Fire and Explosion At Hydrogen Station Near Rochester Airport

RossR writes "There was a hydrogen fire and explosion at a renewable fuel station used by government vehicles near Rochester's airport. The nearby freeway and airport were closed resulting in diverted flights. This may the first major incident at a hydrogen vehicle refueling station. GM has their major fuel cell development center nearby, in the town of Honeoye Falls. The fire occurred when the 18-wheeler tractor truck was transferring hydrogen to the station. The airport press conference reported that airport firefighters responded first and initially waited on the scene deciding how to respond. No news yet if the hard to see flames of hydrogen combustion contributed to this delay. The fueling station is also adjacent to a NY State Trooper station, and a firefighting training facility is a few blocks away." RossR also provides a Police/FD Radio transcript. Luckily, no one was killed, and only two injured, including the driver.

Comments

Renewable energy?!

[grub]

[tinfoil_hat]
BP did it!
[/tinfoil_hat]

A close call but we made it this time

[Orga]

I was worried the accident had ignited the atmoshpere and there was a wall of fire coming for me now. Whew!

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[blair1q]

Worse.

It warmed the globe.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

Oh, but hydrogen doesn't explode or even burn! Half a million slashdotters insisted as much, and profusely insisted that the Hindenburg really burned because of a "thermite" or "rocket fuel" skin. ;)

The reality is that hydrogen is an exceedingly flammable gas, much moreso than hydrocarbons, with 1/10th the ignition energy required many times the fuel-air combustible mixture range, and -- unlike hydrocarbons -- readily undergoes deflagration-to-detonation transitions in unconfined spaces. It's also extremely prone to leaks, burns largely clear, and tends to pool in fuel-air mixtures underneath overhangs. To top it all off, it's stored under immense pressure.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and if you inhale dihydrogen monoxide at room temperature, the effects can be lethal!

Look, if you want to store energy, there's going to be some energy in whatever you store it in. Gasoline burns pretty readily as well, explodes in confined spaces and it has this annoying tendency to pool around ground level when it's leaked rather than going up into the atmosphere. (It's also carcinogenic, unlike hydrogen). Diesel fuel doesn't explode, but it still burns, and worse, it doesn't evaporate at room temperature so when spilled, it stays there drastically reducing friction on the road surface until something washes it off. Lithium batteries can cause some nasty, difficult-to-extinguish fires. Nuclear fuel rods... well..

There's no perfectly safe way to store a bunch of energy. I don't think it's possible even in theory.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[meerling]

Hydrogen is very flammable, nobody disputes that, but is has to be given enough oxygen before it can ignite. As to the Hindenburg, not a single person was harmed by the burning hydrogen which was up and away moments after the storage cells ruptured. It wasn't the hydrogen that caused the Hindenburg incident, it would have played out almost exactly the same if they'd used helium instead.

So stop either scaremongering or being afraid of hydrogen, it's no bigger danger than the other stuff we use all the time.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[meerling]

Yep, I even know someone that has a nasty scar on his arm from when a mainspring blew and slashed him.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[lgw]

Look, if you want to store energy, there's going to be some energy in whatever you store it in.

Hydrogen gas, however, is a particular pain in the ass. It eats through rubber seals, and the energy density (at STP) is so low that you have to store it at immense pressure to be useful for transportation.

Storing hydrogen as a metal hydride with catalyzed release is a very different story, and might be one of the safest means of high density energy storage. I hope work on that technology is progressing (despise the fact that Bush once endorsed it), as it could well become the "magic battery" we've been looking for.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Smidge204]

There's no perfectly safe way to store a bunch of energy.

Nobody ever said otherwise... but surely you'd agree there are safer ways to store energy?

Most of everything else you said falls into the "not quite" category of truthfulness, too. For example, gasoline explosions are fairly rare in practice, and diesel fuel spilled on a roadway is not exceptionally slippery (and if it is, my experience is this is the diesel dissolving the tars and heavy oils in the asphalt - which happens with gasoline too.)
=Smidge=

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Doc Ruby]

In this fire at the Rochester airport, two people were injured with some surface burns, even though a tankful burned and consumed an entire pressurized container truck. I saw no evidence of any other damage, it didn't burn the nearby containers of jet fuel, no firefighters were injured, no smoke inhalation.

If this had been petrofuel, the damage would probably have been a lot worse. Petrofuel sticks to stuff, doesn't disperse, makes lots of toxic smoke, is toxic in its own right.

Besides, nobody claims that hydrogen doesn't burn. And there's no new evidence, especially here, that the Hindenburg burned because of its hydrogen rather than its documented explosive material skin.

So why do you hate hydrogen? You don't want your own to find out, and turn against you.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[tibit]

The nice thing about hydrogen is that if something leaks in your hydrogen-fueled car and there's a fire, it'll hopefully quickly burn through the metal and shoot straight up. Compare that with a gasoline fire that's most likely to spread under the car once the fuel tank ruptures -- you end up well done with a crispy skin to boost. Personally, if I were to undergo a fuel tank fire/explosion, I'd much rather have hydrogen in the tank.

I do agree on all your other points, though -- it's an immense pain in the ass, even worse than helium, and with hydrogen everything seems to be a sieve unless you pay good attention. With helium it's slightly less so AFAIK, even though it's still painful.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[FooAtWFU]

I hope work on that technology is progressing (despise the fact that Bush once endorsed it),

See? SEE?! This is what happens when we politicize Science to Hell and back: some unpopular politician endorses it and we assume by default that this is grounds to discredit it. This is Slashdot, people. Evaluating the merits of the technology irrespective of politics should be the rule and not the exception.

Where are our values?

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[socz]

Try riding a motorcycle and putting your feet down on a heavily traveled truck route!

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[tibit]

Expanding on that: while helium is not flammable, as soon as the cells rupture the helium would have quickly escaped upwards, creating a draft that pulls the air in. If the fabric was in any way flammable, that would spread the fire.

I've read somewhere that the Hundenburg skin wasn't really as flammable as everyone claims (this seems to be a half-myth), although it definitely wasn't non-flammable, nor did it have any flame suppressants added to it.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, just keeping your tires down can be tricky. Two-wheelers and diesel spills don't play well together at all.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[God'sDuck]

As to the Hindenburg, not a single person was harmed by the burning hydrogen which was up and away moments after the storage cells ruptured.

Well, seeing as it was up and away in a FIREBALL that melted metal in under a minute before dissipating, causing molten beams to fall on people, one could argue it was the falling molten girders that killed people, not the fireball that molten-ed the falling girders. http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/myths#advocates

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not exceedingly flammable, it's a pretty poor fuel.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[rickb928]

Yes, dear...

My high school lab partner and I mixed hydrogen and chlorine in a vessel and showed it was so unstable that sunlight would ignite it. No, we didn't use very much of either, as it was pretty energetic, and gave a nice pop each trial. we popped several times to prove taking it out of the dark box was the trigger. We did manage to pop it once with rough handling, but I think the lid coming off the box caused that one.

