Secondly, the net result of a rupture is entirely dependant on the size of the rupture (large ruptures being safer and less likely to ignite, for a number of factors we can discuss if you'd like). Third, the risk of fire damage is not very relevant to the risk to human life and safety - consequently the focus on fast conflagrations and detonations, so the effects of a delayed gasoline fire are irrelevant.

Please cite a relevant study next time, will you?

Re:Right but

[einhverfr]

If you have hydrogen coming _out_ of the tank at hundreds of atmospheres, you have a lot bigger problems than a fire hazard. Compressed gas canisters are treated with respect for a reason.

Absolutely. The first thing I would be worried about would be the flying tank of hydrogen..... (blows up balloon, and lets go....)

Re:Right but

[MasTRE]

>> Gasoline explosions in non-controlled circumstances are incredibly difficult to occur. Hydrogen explosions are not, by any stretch. That's the only thing that matters.

> What about propane?

Alright, so I'd say we've pretty much come to the conclusion that things that we burn are pretty darn dangerous. Maybe we should stop burning stuff? If not, let's stop bitching about how dangerous they are. People die every day. Do a large scale study of death-by-explosion/fire from [hydrogen|propane|your_choice_to_replace_gasoline] vs. pollution-from-galsoline's impact on our lives/future, like the possibility of melting the polar ice caps, the increased chance of getting lung cancer, skin cancer, cancer, cancer, cancer, and so on. Weigh them and choose one that improves things by orders of magnitude. Or choose two. Choose three!

Oh, wait. You'll have to get past those grubby Texas oilmen that heavily lobby congress first. Good luck!

Re:Right but

[Christopher Thomas]

No, it won't ignite. I've seen people try to do stuff like this before - not only in open areas, but in an enclosed chamber even with an actual spark gap. They did this on mythbusters, as just one example :)

All I can say is, relevant reference say that's a great way to autoDarwinate.

I'm using octane as a reasonable model for gasoline, though from a composition standpoint, heptane might be a better model (it's actually a witches' brew of hydrocarbons that amounts to isomorphs of octane and heptane with a few more volatile chemicals thrown in for grins).

The MSDS for octane says its flammable concentration range is 1.0% to 6.5% v/v. This corresponds to partial pressures of around 8 to 50 mmHg. Concidentally, this corresponds to the vapour pressure of octane over a temperature range of 15-50 degrees C. So, you have a very substantial ignition hazard over any open container of gasoline any time except the middle of winter.

Remind me in 6 months, and I'll be happy to do a controlled test outside, and film it.

For the comparable hydrogen situation, take a *pressurized* hydrogen container (we're not talking about a balloon of hydrogen here), and open it near that candle.

As others have pointed out, that'll get you what amounts to a hydrogen torch, and not an explosion. As _I've_ pointed out, you're going to get low pressure or nothing, because in addition to blowing out the candle, a high pressure hydrogen stream will make the broken canister take off like a rocket. The regulator knocks pressure down to something reasonable right at the tank nozzle, so the only case in which you'll get a high-pressure release is if someone rams a vehicle into the canister. This is a Bad Thing with any fuel (and arguably less catastrophic with a hydrogen tank than with a propane tank, due to buoyancy).

Re:Right but

[Mycroft_VIII]

Strange I've had no trouble doing this unless it was windy. Happened the first time by ACCIDENT. If your puddle in a pan has enough surface area and no wind it works for me. This is usually with 'regular' gasoline. I've only done it a few of times, but with still air and a decent flame within a few inches It worked over half the time. Mycroft

Fire

[Mark of THE CITY]

There was a tragic fire in Walnut Creek, CA this week. A backhoe hit a jet fuel line, opened a 1" hole, which at 1000 psi (roughly 70 atmospheres) sprayed out, with fumes spreading horizontally. Nearby welding triggered an explosion. The fire burned for hours, destroying most of a nearby house and forcing evacuations of the adjacent buildings, including two schools. There were 3 deaths, 2 presumed dead (possibly blown to bits) and 5 injured.

Hydrogen would have spread vertically, there would have been far less fire damage.

If people think that hydrogen is so dangerous

[FusionDragon2099]

then why the hell are they still drinking water with high concentrations of hydrogen-containing DHMO?

PATHETIC!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only not f1rxz7 ps0t, not only were you not the first f|2057`/ p!5s attempt to FAIL IT MISERABLY, but you don't know the difference between an atom and a molecule, or the name of the PERIODIC TABLE.

YOU FAIL IT QUADROPHONICALLY!

Solid Hydrogen Storage

[bluehills]

Solid hydrogen storage is now avialable: http://www.txohydrogen.com/solutions/technology.ht m/ Also the inventors site has other cool related energy stuff http://www.ovonic.com/

Re:Solid Hydrogen Storage

[bluehills]

Here's a working solid hydrogen storage link URL: http://www.txohydrogen.com/

Good resource

[Anonymous Coward]

They're all as safe or unsafe. More information on alternative fuels.

Everything is dangerous

[ericdano]

Hell, the other day we had a aviation fuel pipe blow up in an area where I usually drive through. Looked like something out of the Road Warrior or something. Huge flames, thick black smoke. And I hear the pipe runs along or underneath a trail I bike on frequently. Nice.

I'd say that a Hydrogen tank is no more likely to explode than gas one. Leaking might be a little more likely, but it is just......hydrogen......

Don't be so blah.

[Anonymous Meoward]

I'm waiting for them to stock nitrous oxide.

Stuff may blow up, but the neighbors probably won't care after awhile..

Japan has gas

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't Japan, the most earthquake-prone country in the world, used massive spherical storage containers to store similar fuels? What's the problem? Last I checked, Slashdot never reported on Japan's Great Balls of Fire.

Someone want to elaborate on this so it don't look like a total chode on my own?

first/second/third/15th what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to lack confidence in your firstpost ability.

Your confidence fails it.
Your ambition fails it.
And in the meantime you likewise fail it.

Re: volitile

[Anonymous Coward]

Hydrogen is about the *most* volitile stuff around. It'll diffuse through the walls of a steel tank.

Just think on terms of steric hinderance and molecular scale. Hydrogen (H2) is a really small molecule -- just 2 protons and 2 electrons. Carbon is bigger than Hydrogen. Oxygen is bigger than Carbon. Octane has 8 Carbons and 18 Hydrogens. MTBE is C5H12O -- a 'shorter', but 'fatter' molecule than Octane. Gasolene, at the pump, is generally a mixture of Octane, MTBE, and Ethanol (C2H5-OH). So much for storage.

Then, there's the boiling point to think about, since things tend to be more reactive in the vapor phase than in the liquid phase. For H2, we're looking at -252.87C. For gasolene, we're looking at +125.7C. Think about vapor pressure, next...

But this ain't Chem class, so I'll 'leave the rest as an exercise for the student'.

