Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Like a tank of gasoline isn't anymore explosive than hydrogen?
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
... wait for it ...
-1 Flamebait
--
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.)
Getting a Mr. Fusion to power a vehicle? I mean, they did it back in 1985!
And that was with a DeLorean.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
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.
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I mean, they've already got a giant tank of explosive gasoline near their house, can a little hydrogen really be that much worse?
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!
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.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
From the wiki link
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
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.
Let me know when they start stocking helium... heeheeheeheehee!
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?
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?
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)
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
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"
--
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.
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.
Only 35 out of 97 people aboard died. Most crashes involving heavier-than-air aircraft kill everyone aboard.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
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.
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.
"If it sucks without butter, it still sucks with butter, only creamier." - AC
My local electric company has an option you can pick for alternate energy sources. So I get all MY power from burning orphans!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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...
where was the kaboom? there was sposed to be an earth shattering kaboom....
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
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.
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.
--- Where's my car, and why are these grass stains on my pants?
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.
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
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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......
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
"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.
There is uproar over propane -- its just not as explosive as Hydrogen.
...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.
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.
Oh My God Will Someone Please Think of the Children
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
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:
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...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...
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.
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 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.
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'!)
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.