And yes, we underestimated the amount of chlorine we generated for the experiment, and evacuated the entire wing. Hehe... Anything for a morning out of school eh? At least we know what chlorine does to window glass now.

We also burned hydrogen in the chlorine atmosphere we had handy. Colorless flame. We cooked on top of that vessel to prove combustion or something was happening in there.

Blame my o-chem teacher in high school for my not taking up a career in chemistry and so destroying all living things.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

It's kinda hard to power things with helium, since it is non-reactive and non-combustable.

One could keep it under pressure and have the pressure itself be the energy storage, but regular air or nitrogen would be better for that (cheaper and not a finite supply).

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Teancum]

So I take it you've never heard of somebody dying in a petroleum refinery explosion. Other than the kind of fuel involved, why is this even newsworthy?

Most of what you describe above in terms of the dangers of hydrogen apply equally well to gasoline, and rocket-grade hydrogen peroxide. Gasoline vapors can and do pool "underneath overhangs" and has the additional nasty ability to self-ignite at "room temperature and pressure".... something that hydrogen typically doesn't do as a gas.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[lennier]

Where are our values?

I don't know, but we'll find them when we find our keys.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Hugecocks Analthrust]

Say that to the SR-71 pilots. You're dumb!

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[uniquename72]

Additionally: The Mythbusters take on the Hindenburg.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Anonymous Coward]

NiMH battery is based on storing hydrogen in metal hydride.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-metal_hydride_battery

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but if hydrogen leaks, it floats away and rapidly disposes of itself. This is very much unlike gasoline or diesel or whatever that tends to pool on the ground and stick around and explode when it finds a running engine or something. Or at best, there's a big mess to clean up. Hydrogen has no similar hazmat problem.

Hydrogen cleans itself up and it's also basically non-hazardous unless it's ignited or inhaled in large amounts.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Bryansix]

And yet Hydrogen still stores energy more densely then batteries. So you make no valid point.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Bryansix]

Actually everybody knows it burns. How else would there be such a thing as a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine? What the point was with the Hindenburg is that the Hydrogen had been odorized with Garlic so they could detect a leak.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Dishevel]

Even WORSE

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[lgw]

The energy density of hydrogen by mass is great, but by volume (at STP) is crap. Thus my comment about compressing it to immense pressure to be useful in transportation, yes? But that makes it quite unsafe.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Bryansix]

People said that about CNG too and yet you don't hear expose's on how unsafe that is. You are just basing your argument on conjecture. You have no proof that is is less safe then say a full tank of gasoline.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[HereIAmJH]

The nice thing about hydrogen is that if something leaks in your hydrogen-fueled car and there's a fire, it'll hopefully quickly burn through the metal and shoot straight up.

If the fire reaches the interior of your car, there is enough flammable material in there to burn regardless of the source. I know this from experience. And the only explosion was the windows shattering from the heat/pressure building inside the car. The roof rose 6-8 inches.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Timothy Brownawell]

It wasn't the hydrogen that caused the Hindenburg incident, it would have played out almost exactly the same if they'd used helium instead.

They would have had one broken gas bag instead of losing all eight, and probably would have just landed a bit hard. The burning will happen wherever the hydrogen is mixing with air, so along the top where it's escaping and also inside the rigid envelope that air is getting sucked in to... and both of these would be fairly near the other not-yet-broken gas bags, which would melt/burn/whatever and blow their loads as well.

So stop either scaremongering or being afraid of hydrogen, it's no bigger danger than the other stuff we use all the time.

Especially in smaller-than-airship quantities. A hydrogen-filled party balloon would as worst scare people, and a compressed tank is only more dangerous than anything else compressed if you're in an enclosed area.

Hm... what happens if your car's hydrogen tank ruptures in an underground parking garage, or that long tunnel under the English Channel? That might keep it from dissipating fast enough and get rather explodey.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[cvtan]

I believe one of the injured was a Burger King worker who had her head out the drive-thru window when the explosion happened. Ear pain was associated with hearing the noise. The other was the driver of the truck who was doing the tank exchange (a GM employee). My guess is he didn't follow the safety procedure although no blame has been assigned yet. I am in Rochester, so I must be correct! The Hindenburg Syndrome will get a boost from this.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope work on that technology is progressing (despise the fact that Bush once endorsed it),

See? SEE?! This is what happens when we politicize Science to Hell and back: some unpopular politician endorses it and we assume by default that this is grounds to discredit it. This is Slashdot, people. Evaluating the merits of the technology irrespective of politics should be the rule and not the exception.

Where are our values?

Are you implying that the crowd that reads slashdot is generally binnable into "value groups"? In the scale of general populations this might be true, but seriously.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[HereIAmJH]

Try climbing up the steps into the cab at the fuel pump. You'll learn what sailors already knew.

And I remember driving through a fuel spill at an accident once. I don't know if it was simply the fuel, or if the light rain made it worse, but it was like driving on ice.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[ScrewMaster]

Personally, if I were to undergo a fuel tank fire/explosion, I'd much rather have hydrogen in the tank.

Huh? Liquid fuel is a hell of a lot safer. Seriously, how often do you hear about massive fires and explosions involving gas stations and/or gasoline-fueled vehicles? Answer: you don't. It's a fairly mature and comparatively safe technology ... the real danger is the average American driver. Conversely, anyone who thinks a tank of pressurized, highly-flammable gas is a good thing in an automobile is nuts. Frankly, I feel the same way about big lithium-ion battery packs in cars: I'm waiting for a Prius to crash into a bridge siding and have a piece of rebar spike the battery.

The GP is right: if we're going to use hydrogen as an automotive fuel we need a better way to store it. Pressure tanks just don't cut it, not with hydrogen.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[ScrewMaster]

It's kinda hard to power things with helium, since it is non-reactive and non-combustable.

One could keep it under pressure and have the pressure itself be the energy storage, but regular air or nitrogen would be better for that (cheaper and not a finite supply).

Yeah. You'd be better off with a flywheel.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

1) CNG is much safer than hydrogen -- lower pressures, much greater ignition energy req, much narrower fuel-air burn ratios, no DTD transition in unconfined spaces, no metal fatigue, no seeping through almost anything, etc.

2) CNG vehicles *are* a lot less save than gasoline vehicles. Even with how limited use it's gotten so far, there are tons of reports of huge CNG-vehicle accidents (mainly on CNG busses). Here's what happens when a CNG car burns versus a gasoline car. Several cars were burned by arson here. Tell me if you can spot which one was CNG. ;)

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

And the Mythbusters rigged everything in favor of the skin. Remember the small-scale: when they tried having all of the hydrogen in at once, it simply exploded instantly. So they slowly injected the H2. And their scale model also had a *way* higher skin-to-volume ratio.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

And yet Hydrogen still stores energy more densely then batteries. So you make no valid point.

Hey, a Beryllium slurry stores way more energy than gasoline. Should we all drive cars powered by burning a beryllium slurry?