Also, consider that H2, generally, has to be stored cryogenically, or as part of a bigger molecule (the latter being the principal on which fuel cell reformers are based upon). Having a major cryogenic facillity in one's back yard ain't exactly everyone's idea of a nice addition to the neighborhood. Reformers, OTOH, tend to run *hot* (several hundred C -- *well* above the flash point for Octane, at any rate), and I don't know how comfortable I'd be about having those two things, together, on the same plot of land, right by my house, either.

Its not the hydrogen that's stupid

[museumpeace]

The hindenberg's skin was a bomb all by itself: I RTFA'ed the "whats to worry about" link and found

"..doped with iron oxide and cellulose acetate butyrate impregnated with aluminium powder..."

Strips of this material would burn like blasting fuse/primer cord. The hydrogen in the hindenberg would not have all gone off practically at once if it's 16 chambers were skinned in something flame retardant. Compare that composition with bomb and thermite formlations such as you find at Thermite Incendiaries and Formulas :

iron scale (Fe3O4).Rust will work but you may want to adjust the mixture to about 77% rust. The aluminum is usually coarse powder to help slow down the burning rate.

Re:Oh so scary ... not quite

[kid_wonder]

"The National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors voted in 1998 not to include MTBE on the list of compounds known to be human carcinogens. (NTP, 1998)"

Get a more informed opinion here

Hindenburg?

[Harik]

Let's propagate a few less urban legends. Hindenburg was NOT a hydrogen fire. It was a fire of the highly HIGHLY flammable coating on the baloon itself. The hydrogen was gone pretty quickly, and would have simply burned out of wherever it was escaping from.

"It was skinned in cotton, doped with iron oxide and cellulose acetate butyrate impregnated with aluminium powder."

Yes kids, the hindenburg was coated in THERMITE.

Chemist speaking

[Auckerman]

I remember seeing a test of what happens to a car during a gas leak and during a hydrogen leak, both at the bottom of the car. The gas powered car went up in flames and was consumed entirely in a matter of minutes. The hydrogen car had a nice torch shooting out the bottom which charred the ground, but left the car intact.

Hydrogen is only going to burn when there is plenty of oxygen around. Of course there is oxygen in the air, but you'll need good dispersion of the hydrogen to get anything other than a torch, it's a question of how much oxygen is close to the hydrogen being consumed.

That does mean though, if there is a leak at a station AND that leak catches fire, the neighbors are going to have a really pretty light show till fire goes out (putting that out will be one hell of a task, it will probably just run out of fuel), but the houses and the station will still be in tact.

There's nothing to worry about as long as the hydrogen isn't premixed with oxygen, which only a moron would do.

why not ethanol or biodiesel?

[akb]

Could someone explain why some energy companies think a hydrogen economy is a good idea? Everything I've read indicates that the net energy result of creating it is not so hot, that an entire new distribution infrastructure has to be created, and that all existing vehicles will have to be essentially scrapped. I've read the wikipedia aricle on the subject but still don't feel I have a grasp on why people are hot on this idea.

On the other hand biodiesel and ethanol can be used with our existing infrastructure with very few problems. Hell, with the recent price increases in some places blends with 20 percent biodiesel are cheaper than regular diesel. It helps out our farmers, it cuts pollution, its carbon dioxide neutral and we don't have to fight wars in the Middle East over it.

Violent death or no... let's use good English!

[Dystopian Rebel]

And even still

"Still" -- just the same, nevertheless

"Even so" -- just the same, nevertheless

"Even still" -- the whisky-cooker is level

I don't want it.

[chunkwhite86]

I live near by, and I don't want a large hydrogen tank in my neighborhood. Now a B100 biodiesel pump would be a welcome addition. I like to run my VW Passat TDI on Biodiesel, but I currently have to drive way up into Maryland to get it. Biodiesel is renewable, biodegradable, and much safer to handle than hydrogen or gasoline.

Just my two cents.

Re:Hydrogen

[Kindaian]

In some countries is forbiden to have a fuel station nearby ANY residential or high usage buildings...

Re:Hydrogen

[jangobongo]

Why don't you compare and contrast for us the merits of the hydrogen fuel station 50 yards away from the school with what's likely the natural gas line and furnace that likely runs driectly to and resides inside the school?

In all honesty I would prefer it if schools didn't need to have natural gas lines running directly to and residing within them, but they do and I understand why - it's a calculated risk that most can live with. Schools do not have large underground tanks of natural gas on or near their properties, though. Zoning laws usually require that storage of highly flammable substances is sequestered in areas where the public is least exposed to its risk. IMHO, 50 yards is too close for a gas station, too. Children are not expendible to me...

And yes, I do know that this is off-topic, but while I would be first in line for affordable alternative transportation, we also need to consider potential safety issues related to any new technology.

Re:Hydrogen

[tricops]

Well, the difference of course being that gas lines are already widely used/tested. They're usually buried, whereas this might be above ground within easy reach of mistakes/damage. The gas line/furnace in a school are set up and run without being touched constantly except for maintenance when there's a problem.

Still, I don't think this would be that much worse than stations with propane tanks. Maybe they should do and release some testing on propane/hydrogen tank fires...

Re:Hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hindenberg was the first thing to come to my mind, too. How could they put this 50 yards away from a school?

Because the Hindenberg would not fit INSIDE a school.

Re:Pressure, not gas type

[WhiplashII]

To be fair, they used the same technique for steam leaks on old battleships. It is the pressure, not the type of gas. Low pressure hydrogen is less likely to kill you than gasoline (because it won't stay on you while it burns, so you get to run away safely). Of course, it would be expensive to ship or store hydrogen low pressure, hence the problem.

It is true that hydrogen leaks are notoriously difficult to detect, however.

At long last!

[i_r_sensitive]

A one-stop Zeppelin shop!

Oh, the humanity!

Lennox Mall Atlanta car chargers no more

[adzoox]

I was somewhat depressed the other day when I was in Atlanta at Lennox Mall to see that they had ripped the electric car chargers out of the stations and said:

No longer available

Will this also happen to this gas station when the "fad" is over for these hybrid vehicles?

Hydrogen won't work in Michigan...

[MrLogic17]

...or any other place that has cold weather. Hydrogen fuel cells produce water as a by-product. Water, or course, freezes at -32f. Fuel cells, especially in cars, just plain won't work then it's frozen solid.

This is another classic case of "green must be better", without thinking it through....

(To say nothing of *how* exactly do we get all this hydrogen, safely & cheaply...)

-Mr.Logic

Re:Hydrogen won't work in Michigan...

[BattleTroll]

Ummm... burning gasoline produces water as a biproduct too. I don't see anyone complaining about their exhaust being frozen solid driving the car.

This is just another case of "the status-quo must be better", without thinking it through...

