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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

Mod the Shell station....

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

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

--

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

[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.

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.

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. :-)

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.

[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.

[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.

[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*

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: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?

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: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.

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.

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'!)