The argument is a dumb one anyway. BEV ranges have been advancing much faster than H2 vehicle ranges. Today's top of the line EVs only have marginally less range than today's top of the line FCVs. They'll pass them within the next ten years. Getting more range out of an EV due to battery improvements improves generally everything else about the vehicle -- more power available, longer battery life, faster charge rates, etc. Getting more range out of an H2 vehicle *worsens* everything about it -- more dangerous pressures, more energy lost in storage, lower fill rates due to the higher pressures, etc.

And besides, when the choice is a $109k sports car which does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, or a glorified H2 Camry (the Clarity) that costs about $300k and which can only be filled in select locations, and which takes about three times as much energy per mile -- who do you think would pick the latter?

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[lgw]

Wow, the photos of that CNG tank after the boom are quite something.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

When the Hindenburg burned, huge amounts of its unburned skin landed in pieces all over the landing site -- self-extinguished by the winds from the fire. The skin has a burn rate of centimeters per second where it can be sustained. The Hindenburg burned at a rate of *meters* per second. The amount of skin compared to the amount of hydrogen was miniscule.

Hydrogen burns in almost any fuel-air mixture -- if I remember right, it's something along the lines of 4% to 70%. It mixes with air incredibly rapidly even when not pressurized or driven by intense convection currents.

Helium blimps do not burn. Period. That's why they switched to them, even using the exact same fabrics at the time. Any skin fire would be quickly extinguished by the inert gas inside.

It's simply a fact that hydrogen is an *extremely* flammable, easy to ignite, easy to mix with air fuel. Way more than gasoline, and significantly more than CNG.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[pipingguy]

The LH2 tankers are well-designed and the drivers highly trained. Many years ago I worked for a major industrial gas company as a designer and had a chance to look at the engineering drawings for a new tanker they were buying. Very impressive. At the time the cost was US$ 1 million.

There was a hydrogen plant explosion a few years ago.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

In this fire at the Rochester airport, two people were injured with some surface burns

Injured "with some surface burns"? The driver suffered second degree burns on his face. Want to see what that looks like? Link (not the same person, but the same condition). There was nobody else at the station at the time. The other person who was burned was at a Burger King -- across a large parking lot and a major road, then across the Burger King's parking lot. She was flash burned.

Had this been in a residential neighborhood instead of the outskirts of an airport, it could have been catastrophic.

Yes, petrofuel burns and smokes for a while. For a while. Hydrogen burns incredibly rapidly. You can't run away from a hydrogen fire.

And there's no new evidence, especially here, that the Hindenburg burned because of its hydrogen rather than its documented explosive material skin.

Oh, for God's sake, even the Mythbusters have debunked this one. But if you'd rather a scientific paper, here you go. Here's a nice wrapup of the whole thing.

I think one of the most damning things is Bain's own video. He has to use a freaking Jacob's ladder to ignite his skin sample, and as soon as the Jacob's ladder's energy is gone, the skin self-extinguishes.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

My father was a refinery manager. Even with the vast amounts of oil and natural gas they had there, the proportionally small amounts of hydrogen (used for the cat crackers and hydrocrackers) led to the most horror stories.

Gasoline vapors do not pool anywhere close to the degree that hydrogen does, as gasoline vapors break down over time, are heavy, and require a very specific fuel-air mix to burn. Here, just to make it easy: how about you go compare NASA's safety handling guides for JP1 with their guide for handling hydrogen. I'll put it this way: the JP1 guide doesn't tell you to build your buildings *planning* for the roof to be blown off.

Rocket-grade peroxide (HTP) is also very dangerous, and I wouldn't recommend it for cars, either.

Gasoline requires about ten times as much energy to ignite as hydrogen. As a consequence, hydrogen management guidelines require extreme measures be taken for spark suppression, as even the tinist static spark can ignite it.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

No, in enclosed spaces, hydrogen pools. It only leaks when the highest point above it is clear or slopes to the sky. When confined, it tends to leak *into* structures. For example, hydrogen pipelines must be the highest in elevation when you have several pipelines running together; otherwise, it can leak out of its pipeline and into the other pipelines and follow them to their destination, then pool there. There are all sorts of crazy regulations for dealing with hydrogen because it's both explosive and an utter PITA to handle.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[budgenator]

We had a car converted to CNG that had a fuel tank explode a few years ago, which caused the Nat Gas company to close the only public CNG fueling station, now it's just the buses fueled with CNG.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

And think about it this way: hydrogen is stored at higher pressures and is more explosive than CNG. Sometimes hydrogen proponents make these carefully demos where they punch a specific hole in the tank and ignite it under precise conditions. But in the real world, what you usually get is catastrophic failure. That sort of explosion isn't a "burn your arm if you're in the car" explosion. That's a "take down your house if the car's in the garage at the time" explosion.

It's just not an appropriate fuel for vehicles. Plus, the H2 fuel cycle is just so inefficient.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, 2nd degree face burns are "some surface burns", as are "flash burns". I used to work full time at a large NYC area hospital that is the region's burn center (downstate excluding NYC), and I know what burns look like. I know that people with gasoline burns have third degree burns, limbs charred off. Worse, I know that petrofuel fires do burn for "a while", all the while putting smoke in everyone's lungs and mucous membranes, which is what usually kills or overcomes people then killed by the fire. I also know that major petrofuel fires happen all the time, despite well over a century of practice in avoiding and containing them, while this fire is evidently the first major one even though the fuel has been in wide use for some years, and specialized use for longer than that.

Hydrogen does indeed burn incredibly rapidly, which means that most of it burns away from the people near it. The hydrogen rises away from the surface where the people are, and fills empty spaces with relatively low amounts of heat as it burns off. Indeed, it burns rapidly enough to explode under just STP air pressure, but the force of that explosion and the heat of its fire quickly abates, without transferring as much energy into people and flammable objects (like other fuel inside other tanks) as does a petrofuel fire. Which tends to burn through fuel tanks and explode them, too.

As for the Hindenburg, even the airships.net article you pointed me to, which is indeed titled "Hindenburg Paint Did Not Cause the Disaster", also admits

It is possible (though not likely, given the wet and rainy conditions) that the covering was the cause of the initial ignition, but if the Hindenburg had been inflated with helium instead of hydrogen, even a small fire on the outer covering would not have resulted in a major catastrophe.

So what's for sure is that the airships.net author and community doesn't know what caused the fire, and that the covering was entirely possibly the cause of the initial ignition, and not at all ruled out. The obvious agenda of the author is to complain about an airship being filled with hydrogen instead of helium (due to the US embargo of its helium monopoly to the Germans), rather than a definitive debunking of "what caused the disaster", which it cannot and does not offer.