Re:Hydrogen won't work in Michigan...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hydrogen fuel cells, not being 100% efficient, also produce *heat*. The water vapor created will not simply freeze immediately, though it would freeze shortly after being vented.

Not electricity, natural gas

[mosb1000]

Actually, hydrogen is rarely made from water electrolyses. It is usually made by reforming hydrocarbons using steam and catalysts. When this is done to methane, and the resulting hydrogen is reacted in a fuel cell, it is actually more energy efficient than burning the natural gas in a turbine.

The idea is that we'll use this technique to get the hydrogen infrastructure in place. Once petroleum and natural gas are too expensive to use as a power source, we'll be able to transition to an all-electrical system, because hydrogen is easy to produce from electricity.

This is very much more green than burning gasoline, since the extra demand for electricity will hopefully be picked by wind generation or some other renewable source. Even if we do use coal, it'll be better because we won't need to worry about what's going on in the middle ease, since we'll be able to meet all our energy needs domestically.

BOOM!

[Charcharodon]

Ever seen a grain elevator explode, very cool and we are talking about flower here as in what you eat.

Put anything that'll burn (flower has a nice high surface area and is quite flamable try it the next time you go camping, but watch the eyebrows) in the right mix with oxygen and you get an explosion.

What is the range for a Hydrogen vehicle?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing not very far, given the energy/density ration for Hydrogen compared to Benzine or Diesel.

An interesting article on the subject: The Future of the Hydrogen Economy: Bright or Bleak?.

There is

[tacokill]

There is uproar over propane -- its just not as explosive as Hydrogen.

The way you "protect" against Propane (or any hydrocarbon) is the same as you protect against Hydrogen. Yes, there are minor differences but both substances are in Group B according to the hazardous locations setforth by the National Electric Code. (fyi, this is Class 1, Div 1 stuff that we all know if you have ever stepped foot in a plant of anykind).

A good reference for this is a book published by Magnetrol International called "Understanding Hazardous Locations". It details everything you ever wanted to know about hazardous/explosive materials and how we deal with them.

...and full disclosure here...I sell Magnetrol products (and many others) so I do have quite a bit of experience addressing equipment and explosive/flammable media.

Re:There is

[lew3004]

"I sell propane and propane accessories." Sorry, couldn't resist.

Flexabilty

[Catskul]

Moving to a Hydrogen economy is not something that is useless. It provides flexabilty to the energy infrastructure so when energy alternatives become available the hydrogen infrastructure is there to transport and store it.

Also...

[Draconix]

If you've seen footage of the Hindenberg and seen hydrogen burn, you'd know that what happened to the Hindenberg was _definitely_ something other than the hydrogen. Hydrogen is all gas, and it does _not_ burn long when exposed to heat and oxygen. The whole mass lights up for however long it takes the reaction to spread through (not very long) and poof! That's the end of it.

It's actually a lot safer than petroleum, all things considered. It can pack more concussive force when it lights, but its low mass (it floats away quickly, in other words) and lack of remaining liquid for any decent amount of time once exposed to the outside make for a very, very short danger-period. Meanwhile, a petroleum fire will just keep on burning until the last of the liquid finally evaporates.

May as well include this little bit of it

[BashDot]

Cellulose acetate butyrate is known to be flammable and iron oxide is well-known to react with aluminium powder. In fact, iron oxide and aluminium are sometimes used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite. (However, the oft-cited claim that the ship was "coated in rocket fuel" is a significant overstatement.) While the coating components were potentially reactive, they were separated by a layer of material that should have prevented the reaction from starting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

Huh?

[tacokill]

Natural gas is heavier than air? Nope. Don't think so. There might be impurities that make it heavier but your "normal" natural gas - like the kind in the pipelines - is not heavier than air.

Naturaly gas, generally, has a molecular weight of around 18.

I know because I sell relief valves for nat gas. Just FYI, they vent those to atmosphere and we would never vent to atmosphere if it "pooled" around the pipeline. Very unsafe.

Re:Hydrogen

[njfuzzy]

Oh My God Will Someone Please Think of the Children

Hydrogen is *too* explosive

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, when mixed with O2 in the right proportions it has the characteristics of a high explosive.

Note the explosive limits here.

Re: pah or WTF?!

[JackL]

What does "cosmic rays pass through them every second" have to do with "nuc-anything"? Just because cosmic rays are harmless doesn't mean that the alpha and beta particles produced by nuclear reactors aren't a very real threat (should they be leaked in the event of a nuclear disaster).

I think what you are trying to say is that many people don't take into account the safety measures in this country and almost all others have been effective for 40 or so years. Because of that, many react irrationally when nuclear power is mentioned. Why not just say that instead of something ridiculous about cosmic rays?

Jack

Mod this up

[tacokill]

The pipelines in this country are most definitely not interchangeable between nat gas and Hydrogen.

All it would take is a little sulfur in that Hydrogen line and you get H2S -- deadly at 10 ppm @ 10 second exposure.

Re:Mod this up

[Anonymous Coward]

liar. At least 600 ppm is needed for a toxic or fatal dose.

Re:Mod this up

[tacokill]

lol. Go ahead and try 600ppm. You'll die with one breath -- and you won't even know it.

I sell to sour gas pipelines everyday of the workweek. (sour gas = nat gas that has H2S) While you can certainly believe anything you want, 10 ppm will kill you with 10 min exposure. That's why you see pipeline workers with H2S monitors around their neck. It is HIGHLY lethal shit.

Re:Mod this up

[Anonymous Coward]

> All it would take is a little sulfur in that Hydrogen line and you get H2S -- deadly at 10 ppm @ 10 second exposure.

> While you can certainly believe anything you want, 10 ppm will kill you with 10 min exposure.

So what is it? Ten minutes or ten seconds?

Re:Mod this up

[imsabbel]

How scary. I created enough h2s in my chemistry lab course to make the whole room stink and nobody died. But SCARY.
did you know that a car filled with gas has enough gasoline and benzon in it to kill more than 1000 people? Why dont you make some poisonous gas scare?

Re:Mod this up

[tacokill]

Whoops....should have been 10 minutes. Sorry about that.

You can see some more info on H2S here: H2S Safety Info.

Also, if you are really interested, just search for "sour gas" or natural gas pipelines. This is a VERY well known concept. So much so that you would be hard pressed to find a single pipeline guy who doesn't know about it. I mean, it's like saying you know cars and then having no idea what a tire is. It's that "big" of a deal in the pipeline business. And the simple reason it's that way is...because it kills people.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not try to prove me wrong by inhaling 600ppm like the grand-grandparent says. You *will* hurt yourself badly.

Re:Mod this up

[gomoX]

I guess you mean SO2, sulfur dioxyde, which stinks really bad but is not the same thing as H2S which is also highly lethal.

