Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Combined Gasoline/Hydrogen Fuel Station Opens

Posted by michael on from the energy-milestones dept.

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?"

29 of 551 comments (clear)

  1. Hindenburg by krog · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
    1. Re:Hindenburg by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    2. Re:Hindenburg by krog · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

      --
      Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
    3. Re:Hindenburg by codeguy007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Hindenburg by CGP314 · · Score: 2, Informative

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


      -Colin

  2. Hydrogen Power. by musingmelpomene · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

    1. Re:Hydrogen Power. by thpr · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Hydrogen Power. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Informative

      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*

  3. Hindenburg reference by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 4, Informative
    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...
    --
    Eureka Science News - automatically updated
    1. Re:Hindenburg reference by RedWizzard · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.
  4. 6 minutes on slashdot..... by zippity8 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  5. Scientific Illiteracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Oh so scary by demachina · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    @de_machina
  7. "What is there to worry about?" by Minwee · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

  8. Re:Informative Wiki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:first/second/third/15th post! by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    --
    That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
  10. Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman? by elal1862 · · Score: 1, Informative

    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!

  11. Re:Pah by 'nother+poster · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Pah by Chagrin · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --

    I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation

  13. Re:Pah by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
  14. Re:Pah by budgenator · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  15. There is by tacokill · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:Pah by 'nother+poster · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  17. Re:Pah by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

    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!

    --
    That's it, Mr. Giraffe, get all the marmalade.
  18. Re:Right but by Twanfox · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  19. TWENTY HYDROGEN MYTHS by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Informative

    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'!)

  20. Re:Right but by Cybrr · · Score: 2, Informative
    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...
    --
    Why did GEAR crush RDP?
  21. H2 is safer than Gasoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "...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

  22. Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity... by ikewillis · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.