Again, nobody's saying that hydrogen doesn't burn - that's inane, and contradicts using it for fuel. What is at issue is the relative safety of hydrogen vs petrofuel. This incident shows that hydrogen fuel can cause fires and explosions, but by comparison to, say, a gasoline tanker burning and exploding, hydrogen seems a lot safer.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[tibit]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I said that "if I were to undergo a fuel tank fire/explosion, I'd much rather have hydrogen in the tank". I was quite precise. Given that a fire and/or explosion is imminent, I want hydrogen in the tank. That's all I said. I spoke nothing about how likely a fuel tank fire/explosion is vs. same for cryo or compressed hydrogen.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[tibit]

I agree. But I'd presume that the fire is less likely to reach the interior if there's a nice hole burned out in the trunk, and the fire shoots straight up. This versus a ruptured gasoline tank that cooks you in a firestorm. I have to locate a video that demonstrates that, I remember seeing it somewhere on the tubes.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Mspangler]

"Hydrogen gas, however, is a particular pain in the ass."

I work at a chemical plant that uses hydrogen in the process. I second your opinion. It also is a great generator of static electricity, so even though it is technically not self igniting, half the time it still seems to catch on fire out the vent stack.

It's only virtue is that the leaks go up, so if the vent fans are running it won't have time to build up an explosive bubble before it departs.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[pookemon]

Nah - it's ok. Burning the Hydrogen produced water, which then put the fire out.

It also produced a loud popping sound and several testtubes were broken. So really you should only be worried about being hit in the head by flying testtubes.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[mdielmann]

Also worth noting, even if something bad happens with hydrogen, the hydrogen is shortly no longer an issue. Gasoline can burn for days given the right circumstances and no attempts to put it out. Even without those criteria, it can burn for hours. Unless in a VERY enclosed space, or continuing to feed more hydrogen into the mix, this simply won't happen with hydrogen. And that's the only good thing I can say about hydrogen as a transportation fuel in it's current state.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[tibit]

I was only giving helium as an example of a gas that's hard to handle. Small molecules => leaks like hell. Hydrogen is of course worse, but helium is no picnic.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Keith Henson]

Agreed, hydrogen is a pain in the ass.

If you have it in quantities for transportation fuel (vast amounts) you can combine it with carbon, even carbon dioxide, using the F/T process and make hydrocarbons. Those we do know how to deal with.

The economics is that one cent per kWh electric power will get you $1 a gallon transport fuels (~40 kWh in a gallon of gasoline). That counts the capital cost of the plant. Sasol has a billion dollar plant in Qatar that turns hydrogen and carbon monoxide into diesel. It would run just fine on carbon dioxide and half again as much hydrogen.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Anonymous Coward]

What the point was with the Hindenburg is that the Hydrogen had been odorized with Garlic so they could detect a leak.

Imagine the guilt when you see a huge disaster with hundreds of people burning and all you can think is "man, that smells DELICIOUS!"
- fractoid-with-modpoints

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[WalksOnDirt]

Gasoline requires about ten times as much energy to ignite as hydrogen.

Could you explain why then gasoline has an auto-ignition temperature of 280 while hydrogen is at 500? See here.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

Hydrogen does indeed burn incredibly rapidly, which means that most of it burns away from the people near it.

Let me sum up my reply to your whole post this way. Do you know what you call a rapid fire?

An Explosion

Which would you rather be next to when it goes off -- a pound of gasoline or a pound of dynamite?

For a given amount of energy, you don't want it to burn quickly. Your gasoline burn victims would simply be dead had all of the energy in the fuel gone off at once.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[jwhitener]

I hope work on that technology is progressing (despise the fact that Bush once endorsed it),

See? SEE?! This is what happens when we politicize Science to Hell and back: some unpopular politician endorses it and we assume by default that this is grounds to discredit it. This is Slashdot, people. Evaluating the merits of the technology irrespective of politics should be the rule and not the exception.

Where are our values?

I agree, in general. But if someone is wrong 99 times, should I take the time to investigate the 100th claim?

Regardless, this becomes a none issue if we start listening to scientists about science, and not politicians. But scientists tend to have less public exposure than politicians, and public exposure leads to public policy decisions. And doesn't it seem pretty apparent that the far right gets science wrong way more often than the far left? It isn't unreasonable to totally disregard what a neo-con/tea-party type says in terms of science (and policy in general, but that is another conversation:))

I

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

Autoignition temperature != energy of ignition. H2 = 0.017mJ. Gasoline: 0.20mJ. They're two different parameters. You can put a vial of nitroglycerine in a pot of boiling water and it won't go off (autoignition temperature = 270C -- similar to gasoline), but it only takes the tiniest amount of ignition energy to set it off.

Hydrogen is *incredibly* sensitive to being ignited by tiny static charges.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Personally, if I were to undergo a fuel tank fire/explosion, I'd much rather have hydrogen in the tank.

Personally, I'd rather have a fuel tank full of aluminum. It stores 2.4 times as much energy as gasoline, and fuel cells to consume aluminium are 100 times cheaper than hydrogen fuel cells. 5 coke can sized-blocks of aluminum in a 100 percent efficient aluminium-air fuel cell can get you 250 miles in a Tesla. Most aluminum fuel cells are only 44 percent efficient, though.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Hey, a Beryllium slurry stores way more energy than gasoline. Should we all drive cars powered by burning a beryllium slurry?

The best argument against hydrogen is aluminium. Aluminium stores energy slightly more efficiently, has no explosion hazards, has similar energy densities to gasoline, and is made on a large scale. The aluminium fuel cell is also 100 times cheaper than a hydrogen fuel cell. And that's with what? Probably less than a 1000th the money spent on the hydrogen boondogle.

But overall, I think electric will win out. Have you seen the new Sanyo Eneloop NiMH? 2 times the volumetric energy density of an A123 lithium-ion, if my math is correct.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[amnezick]

if a prius crashes it is because the driver fell asleep thanks to the deaf-like silence but it's moving so slow the bumper will absorb all the energy and will just bounce the car back on the road ...

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Dr_Barnowl]

Hmm. Not sure about that - the Eneloops have some nice characteristics, but their energy density is lower than standard NiMH cells.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[j00r0m4nc3r]

now it's just the buses fueled with CNG

Well that's a relief!

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[necro81]

Yes, 2nd degree face burns are "some surface burns", as are "flash burns". I used to work full time at a large NYC area hospital that is the region's burn center (downstate excluding NYC), and I know what burns look like. I know that people with gasoline burns have third degree burns, limbs charred off.

Electricity can do that, too, despite over a century of widespread use. I've worked with people that've lost arms and legs while working with electricity. I have not, as yet, worked with someone who died from electricity, but that's probably because I make a point of not working with zombies: they're so unreliable.

Seriously, though, I'd say that an earlier post was correct: when you pack energy into a very dense form, there's a good chance that, sooner or later, you'll get a catastrophic sudden release.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Anonymous Coward]

--
The US national debt: $120,000 per taxpayer. Spent enough yet? [usdebtclock.org]

Sweet Jesu that is the most Flash I've ever seen on a webpage.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[macson_g]

Yes, and if you inhale dihydrogen monoxide at room temperature, the effects can be lethal!