Hindenburg

[stinky wizzleteats]

Oh come on, what is there to worry about?

I don't know. Is the skin of the minivan made out of rocket fuel?

Ok, I'll bite -- electricity production by type

[tacokill]

98% coal/gas/hydro
2% other "alternatives"


For those hoping we can swap that ratio, I think you are in for a big dissappointment. We are talking LOTS and LOTS of energy production here. A few windfarm concept sites are not going to cut it. Serious $$$ (as in hundreds of billions) would be needed to change this ratio anytime within 100 years. The simple fact is, wind and alternative forms of electricity are just not as economically efficient enought to make a dent. With major gov't funding, perhaps they will be someday -- but we are NOWHERE NEAR THAT right now. Not even close. We are on step 1 of 500 that would have to happen in order for our electricity needs to be met by alternative means.

I don't want to sound like a pessimist but we have a long long loooooooong way to go and I think it's important that people know that so their expectations are set correctly.

Re:Ok, I'll bite -- electricity production by type

[sonicattack]

You closed down all those nuclear reactors already?

No, thought so. While they are running - and producing about 20% of the electricity in the United States - if what I read is accurate - why not let those hot rods on the street be powered (indirectly) by those other hot rods.. :)

Re:Ok, I'll bite -- electricity production by type

[tacokill]

Shit....forgot nuclear in my first line. Good catch!

Re:Ok, I'll bite -- electricity production by type

[Anonymous Coward]

> hundreds of billions

What, like, say $200B? Didn't we just piss that away sending soldiers and their hydrocarbon-burning heavy equipment off to overthow some podunk little middle eastern dictator who just happened to be sitting on the second largest hydrocarbon-reserve on the planet?

Education

[foetusinc]

The important thing this story points out is the need for more public education on what the risks and benefits of hydrogen are, so there can actually be a coherent public debate.




Like we've ever had one of those.

Does give me an excuse to tell a quick story though to illustrate the total lack of public understanding right now. I overheard this while eating lunch at a dive diner in the Columbia gorge. This guy was holding court at the bar, telling everybody about the wonders of hydrogen:

"So, you remember the guy back in the sixties who got his old car to go 400 miles on a gallon of gas? The one the oil companies paid off? Well, see, what he'd done was figure out a way to use hydrogen right there in his carbuerator! And here's the amazing part: he was using nuclear hydrogen!

"You see, there's two kinds of hydrogen.There's regular hydrogen, and nuclear hydrogen. Nuclear hydrogen is lots faster, and it's what powers the sun. Basically, this guy had a little sun going in his carbuerator, and that's what powered his car for all those miles. I can't believe he didn't kill himself, and really those oil companies did him and us a big favor by paying him off. He would have poisened himself eventually, and if that thing had melted down imagine what would have happened!"

The guy next to him at the bar would kind of nod & grunt every so often while I boggled at the whole thing. There were plenty of other subjects he touched on, but the two kinds of hydrogen almost made me laugh out loud despite myself. I mean, he was so close to something that almost kind of made a little bit of sense, but it was totally drowned out by the idiocy...

Demonstration of hydrogen vs. gasoline

[pdhenry]

So, being unknown, it's deathly scary.

I was at a hydrogen industry conference last year and saw a video of a pretty good demonstration of the relative safety of hydrogen and gasoline. They started with two cars, one with a conventional gas tank and the other with a high-pressure hydrogen tank of the type currently expected to be employed on a hydrogen (fuel cell) car.

They initiated a small gasoline leak from the gas tank and opened the relief valve on the hydrogen tank and used a small spark igniter on both leaks. The hydrogen leak stared out more spectacularly as the high-pressure hydrogen burned off in a bright flame. The gasoline leak stated smaller, but since the puddle of gasoline was under the car the effect of the small flame increased as the puddle grew and the car itself was ignited. Eventually the hydrogen fire burned itself out with moderate damage to the rear deck lid of the car, but the gasoline leak soon engulfed the entire conventional car and destroyed it.

But they really didn't demonstrate what would have happened had the hydrogen car been parked in someone's attached garage...

Re:Demonstration of hydrogen vs. gasoline

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

What is even more fun is if you were to have a BLEVE(Boiling-Liquid Evaporating Vapor Explosion)event, although that might be difficult with hydrogen. If you were to use propane as the hydrogen source for the fuel cell that would be more likely.

Re:VO/Biodiesel Power.

[ourwebstop]

I agree that VO and biodiesel seem like a good energy alternative. The main problem with that is most people don't own diesel cars.

I'm running my '03 VW Jetta on straight vegetable oil (waste oil that's otherwise thrown out after using it in a deep fryer). There are pictures at http://vw.ourwebstop.com

Here's an interesting article regarding how we might produce all the biodiesel necessary to replace the energy we currently import. http://ww.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Re:Flexibility

[Tumbleweed]

I agree it's not useless, not at all; I'm just saying we're not even remotely ready to actually DO it, not in production (unless you just want to extract it from fossil fuels), not in technology, and not in infrastructure.

No, it's not

[khrtt]

Gasoline stays on the ground when itleaks, and soaks into stuff. Hydrogen floats up rather quickly; faster than it mixes with air. We all pretty much know what happens when a gasoline tank ruptures. We also know what happens when a propane tank ruptures. When a hydrogen tank ruptures, the gas is likely to float way up before it mixes with air enough to be able to ignite. Of course, if a tank raptures indoors, and the gas is confined, and allowed to pre-mix with air, an explosion would likiely be more powerfull than, say, propane. In fact, hydrogen-air mixture might even detonate, as opposed to just burning, which would be next to impossible to achieve with propane even if you wanted to, unless you had just right amount of leakage in a very large confined volume.

As far as hindenburg goes, the skin of the airship was coated with nitrocellulose, which burns very quickly. Scientific opinion (google for it) is that it's likely to have been the skin coating that caused the disaster, and not the hydrogen. The skip of the ship was ignited by static electricity, and burned off violently. If it were filled with helium, the result would have been the same.

it wasn't hydrogen that blew up the Hindenberg

[smartfart]

I don't have a link for this, but saw a documentary on PBS or somewhere that concluded that the skin of the blimp, being made of aluminum, is what ignited, and not the hydrogen. This is easily seen in the newsreels of the event --- the skin vaporized, then the hydrogen expoded from within.

Re:it wasn't hydrogen that blew up the Hindenberg

[Anonymous Coward]

>the skin vaporized, then the hydrogen expoded from within.

Never the less, the Hydrogen still exploded into a huge fireball!

Come on, the Hindenburg?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, but don't you think that material science and handling combustibles has improved at least a little bit in the last 70 years?

Re:VO/Biodiesel Power.

[Tumbleweed]

> The main problem with that is most people don't own diesel cars.

True, but how many people own hydrogen cars? Where would they refuel them, even if they did?