LMAO

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[locofungus]

Huh? Liquid fuel is a hell of a lot safer. Seriously, how often do you hear about massive fires and explosions involving gas stations and/or gasoline-fueled vehicles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buncefield_fire

(I used to work sufficiently close to this plant that I could see these tanks from my desk)

A hydrogen leak probably wouldn't have ignited (would have dispersed too quickly). If it had ignited would probably not have exploded (outside so it's pretty hard to get enough H2 in one place) and would probably have just destroyed the one leaking tank and burned out within minutes.

The only reason Buncefield didn't have dozens to hundreds of fatalities was that it happened very early on a Sunday morning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Oil_Refinery

IIRC this caught fire the day the Judgement was being released into the Buncefield disaster.

Tim.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, how often do you hear about massive fires and explosions involving gas stations and/or gasoline-fueled vehicles? Answer: you don't
 
Correct Answer: Oh yes you do... Google is your friend, google "Gasoline Tanker Fire" and look at the results.
 
  Heck, there was a tanker fire on the New York state throughway, between Rochester and Buffallo just a couple weeks ago. Shut down both side for hours.
Not sure if anyone was killed/injured, but it would not be surprizing...

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[DigitalSorceress]

That was a highly articulate outburst, and I approve (and couldn't agree more).

Straw man ain't welcome here. :)

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[tibit]

Offtopic rant: I think that aluminum fuel cells won't take off all that easy if the name is already taken. For some reason the racing industry felt an urge to make themselves feel better (IMHO), and borrowed an aviation term (jets typically have wet fuel cells in the wings). If you google for aluminum fuel cells, all you'll find are racing fuel tanks made from aluminum. Sigh:

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[tibit]

Okee dokee, so assuming 50% fuel cell efficiency, how does the energy cost compare between gasoline and aluminum?

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Doc Ruby]

Indeed, it burns rapidly enough to explode under just STP air pressure, but the force of that explosion and the heat of its fire quickly abates, without transferring as much energy into people and flammable objects (like other fuel inside other tanks) as does a petrofuel fire. Which tends to burn through fuel tanks and explode them, too.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Rei]

Which would you rather be next to when it goes off -- a pound of gasoline or a pound of dynamite?

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Angst Badger]

diesel fuel spilled on a roadway is not exceptionally slippery

Try going over it on a motorcycle sometime. After you've had time to recover, we can compare scars.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Carnildo]

Huh? Liquid fuel is a hell of a lot safer. Seriously, how often do you hear about massive fires and explosions involving gas stations and/or gasoline-fueled vehicles? Answer: you don't.

Explanation: You don't, because it doesn't make the national news. If you look around, you'll find that there are a couple hundred gas tanker or gas station fires every year in the US. These fires generally destroy the station and/or tanker involved, and require evacuating a sizeable area around the fire.

The reason you heard about this fire is because hydrogen fires are less common than gasoline fires (and thus, more newsworthy), and because an airport was in the evacuation zone.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Phoghat]

Well other than that, what could go wrong?

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Comparing the two does not make much sense, because gasoline is a fuel that comes out of the ground. Aluminium is made by electrolysing its oxide using hydroelectric dams. Hydrogen is made by heat natural gas with water and an catalyst (made of unobtainium, IIRC). What the overall energy cost is depends on the input energy - you can make hydrogen and hydrocarbons from any organic or hydrocarbon source. It tough to smelt aluminium with hydrocarbon fuels (in fact virtually impossible). It's possible to split water with electricity. If you heat hydrogen with carbon dioxide, you can make gas and diesel. It looks like you can get 70% electricity to hydrogen and 50% electricity to hydrocarbon efficiency. So, to simplify things, lets assume our input is electricity.

We've got the following electricity in to electricity out efficiencies for some fuel cells and batteries.
Aluminium-air - 30%
Zinc-air - 54%
Hydrogen-air - 25%
Diesel generators (50% electricity->diesel) - 15%
Lithium-ion battery + charger - 86%
Lead-acid battery + charger - 65%
NiMH battery + charger - 65%
NiFe battery + charger - 65%
NiCd battery + charger - 84%

Four caveats:
1. If you a different source of energy, your efficiencies will be different. If your feedstock is organic or hydrocarbon, then you can make hydrogen and hydrocarbons really efficiently. If your feedstock is electricity (which most future feedstocks will be), then the batteries are the winners, followed by the metal air batteries.
2. The efficiency of both the fuel cells and the batteries is further complicated by the effect of usage scenarios.
3. The best hydride to store hydrogen is in the liquid carbon hydrides, like gasoline. It's the cheapest raw material (CO2 is free) and it's one of the most hydrogen rich materials
4. There is the issue of the size of the production equipment. Aluminium smelting is a big (yet surprisingly efficient) process. Your not going to do smelting in your house, at least not very efficiently. You can recharge a battery, however. You definitely can make hydrogen at home, efficiently with electricity. You might be able to make zinc efficiently at home (something I am experimenting with).

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Wiki says the highest capacity for a NiMH AA is 2.9 amp hours = 400 watt*hours / L. 500 watt*hours/L is what I get for LG Lithium-ion 18650 cells. A123 is 210 watt*hours/L. Do you got any NiMH above 2.9 amp hours for a AA?

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Yeah, I know. The first time I googled for aluminium fuel cell I got all these product results. I looked and thought "are their really aluminium-air fuel cells for sale!!!?!!?!?!?" but nope, just fuel tanks. New name needed.

Re:A close call but we made it this time

[Bryansix]

Plus, the H2 fuel cycle is just so inefficient.

Well then please tell me how you can use CLEAN, RENEWABLE electricity to make SOMETHING which will allow my car to drive 300 miles before I have to refuel.

God damn it...

[boneclinkz]

Now I need to go the whole way to Buffalo to top off my Zeppelin.

Re:God damn it...

[RossR]

There is another station 3 to 4 miles away on RIT campus and another one at the GM facility.

http://www.rit.edu/research/sustainability_story.php?id=26

   

Re:God damn it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I need to go the whole way to Buffalo H^H^H^H^H^H^H KABOOM!!!!

Re:God damn it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but from there, it's a shorter trip to the land of the ice and snow, to the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.

Obligatory

[bigredradio]

Oh the humanity...

Re:Obligatory

[pipingguy]

Obviously the design of this particular hydrogen transport trailer was a turkey.

Re:Obligatory

[Da Cheez]

Oh the humanity...

Why do you only care about the humans?

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you're in the Danger Zoneeeee

Geeze

[Anonymous Coward]

It is pretty fucked up when slashdot gets this up before CNN or Fox News.

Re:Geeze

[oldspewey]

They still need time to figure out their editorial spin.

Re:Geeze

[Anonymous Coward]

damn shouldn't have posted it as AC I got modded up.

Re:Geeze

[Nadaka]

Fox news needs to figure out how to blame Obama and CNN needs to find a way to blame the oil industry?

Re:Geeze

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox news needs to figure out how to blame Obama and CNN needs to find a way to blame the oil industry?

Who is watching our backs if Obama is actually an Oil loving captialist and this is all part of his diabolical plan to lure us into a 1920s-esque society of excess and bigotry?

Re:Geeze

[Shakrai]

Let me help them with that:

CNN: Look at this fancy floating pie chart that looks like something out of Star Wars! We are sleek and modern! You want to watch us! Oh, and there was an explosion today in Rochester....
MSNBC: Hydrogen fueling facility explodes. Tune in tonight for Countdown as Keith Olbermann explains why this is really George W. Bush's fault.
Fox: Hydrogen fueling facility explodes. Are the socialist policies of Barack Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi to blame?
Local news: Hydrogen fueling facility explodes on [street]. No word yet on damage or casualties. In other news, please tune in to the end of our broadcast to find out how [common household product] could be KILLING YOUR FAMILY.
Slashdot today: Fire and explosion At Hydrogen Station Near Rochester Airport
Slashdot one week from now: Fire and explosion At Hydrogen Station Near Rochester Airport
Slashdot one month from now: Fire and explosion At Hydrogen Station Near Rochester Airport

Re:Geeze

[networkBoy]

yes, and they both want to blame BP separately.

Re:Geeze

[TheRealFixer]

CNN hadn't picked it up? I guess no one had tweeted about it yet.

Re:Geeze

[dkleinsc]

You left out the more reputable news outlets:

Comedy Central: A hydrogen fueling station exploded, forming a huge *bleep* fireball! The most likely cause: Bears.

Onion News Network: Dick Cheney claimed responsibility for the destruction of a hydrogen fueling station. "After spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives getting the oil in Iraq, I didn't want those stupid hippies coming up with a cheap and safe alternative," said Cheney in a press conference this morning.

Re:Geeze

[peragrin]

close but not quite

Slashdot today: Fire and explosion At Hydrogen Station Near Rochester Airport
Slashdot one week from now: Explosion and fire at Hydrogen Station Near Rochester Airport
Slashdot one month from now: A Hydrogen Station Near Rochester Airport burned down three city blocks.

That way they aren't technically dupes.

Re:Geeze

[david_thornley]

Last I watched local news, you misphrased that. They never said which common household product on the teaser. Try "In other news, please tune in to the end of our broadcast to find out how a common household product could be KILLING YOUR FAMILY." (My guess: DHMO.)

Re:Geeze

[Clandestine_Blaze]

You're already at +5, but if only I had mod points. Consider this a +1 perfection.

Re:Geeze

[DerekLyons]

Neither CNN or Fox News are in the habit of reporting minor local incidents (unless they need a little filler).

Re:Geeze

[SETIGuy]

You've got them too far apart. The second one should be "Slashdot later today"

Re:Geeze

[SETIGuy]

Neither CNN or Fox News are in the habit of reporting minor local incidents (unless they need a little filler).

Unless a 20 year old white woman is hurt/missing/dead.

Re:Geeze

[interkin3tic]

Are we sure it -wasn't- BP? Because they have an interest in taking the focus off the fact that oil can do that too, and this wouldn't be the biggest disaster they've caused this year.

(kidding about the conspiracy theory, just to clarify)

Re:Geeze

[cvd6262]

Local news: Hydrogen fueling facility explodes on [street]. No word yet on damage or casualties. In other news, please tune in to the end of our broadcast to find out how [common household product] could be KILLING YOUR FAMILY.

I live in Rochester, you insensitive clod...

Actually, you're dead on. The 10 o'clock news said the explosion was near Scott St., and then proceeded with (I kid you not) a story about a four-year-old who wore too many Silly Bands for too long and had sore skin because of it.

Re:Geeze

[Shakrai]

I'm in Binghamton and have a lot of friends up your way :)

I based the local news joke on our local stations here but it seems that they ALL do that. Please watch our whole broadcast including commercials before we tell you what could be KILLING YOUR FAMILY.

Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone will probably try to use this to say hydrogen is dangerous. I'd like to remind you gasoline is dangerous

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[rujholla]

Someone will probably try to use this to say hydrogen is dangerous. I'd like to remind you gasoline is dangerous

Yes gasoline storage is dangerous, but it is magnitudes easier and safer, for now, to contain gasoline than it is to contain hydrogen.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone will probably try to use this to say hydrogen is dangerous. I'd like to remind you gasoline is dangerous

I'd be curious to see a comparison between the "station explosion" rates of hydrogen stations of today and gasoline stations from back when the gasoline infrastructure was first being developed.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[oldspewey]

Don't just tell them gasoline is dangerous, show them.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Overzeetop]

Yes, but the range of explosive air-fuel ratios for hydrogen is much, much wider than gasoline. It's why gas station attendants of the pat often smoked but rarely blew themselves up.

Hydrogen has it's advantages - for example, it doesn't hand around long. Then again, you can't smell it unless they add oderant to it like LPG (do they?). I'm not sure which is really "better" though.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Nadaka]

Gasoline has this unpleasant habit of spreading around at ground level even in vapor form. Hydrogen goes strait up.

  Gas is defiantly cheaper and easier to store, but it is quite likely that in the event of a fire, it will be the more dangerous fuel.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[SheeEttin]

Don't just tell them gasoline is dangerous, show them.

Okay. Here, hold this can of gasoline. I'll just insert this fuse and light it. You stand right there, and I'll, uh, just stand over here behind this building.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[nomadic]

Someone will probably try to use this to say hydrogen is dangerous. I'd like to remind you gasoline is dangerous

And that's why gasoline stations blow up every day, right?

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[cmiller173]

Gas: I AM CHEAPER *(&^(*&! most definitely defiant.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[dgatwood]

Don't just tell them gasoline is dangerous, show them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIDfcspoInw

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[blueg3]

Just like how hydrogen stations blow up every day.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[eastlight_jim]

Indeed. With any flammable fuel there is always the potential for problems to arise leading to fire or other danger. We think we've got petroleum products fairly well sussed but every now and then something goes wrong. The key is to learn from mistakes and make future use of any given fuel or technology better and more idiot-proof.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[amicusNYCL]

And that's why gasoline stations blow up every day, right?

How many consecutive days have hydrogen stations exploded? What are we up to now, one?

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[drinkypoo]

How many consecutive days have hydrogen stations exploded? What are we up to now, one?

If we put together some sort of useful metric, we might learn something... if we had useful data. Miles traveled on each, time period, number of explosions. I have a feeling that gasoline will compare favorably but I'm just making stuff up.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[RossR]

About a year ago the dispenser listed the price as being $1 per GGE. I assume that was a subsidized price. Unfortunately it did not take regular credit cards only cards issued specifically for the station.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[nomadic]

But how many hydrogen stations are there in the US? According to the National Hydrogen Association, there are 60. One blew up. Therefore, 1/60 hydrogen stations have exploded, or about 1.6%. There does not seem a source for the number of gas stations in the US, but figures put it at at least 120,000 a fewe years ago, so probably more than that. Taking 120,000 as a conservative guess, you would need 1,920 gas stations to have exploded in order for gas stations to reach hydrogen stations' explosion record. And that's not even correcting for the fact that gas stations have been around for decades, while hydrogen stations are almost brand new, which would increase gas stations' relative propensity not to explode rating in comparison with hydrogen stations.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[arth1]

You really think that if it had been a gasoline tanker that blew up, the damages would have been even lighter?