It'll be a _lot_ easier to get more people using biodiesel in new and existing diesel vehicles, than it will be to implement a hydrogen infrastructure AND get people to buy (currently impractical) hydrogen vehicles. The bio/diesel option is much, much easier, more efficient, and proven diesel technology exists now, obviously.

I'd see the steps in this order:

1) Encourage biodiesel production & ultra-low sulphur diesel availability (many existing diesel vehicles can't handle pure B100 (100%) biodiesel fuel, and need a mixture (B20 or lower), so you'd still want to blend it with low-sulphur diesel. Also, biodiesel isn't ideal in colder climates - it breaks down faster than regular diesel does, but additives are available, and can certainly be made better if biodiesel becomes a priority.

2) Hydrogen technology development. Standard fuelling equipment, transportation methods, economical production (a _big_ point still), fuel cell efficiencies, etc.

3) Battery (& electric motor & related) technologies to enable practical electric vehicles for the masses, and industrial applications. Large scale hydrogen-powered electric power plants can certainly be possible by this point, to benignly produce the electricity for the vehicles.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say no way will we reach point stage 3 in less than 20 years, probably longer, if not much longer. At least, not if we keep wanting SUV-size vehicles. A societal shift is as likely to take care of that as not. Here's hoping, anyway...

Your missing the obvious

[dammy]

What your missing is the obvious, hydrogen can be produced at your home. Search the net, you can find hydrogen manufacturing (cracking water for hydrogen) and low preasure storage for under $4K. Add in a high preasure pump to fill your vehicle, and you too can screw the government out of tax revenues from not buying gasoline at the pump while thumbing your nose at the Middle East.

For those of us who are in a area that can support alternative power generation, use that to power the hydrogen production equiptment. Personally, I plan to use solar cells to power such equiptment when Honda releases their consumer version of their FCX. Still worried about petrolium used to make hydrogen? Here is one possible option if NASA is correct: http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/solareclips/2 002.05/20020514-8.html

Re:Your missing the obvious

[Tumbleweed]

Producing hydrogen is only one of the issues, as I've already mentioned.

That means you could only reliably refuel at home.

You still need to find a hydrogen vehicle that has the power & range you'd want (good luck - they don't exist).

And of course, you'd need the money & space (and be able to meet zoning regulations, probably) to have one of those hydrogen generators, not to mention the higher power & water bills you'd be paying to do it in the first place. $4,000 startup cost (on the low end), plus ongoing high power & water bills, plus a mythical practical hydrogen vehicle.

You'd be a _lot_ better off using an existing diesel vehicle, and make or buy biodiesel or a biodiesel/diesel blend. It's available now, and startup & ongoing costs would be _much_ cheaper.

Re:Your missing the obvious

[dammy]

190 miles on a tank of gas in http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4040729.html a FCX is far more then I typically drive in several days, let alone a single day. As for high electric bills, I've stated I'm going solar cell to power the water cracker. The only power that I get from the grid will be for the fueling pump and it won't be on for that long of a period of time. High water bill? How many thousands of gallons per month will I be using for one vehicle?

dammy

bullshit

[geg81]

The same fear of the unkown or simple misinformation applies to nuclear topics as well.

Don't try to lump together unrelated topics to push your personal political agenda.

A key step in the generation of nuclear power has never successfully been demonstrated to be solvable, let alone economically solvable: waste disposal. People like you apparently like to pretend nuclear waste just can be made to disappear somehow, but right now, it is stored at a large cost to the tax payer, under constant guard and supervision. Long-term storage has not been implemented, and its safety has not been verified in the real world; all people have is a lot of ideas and suggestions.

Yes, this is "fear of the unknown": generating huge amounts indestructible, highly toxic radioactive waste without knowing where to dispose of it safely is something to be feared by any rational being.

As for hydrogen storage, even there, people are justified to be concerned. Commercial hydrogen filling stations are fairly unproven technology. Even though the hydrogen may be safer than gasoline, the overall risk may still be larger because an explosion might be more likely due to unexpected engineering problems (hydrogen affects metals) and new kinds of human errors.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes...bullshit allright...tell that to everyone living around me in Las Vegas and the outlieing areas that are nearby Yucca Mountain where they are trieing to dump the nation's Nuke Waste...yea real fun I tell ya.

Re:bullshit

[F34nor]

That's not true. A wired article (that I can never find) state that Sandia or Lawrence Livermore (I can't find the article to check) came up with a solution so simple we could have been doing from day one.

Place your waste in front of a high energy radiation gun and accelerate the breakdown by many many times. The waste product is heat which can be made into power and the 60/40 split. Probably lead and radon gas.

Can anyone find the original article or study please?

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of current do you need coming out of the "radiation gun" to get rid of kilograms of waste (which will also have to be machined into very thin ribbons so the waste that's on the back side of the ribbon won't escape being hit).

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Science Magazine had an article about this, it was called the Neutron Science Project.

Re:bullshit

[lachlan76]

Is this it?

This (or something similar) is already used for storing acetylene in welding tanks, I don't see why it wasn't already used for Hydrogen.

Re:bullshit

[F34nor]

Sorry I don't belong to the magazine and can't read the article.

Re:bullshit

[geg81]

That's not true. A wired article (that I can never find) state[...]

There are lots of ideas and trials for dealing with nuclear waste, many of them quite plausible. But even a successful trial isn't the same as demonstrating that something is economical and safe.

Place your waste in front of a high energy radiation gun and accelerate the breakdown by many many times. The waste product is heat which can be made into power and the 60/40 split. Probably lead and radon gas.

You can reduce the amount of highly radioactive waste, but you end up with even more radioactive waste that is still very dangerous. Furthermore, it is anything but clear that such an approach would be economical.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

As I was saying: long-term storage has not actually been implemented. Even if Yucca Mountain goes live, by the time you end up adding up all the costs, nuclear energy may well come out as far costlier than renewable energy sources.

risk

[geg81]

There are two things to consider. One: what happens when an explosion occurs. Two: how likely is an explosion going to occur. Arguably, hydrogen explosions probably tend to be less serious. However, given that hydrogen storage is both more complex and the handling of hydrogen is something new to most people, the likelihood of an explosion seems higher, at least until the technology is more widely used.

The Hindeburg is a cheap shot.

[adb]

That the hydrogen was the problem is highly debatable. The reason it sucks is just that it has terrible energy density, not that it's more likely to blow up than, say, propane.

denver fuel cell powers fire station

[peter303]

Denver gets around the explosion issue by put its demonstration fuel cell station at a fire station!

Hum, min vans or hydrogen tanks

[blanks]

I would be more conserned with the mini vans near their homes then the tanks.

Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[ikewillis]

...except through the use of reformers which extract hydrogen from gasoline or ethanol which can be in turn used in conjunction with hydrogen fuel cells.