This accident goes a long way towards showing how safe hydrogen is compared to the alternatives. Despite the much higher energy per volume, the damage caused is less, because of the WAY it explodes: When the oxygen in the air around the hydrogen is used up (which is almost immediately), there's no way for it to burn, and the much lighter than air gas rises up until it finds more oxygen to react with.

Which is why the truck driver is still alive. I am quite certain he wouldn't have been if this had been gasoline, propane or ethanol.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Scatterplot]

There have been hydrogen station explosions EVERY DAY since the first one blew up.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Bryansix]

Not really. They just store it below ground. This results in it seeping into the ground water. Also its not just gasoline but additives like MTBE which cause cancer at phenomenol rates. And people wonder why I only drink filtered or bottled water.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[amicusNYCL]

I'm not real sure what the point is. Are you alleging that hydrogen stations today are more dangerous than gasoline stations today?

The National Hydrogen Association claims 72 operational stations in the US and Canada. The first hydrogen station in North America was opened in 2000. Pharmacies in Germany started selling gas in 1888, the first purpose-built gas station was built in 1905. I can't find any statistics for the rate of fires at gas stations during the first 10 years they were around.

I did find this, though. That says that since January 2000, the same year the first hydrogen station opened in North America, that there were around 200 reported incidents of fires at gas stations started by static electricity alone (as opposed to open flames or running engines). So in the last 10 years we've had 1 incident at a hydrogen station, and over 200 incidents at gas stations caused by static alone.

You know what they say about statistics though.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[TopSpin]

Someone will probably try to use this to say hydrogen is dangerous. I'd like to remind you gasoline is dangerous

People are going to get killed. Hydrogen adoption will be blamed. Hydrogen advocates that have never condescended to cut the legacy fuels the least bit of slack will stand by quietly while the hydrogen industry makes the exact same excuses that the oil/coal/nuclear industries use to explain away their bodies. The real world is a nasty bitch. Welcome!

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[SETIGuy]

Have you had your bottled water tested for MTBE? You might not like the results. Your tap water is continuously monitored for that and some other substances. Bottled water plants are not tested very often, because they are run by people who would rather not spend money, and testing takes time and money. And the rule for bottled water is if (the last time the plant was tested) it would be acceptable as tap water, then you can sell it. Most of them are just selling tap water anyway. The filter is the better choice, especially for children if there is significant lead in the water. But for adults, city tap water is just fine. The only thing the filter will do is it might make it taste better by getting rid of minerals. In cities with good water, a filter might make the water taste worse by getting rid of minerals.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Bryansix]

Keep drinking your kool-aid there buddy. People say that bottled water is just tap water or that tap water is safer but neither is true. I have my water bottle here. I know the source is tap water in San Bernardino. So the source is safe according to you. Then they filter the water using "Ozonation and Reverse Osmosis" which removes things other filtration cannot. So my bottled water IS filtered. Go parrot your wrong information to someone else who is to lazy to do some fact checking.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[SETIGuy]

What happens to the water between the time it is "ozonized" and filtered and the time it gets to the bottle. What kind of machine does it go through? What is it and its pipes made of? What is it lubricated with? What were the bottles washed with? How often do they clean the machine? What plasticising chemicals were used in the production of the bottle? How many complex hydrocarbon will leach out? They can't filter those out. Same with the bottle cap. What happens when the machine breaks down? You'd be safer going to San Bernardino and drinking kool-aid made with the tap water.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[nomadic]

I'm not real sure what the point is. Are you alleging that hydrogen stations today are more dangerous than gasoline stations today?

Uhhh, yes. Someone suggested that criticism of hydrogen stations was invalid because gas stations are not safe. I was comparing the two.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[HereIAmJH]

This accident goes a long way towards showing how safe hydrogen is compared to the alternatives.

Unfortunately, I don't think that is the message that most people are going to get from this. Likely they'll get the more sensational message of; "All they were doing is changing trucks and the whole thing exploded. See how dangerous that stuff is!"

Once upon a time I was a strong supporter of hydrogen powered cars, but not so much any more. The problem is that you have the danger of high pressure along with the dangers of energy storage. Maybe a better system would be using excess wind power to create hydrogen that could be used in stationary power generation. That would level out the peaks and valleys of renewable power without trying to transport hydrogen and expect the uneducated to use it in daily life.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[HereIAmJH]

Okay. Here, hold this can of gasoline. I'll just insert this fuse and light it.

You don't need a fuse to light a gas can. Just stick a lighter near the opening and the fumes will ignite.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[amicusNYCL]

Someone suggested that criticism of hydrogen stations was invalid because gas stations are not safe

Not really. They were just pointing out that even though hydrogen stations are potentially dangerous, so are gasoline stations. We've been living in harmony with gasoline stations, so there's no reason why hydrogen should be very different.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[fishbowl]

I had an uncle who once "settled" an argument about gasoline by throwing his lit cigarette butt into a gas can. It extinguished the cigarette, of course, validating my insane uncle's premise.

It's not so much that the fuels are flammable, as Oxygen *really* wants a mate for each of the two unpaired electrons in its outer shell.

But of course, nobody is looking at this article and blaming *Oxygen*, are they?

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[pipingguy]

Despite the much higher energy per volume...

Huh? Were you referring to hydrogen?

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes gasoline storage is dangerous, but it is magnitudes easier and safer, for now, to contain gasoline than it is to contain hydrogen."

Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries. We've had them for a good while, now.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[nomadic]

Well, if hydrogen stations are significantly more dangerous, which just going by the statistics they are (though obviously the small sample size means it's harder to analyze statistically), that would be a good reason why we couldn't similarly live in harmony with hydrogen stations.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to claim 'statistics' at least use them.

You cannot simply count the number of each type of station and divide the number of explosions of each by it. Doing that completely ignores:

- how long the stations have been around
- how often they are used (wear)
- new-technology problems (have risks been ironed out in the new stations)
- did someone do something really stupid one this single occasion

One event does not make 'stats' even more so when you have no data associated with it.

Stop dropping the 'statistics' word to try and sound intelligent. You just come off as dumb.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[v1]

Tho I'm sure they'll ultimately pin the blame on the driver or whoever was doing the refueling, i wonder what really caused it?

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[dangitman]

And people wonder why I only drink filtered or bottled water.