I have much better hopes for E85 fuel, which combines 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Any existing car can be modified to run on E85 in addition to regular gasoline, meaning that people don't need to throw away their existing vehicles and buy a new hydrogen car. Since they can still run on gasoline, you don't need to worry about looking for a specific kind of fuel station... buy E85 if it's available and regular gasoline if it isn't.

E85 is also substantially more environmentally friendly than gasoline:

E85 is environmentally-friendly. It has the highest oxygen content of any fuel available today, making it burn more completely (cleaner) than gasoline. E85 contains 80% less gum-forming compounds, like the olefins found in gasoline. Production and use of E85 results in a nearly 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. More than 100 major U.S. cities suffer from unhealthy levels of smog. E85 may be able to help. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) studies have shown that high-blend ethanol fuels can reduce harmful exhaust emissions by more than 50 percent and smog-forming pollution by 15% or more.

E85 can be produced from surplus feed corn which is otherwise thrown out every year. Our nation has the capacity to manufacture it in quantity, whereas hydrogen is currently difficult to produce and expensive, and the easiest chemical processes by which to produce it result in toxic chemicals (such as reacting metal with hydroxides). Furthermore, everything in our current gasoline infractructure, from tanker trunks, storage tanks, gas pumps, and vehicles, can be used with E85, whereas hydrogen would require that we retool our entire infrastructure.

E85 would also open the doors to a new class of pure ethanol vehicles, including, as I said earlier, ones which use reformers to extract hydrogen from ethanol and run it through fuel cells, virtually eliminating pollution and the inefficiency of internal combustion engines. E85 would move our source of energy from terrorist controlled oil to domestically produced corn and other starchy crops. E85 would allow us to utilize surplus starchy crops rather than just throwing them away, eliminating waste.

All in all, I don't see what the buzz about hydrogen is all about. It would require an impractical infrastructural transition which is unlikely to happen until we've thoroughly exhausted our oil supplies. E85 lets us keep our whole existing infrastructure while still solving most of the problems attributed to oil.

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a plant product? If so, do you count the environmental destruction to topsoil, aquifers, rivers, lakes, oceans? Not to mention fertilizers by the ton and other frankenfood (read: unknown) issues?

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ethanol is just a tax give away to corn growing states. It takes more energy to make ethanol
than you get out of it. So you are still burning
the same amount of gas and/or desiel.

The only real hope is to make cars more effecient.

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[ikewillis]

Ethanol is just a tax give away to corn growing states.

Wrong. According to this Minnesota Business Journal article:

"the total economic impact of the Minnesota ethanol industry was estimated at $588 million in 2002. In comparison, the state's ethanol subsidy for the year was $33.7 million that means the economic impact was 17 times the subsidy payment."

And remember, you're talking about ethanol as opposed to gasoline, which we get from terrorist nations, which costs over twice as much as E85 fuels (E85 sells for $0.90/gallon) and pollutes substantially more.

It takes more energy to make ethanol than you get out of it.

Wrong. Even in 1988 energy generated by the ethanol exceeded energy inputs by 16%. Nowadays that number is closer to 34%, according to a USDA study.

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[jthayden]

E85 would move our source of energy from terrorist controlled oil

You mean like those from Texas?

Give me a break people, not everyone in the middle east is a terrorist nor is every country. Not to mention that not all oil is from the middle east.

I'm definitely in favor of getting off the oil habit, but lets not do it for blind hatred's sake.

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a car that would run on E85, unfortunately not a single gas station in Northern California had it. Ford makes "Flex Fuel" vehicles to comply with state fleet fuel economy standards, unfortunately since the fuel isn't available, you just end up using regular gasoline anyway.

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[gomoX]

Our nation has the capacity to manufacture it in quantity, whereas hydrogen is currently difficult to produce and expensive, and the easiest chemical processes by which to produce it result in toxic chemicals (such as reacting metal with hydroxides)

Errr - no. You just put two electrodes into a sink full of water, crank up the power, and get 2 parts dihydrogen on one side, one part dioxygen on the other. Couldn't be easier. Of course, electricity is not cheap - think of hydrogen as a very efficient storage mecanism for power, instead of, say, batteries.

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[dickrichardv8]

Every one talks about corn when the ethanol subject comes up. Corn has to be planted every year and uses tractor gas (or diesel or ethanol fuel). Ethanol could be made from crops that don't have to be planted every year. Grapes aren't planted every year. What hybrid crop would be developed with high yields of ethanol and just picked or mowed? It's the sugar content or starch that's important I think.

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[misleb]

Electrolysis does not work well on a large scale and it is inefficient. It is basically throwing perfectly good electricity away. kWh for kWh, electricity is far more valuable than a chemical fuel (even if you turn that chemical fuel back to electricity at some point). There is just no way to economically justify making fuel out of electricity. It would be like converting gold to iron... ok maybe, gold to silver.

-matthew

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[cybpunks3]

Another guy who just wants to justify his pot smoking.

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[smoker2]

E85 would move our source of energy from terrorist controlled oil .....

PRICK !

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...

[arivanov]

I "love" Americans. You state something that is valid for US only as it is valid for the rest of the world.

In reality your statement should be amended to: all 5 L gaz guzzling monsters designed to run on shite fuel in first place and sold in North America can be modified to run on E85. As stated, the statement is correct.

The rest of the world runs on 95 Octane or higher fuel and ethanol/methanol octane does not go that far without adding some really nasty stuff to it.

TWENTY HYDROGEN MYTHS

[Spy der Mann]

I found a paper about the 20 hydrogen myths (pdf format). It tells a lot about the Hindemburg, and other urban legends related to hydrogen.

Anyway, having pressurized hydrogen in your car is _NOT_ what the latest technology advancements are about. It's about hydrogen cells. And nanotechnology provides a way of storing hydrogen in solid media under low pressures.

For more info, check out nanoapex news and search the topic "nanoenergy".

(Note to editors:
Do NOT, under ANY circumstances, moderate this post as 'insightful'!)

Re:TWENTY HYDROGEN MYTHS

[ekimnosnews]

Here's the google translation to html

Adobe's PDF viewer is the devil.

Re:TWENTY HYDROGEN MYTHS

[heydonms]

What is this hydrogen cell going to run off, if not pressurized hydrogen?

Re:TWENTY HYDROGEN MYTHS

[cfan]

NOTE:I am sorry for my english, but I am not english-native. If you don't like my english, at least check the links, I think that are interesting

I have read a bit of TWENTY HYDROGEN MYTHS, but I hardly find it a seriuos source of information:
for example (at the and of page 5, and in the myth #3) they say that hydrogen fuel-cell cars can canvert energy to motion about 2-3 times as afficient as normal cars convert gasoline into motion.

They don't say the truth: fuel-cells are more efficient, but weight a lot more then internal combustion engines, and so the cars requeire more energy to move, compared to cars equipped with internal combustions. Moreover they do not consider Diesel engines.

Now look at Honda fcx, and as you can see the REAL efficency (220 miles with 3.75Kg of hydrogen, that contain the energy equivalent of about 3.75 gallons of gasoline=58mpg, but if you consider a 70% efficiency in the production of hydrogen you obtain about 41mpg), is hardly 2-3 times the efficiency of a DIESEL car, and actually is less than a good diesel car ( Honda Accord TDCi, sorry for the link in italian, but look simply at the second row: 92mpg ) and it is worst then hybrid cars (example Honda Insight, about 60mpg)

Re:TWENTY HYDROGEN MYTHS

[Spy der Mann]

What is this hydrogen cell going to run off, if not pressurized hydrogen?

Hydrogen stored in nanocells, for example. It's more compact than pressurized hydrogen, believe it or not. Of course, we need 10 or 20 years for the technology to become stable and commercially available. But there IS research being done, at an incredible rate. One discovery leads to another.

Re:TWENTY HYDROGEN MYTHS

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to add the efficency of production of the hydrogen to it's MPG calculation, you'd better do the same for the diesel, too.

Re:TWENTY HYDROGEN MYTHS

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm stupid but I don't get what you are saying.

3.75 Kg = 8.26 lbs.
1 gallon gasoline = 6.25 lbs. (@ 72 F)
8.26 lbs gasoline / 6.25 lbs. per gallon = 1.32 gallons.
220 miles / 1.32 gallons = ~166.6 mpg

Maybe this is an over simplification of the comparison but I have not seen any gasoline or diesel engines that get 166 mpg.

Why not just run the tests?

[danieljpost]

I mean really, isn't this supposed to be a community of scientific-oriented people (or at least the kind of people who'd really really enjoy doing this experiment)? Why not do an experiment to PROVE which is more dangerous? Experiment to determine which is more dangerous:

Materials:
1 standard gas station
1 hydrogen gas station
1 extra-large screwdriver
1 high quality 14 oz. hammer
1 standard cigarette lighter
2 packs Marlboro Reds

Procedure

1. fill each station with an equivalent amount of fuel (as measured in your favorite unit of total energy, not by weight, volume, etc)
2. use that hammer and screwdriver to punch a carefully-measured hole in the side of each underground tank
3. from a predetermined distance, light a cigarrete and toss it in the direction of the leak
4. walk a predetermined distance closer to the leak. Toss another lit cigarette.
5. Repeat until the station explodes
6. Repeat for the other station

It would probably be worthwhile to have things like high-speed cameras, temperature sensors at various distances, sound measuring tools (like a decibel meter if that's a real thing), a seismograph. But these are left up to the experimenters.

other igniters such as electrical sparks, vehicle collisions, solar flares etc might also produce interesting results

If anyone does this or has seen it done, PLEASE post your results!

H2 is safer than Gasoline

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Apparently some of the neighbors are concerned about having a large tank of hydrogen near their homes. Oh come on, what is there to worry about?"

Silly rabbit, H2 is safer than Gas.

http://www.ocees.com/mainpages/Hydrogen.html

Really?

[paranode]

It looks to me like a big damn explosion. Do you contend that this could have happened with helium inside?

Re:Really?

[Dyolf Knip]

Do you contend that this could have happened with helium inside?

With a skin made of thermite? You betcha.

Re:Hydrogen

[Rich0]

IMHO, 50 yards is too close for a gas station, too. Children are not expendible to me...

Nobody is expendible to me. However, I'm not advocating that flammable materials not be stored anywhere within 50 yards of any place that a human being spends a lot of time...

Tanks should be stored with reasonable safety precautions even if they're in the middle of nowhere. It shouldn't matter if a school is nearby. If it isn't safe, the fact that it isn't near a school but instead near my office building doesn't make me feel better...

Technology by Air Products...

[WirelessFreak]

I can actually say that I live near one of the companies that headed this project. Amazing what our little rural Pa. town can do from time to time (too bad about Agere Systems, though.)

Just hope they build one here eventually! :)

Hydrogen == Hindenberg Disaster?

[nanoakron]

That's almost as uneducated as saying 'now we've got a story about the increased incidence of AIDS in this neighborhood' and having a wiki link to homosexuals.

Stupid, tired old stereotypes we've got to get over if we're ever going to make any progress (in either area).

-Nano.

Yeah and....?

[todsr1]

So America has one more hydrogen station, what's the news? Didn't the gentle giant governor of California recently open one near LAX? Something tells me there's one in Southfield, MI as well; at the DTE Energy Hydrogen Technology Park (where else?!)

My hungry car.

[MikeFM]

Personally I'm just planning on making a car that can harvest grass and weeds as it travels and use that for fuel. It works for the horse so why not for the car. ;)

This is partly a joke but I do think there is something to the idea. I've already experimented somewhat successfully with a lawnmower that is ran off the energy of digesting grass clippings. Even as just a lawnmower it's pretty cool to only need to add a biological agent to the tank once a season rather than buying fuel. I wonder if there is anything on the market of a similar nature. Could this be adapted to a car?

Isn't there more hydrogen

[karlandtanya]

in a gallon of gasoline than in a gallon of liquid H2?

Hydrogen's kinda cool, though--it burns with such a pale blue flame that you can hardly see it in the daylight.

Hydrogen fires Yayy!!

Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity...Turbine?

[Nom du Keyboard]

I have much better hopes for E85 fuel, which combines 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Any existing car can be modified to run on E85 in addition to regular gasoline,

The Chrysler Turbine car ran on a much wider variety of fuels 40 years ago -- and looked better too!

Don't forget about the burns

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Hindenburg disaster, not one person was burned by hydrogen, all the burns were attributed to the deisel fuel used in the engines.

If you watch the film closely, you can see that the hydrogen was gone very very rapidly. And even though there was combustion and a large amount of hydrogen, it never had a chance to reach the oxygen hydrogen mixture ratios needed to gain an explosive potential.

I like hydrogen, and changing the infrastructure is something that is going to happen, the only question is it something we will control with planning, or will it be an OMG emergency slapdash quick fix....

Oh yes, I do like hydrogen, but we don't have a convenient system for storing/refueling that is fully equivalent of gasoline yet. Also, hydrogen has a tendency to corrode or otherwise compomise most metals due to a funny process where those little hydrogen atoms slip into the molecular bonds of the metals. In other words, rapid metal fatigue. I haven't heard of an easy fix for that yet.

You know what, guess this just goes to show that nothing is perfect, and the general public is still a bunch of ignorant baka. (Heck, most of them believe a computer is a magic black box ran by pixie dust or something...)

rocket science

[Doc Ruby]

I'm alarmed that they're painting DC minivans with rocket fuel.

Amsterdam public transport

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Amsterdam, city buses on Hydrogen drive through my street several times a day. The filling station is also around here.

Get over it dumb-people, it's even more secure!

I, for one,

[StikyPad]

I, for one, welcome our new single proton and electron overlords.

I'm also impressed that an oil company is taking the initiative to make the switch instead of becoming a dinosaur by sticking with oil. Sorry, that dinosaur/oil comment was completely out of line. I'm not sure what's wrong with me today.

Re:I, for one,

[tfulton2]

First, great sig! Second, there used to be an oil company that traded by the name Sinclair; their logo was a big green dinosaur, a Brontosaurus-type. Sick, or what?

Maybe they could sell illegal drugs, too

[gemtech]

that would keep them away from schools. problem solved.

Why in Washington D.C.?

[Doppler00]

I think there is only one reason this hydrogen station was opened in Washington D.C.

My guess is, they hope having a demonstration fleet in D.C. will make the technology more visible to politicians and try to convince them to buy government vehicles that run on this technology, regardless of how cost effective it actually is.

"Shell officials hope it'll get a lot of attention -- and, eventually, use."

Oh, I don't know.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some advantages to encouraging the darwin awards to such people.These are the same people who ignore science and knowledge.

Re:Hydrogen

[CaptainCarrot]

It's true. Natural gas can be deadly explosive stuff, but we live with it everyday and think nothing of the risk. But every so often there's a reminder.

But mention hydrogen and you get unreasoned panic. Go figure.

New London

[wkitchen]

Why don't you compare and contrast for us the merits of the hydrogen fuel station 50 yards away from the school with what's likely the natural gas line and furnace that likely runs driectly to and resides inside the school?

You mean like this one? That's the incident that effectively silenced all opposition to putting odorants in natural gas. Kids and teachers had been complaining about not feeling well for several days. No one knew why until the school exploded from the odorless gas that had been accumulating in and under the building. 300 people died. Most were children.

Hindenburg

[Crazy Eight]

For the record, Hydrogen isn't what made the Hindenburg a calamity waiting to happen. It's skin was "doped" with an extremely flammable sealant.

Hydrogen is a cruel hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

You can make it from water if you have the electricity, but we don't have the electricity, or the will to build more power plants.

You can make it by steam-reforming natural gas, but natural gas contributes to global warming and won't last forever. Gas is already being heavily used for home heat, electricity, and industrial processes -- now you want to use it for motor vehicle fuel as well?

Hydrogen is a bitch to store. It's boiling point is near absolute zero. It's volume energy density, even in liquid form, is less than gasoline and alcohol. It accelerates metal fatigue (embrittlement) -- which means existing natural gas pipelines can't be used to carry it.

Low-temperature fuel cells suitable for automotive use require expensive precious-metal catalysts.

Retrofit the pipelines? Store hydrogen in carbon nanotubes? Design a fuel cell that doesn't need platinum? Great -- but when? We can't do this by relying on a technological deus ex machina that will emerge from the lab Real Soon Now.

Like expensive and inefficient photovoltaics, however, hydrogen doesn't threaten the fossil fuel status quo -- and that's why the energy companies support it. Never mind that thermal depolymerization can turn garbage into oil TODAY. Never mind that we can make cellulosic ethanol from scrap wood, paper, sawdust, or stover TODAY. Never mind that we can make biodiesel from algae or waste fryer oil TODAY. Never mind that flexible fuel vehicles which burn straight alcohol are available TODAY. Never mind that biodiesel is available TODAY, and can be burned in a diesel engine with no modifications.

Sorry for the rant. Like other crises, the "energy crisis" is a political problem, not a technological one.

What about Electrolosis?

[K'tohg]

Correct me if I'm wrong but what about this idea?

As your car is burning Hydrogen (mixed with Oxygen) the process will create water (H2O) and store this in a tank.

Pull up to your "Fuel Cell" station and deposit your waste (water) and refill your Hydrogen.

Now the station takes the water and through electrolysis [wikipedia.org] it creates Oxygen and Hydrogen. The Hydrogen fills the next customers fuel cell while the Oxygen is place back into the atmosphere from which the Hydrogen powered car cot it in the first place.

Now the energy needed for the electrolysis would come from power plants like nuclear and coal etc. And if cars did there own electrolysis then the electricity that you use to charge the batteries would come from nuclear or coal. Not much difference I see (Is the energy consumption incorrect in my thinking?)

As for transport if the station is storing water and making it's own Hydrogen then the storage would be minimal as opposed to huge pressurized tanks.

In other words store the Hydrogen in a chemically neutral form and convert it to pure Hydrogen when you need it. Just an idea.

Safer than natural gas

[Mr Europe]

Hydrogen is much safer than natural gas. The most propable risk is having a small leak. Hydrogen goes right up to the sky, but natural gas is heavier than air and it flows to house basements, sewers etc.

Re:Hydrogen

[lachlan76]

Doesn't matter, they still have 'em near schools.

At my primary school, which I went to up until a couple of years ago, there's a petrol station across the street - around 20 meters from the fence.

And you know what the only problem there ever was was caused by? A gas leak from a building site next door - on the side opposite the petrol station.

And what about...

[HeliumHigh]

And what about HELIUM you insensitive clods?

--
HH

We've had one in Toronto for months ...

[Willard B. Trophy]

Hydrogenics built one at ExPlace in Toronto back in August: Hydrogenics at the 2004 CNE.

It's right next door to our wind turbine ...

If hydrogen is bad, what's your solution?

[Money for Nothin']

Dear Greens:

You don't like gasoline-powered vehicles because they pollute like crazy and make us dependent on foreign oil. That's agreeable.

You don't like hydrogen vehicles because hydrogen is highly-flammable (no duh; that's the point), even as it produces only water in its combustion.

My challenge to the Greens and other eco-liberals is this: create a machine which transforms one form of energy into mechanical power which does not pollute in any environmentally-damaging way, which does not make us reliant on foreign nations, and which is infinitely-renewable (read: powered by the sun, wind, lightning, ocean currents and tides, etc.) so that we never have to confront the problem of switching to new energy sources ever again.

Oh, and it must be cost-efficient enough that it may be mass-manufactured by automobile companies; it needn't be so cheap that everybody can afford it immediately -- let the economies of scale inherent in automobile manufacturing drive the cost down over time. This will additionally allow for a gradual -- rather than immediate -- switch in our nation's energy useage for our individual automobiles, which is what we want anyway, to minimize economic shock. But b/c of that extra lead time, we do need to start ASAP, and we need to be finished *before* we run out of cheap-enough oil...

Think it can be done? Then for the good of all humanity, develop a better solution than the currently existing ones and let's end this problem once and for all! :-) Anybody who can meet such a challenge will surely be regarded as one of the greatest inventors in the history of mankind.