Is it because you're worried about your precious bodily fluids? That's why I only drink grain alcohol and rainwater.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[adolf]

What happens to the water between the time it is drawn from a reservoir and filtered and the time it gets to the tap? What kind of machine does it go through? What is it and its pipes made of? What is it lubricated with? What were the machines washed with? How often do they clean the water tower? What halogens were intentionally introduced in the production of the water? How many complex hydrocarbon will leach out of the piping? They can't filter those out. Same with the plumbing in your house. What happens when the plumbing breaks down? You'd be safer going to San Bernardino and drinking kool-aid made with bottled RO water.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Anonymous Coward]

gasoline tankers used to explode all the freaking time, then someone decided to add that little dome on top and only fill it MOSTLY full so it wouldn't just randomly explode on a warm summer day

course were too smart to look back in history to validate our arguments, since it hasn't happened (cept maybe in first blood) recently some dink will say it never happens

and those, .. lady's and gentlemen are the future, better go stock up on aloe

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the much higher energy per volume, the damage caused is less, because of the WAY it explodes: When the oxygen in the air around the hydrogen is used up (which is almost immediately), there's no way for it to burn, and the much lighter than air gas rises up until it finds more oxygen to react with.

[...]gasoline, propane or ethanol.

What the who now? Hydrogen has much LOWER energy density than petrol or ethanol, and I'm pretty sure it's significantly lower than propane too.
- fractoid-with-modpoints

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Anonymous Coward]

As others have pointed out, that the "in the event of a fire" part is a big factor. Hydrogen is far easier to ignite than gasoline is (lower ignition energies, more corrosive so more likely to come in contact with an ignition source).

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[nomadic]

Oh my.

You cannot simply count the number of each type of station and divide the number of explosions of each by it. Doing that completely ignores: - how long the stations have been around - how often they are used (wear)

You did not read close enough. I mentioned that the variables I did not take into account for actually favored gas stations even further.

- new-technology problems (have risks been ironed out in the new stations)

The hydrogen stations ARE new. - did someone do something really stupid one this single occasion One event does not make 'stats' even more so when you have no data associated with it.

...Only I expressly pointed that out.

I'd say the reading comprehension on slashdot has gone down, but the sad thing is, except for your post and a few others, it's actually better.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Anonymous Coward]

That unruly gas, being all defiant and stuff

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Vegemeister]

Score: 0, Flamebait Genius.

Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire

[Bryansix]

I seriously cannot stand the group think on Slashdot and the fact that anybody wasted their mod points on you to mod the comment up shows how embedded that group think is.

What is the idea

[Moryath]

with calling Hydrogen "renewable fuel"? It still has to be generated - and most of the energy we use to extract Hydrogen comes from burning fossil fuels.

Now, if we could get electric generation down to solar/wind/geothermal/nuclear (and we NEED nuclear, because there's no way solar/wind/geothermal can equate to even 25% of our current use, let alone what increased population will need), maybe. But it's still lossy as fuck making hydrogen.

Re:What is the idea

[Overzeetop]

Yes, it's hard to make someone with less than an 8th grade understanding of science realize that hydrogen is a storage medium, not an energy source. That, sadly, leaves out a good bit of the US - and I suspect a large fraction of the rest of the world's population as well.

Re:What is the idea

[Monkeedude1212]

I was under the impression that when people talking about "Hydrogen" as a renewable fuel source they normally meant Methane, a very renewable combustable gas which features hydrogen.

But - as a little side note, Hydrogen gas DOES occur naturally, just not a whole lot on our planet, or when it does it escapes the atmosphere. But there are tons of nebulae* out there featuring H2 as is. It's as renewable as the Sun is, anyways, we just haven't figured out how yet.

Re:What is the idea

[BradleyUffner]

Yes, it's hard to make someone with less than an 8th grade understanding of science realize that hydrogen is a storage medium, not an energy source. That, sadly, leaves out a good bit of the US - and I suspect a large fraction of the rest of the world's population as well.

By that logic there was only ever one energy source in existence, the Big Bang. Even the sun is just a huge ball of hydrogen and few other things that was all created long ago and will one day run out.

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as it's hard to make someone with less than a 12th grade understanding of science realize that oil is a storage medium, not an energy source.

Re:What is the idea

[natehoy]

This term, "renewable", you keep using it, I do no think it means what I think you think it means.

A "renewable" fuel is a fuel that we can make more of when we need it. It doesn't mean it's something we have to find in a ready state in nature. Hydrogen IS renewable. 100% renewable. We can make shitloads more of it, and you can't differentiate manufactured hydrogen from the stuff you'd find if we ever found it.

Unfortunately, renewable does not mean readily-available. It just means we can make more. All we need is an energy source. And that is the problem with hydrogen.

Hydrogen is, in essence, a battery with infinite recharges. You can separate it from water all day long, then burn it and re-integrate it with oxygen and have water again. It just takes shitloads of energy to separate it.

Hydrogen is not a freely-available fuel in any quantities that make a difference, but it is a completely renewable one. It is not, has never been, and will never be an energy source, but no renewable fuels are energy sources. They are ways to store energy in such a way that it can be practically used for fuel. You still need the energy.

Re:What is the idea

[Monkeedude1212]

* almost forgot. Is Nebulae the proper plural form of Nebula? or is it just Nebulas?

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and?

Re:What is the idea

[Criliric]

A nebula (from Latin: "cloud";[1] pl. nebulae or nebulæ, with ligature or nebulas)
:)

Re:What is the idea

[thegarbz]

The point is that we have nearly infinite supply. Hydrogen is effectively as renewable as the sun and all we need to do is process it.

As a side note making hydrogen is easy, it's a major by-product of a lot of a lot of refining processes. If there was money to be made from hydrogen so much of it probably wouldn't be sent up the flare, a process called economic flaring which everyone frowns upon when done with hydrocarbons, but no one cares less about since hydrogen burns quite cleanly.

Re:What is the idea

[perpenso]

Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?.

Well about half the world is below average. ;-)

Re:What is the idea

[BradleyUffner]

Yes, and?

So what WOULD you consider a renewable energy source if this isn't one (according to the OP)?
The OP suggested that "solar/wind/geothermal" power were renewable energy sources, and that hydrogen wasn't. I was pointing out that at a large scale NONE of these are renewable.

Re:What is the idea

[perpenso]

I was under the impression that when people talking about "Hydrogen" as a renewable fuel source they normally meant Methane ...

I believe that is natural gas not hydrogen.

Re:What is the idea

[Shakrai]

But there are tons of nebulae* out there featuring H2 as is. It's as renewable as the Sun is, anyways, we just haven't figured out how yet.

Do you really think a civilization that had the ability to travel light-years to reach a nebula would really have a need to harvest hydrogen to burn up in wasteful chemical reactions?

I suppose we could harvest hydrogen from our own solar system one day but even at that, what's the point?

Re:What is the idea

[Romancer]

WOOOOSH...

Try again.
The "logic" is that petroleum based products are made from a source that we find, separate, treat, and distribute. Compared to hydrogen which we separate and concentrate from naturally replenishing sources. We won't run out in our timescale. And not just for the abundance but for how we are using it. Look up a fuel cell and compare it with an ICE. Different methods are used for the extraction of energy. One is a storage system like a rechargeable battery; the other is a one way rapid oxidation. The battery is actually the hydrogen itself, not the tank. You invest in concentrating the hydrogen and compressing it.
   

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

At the human scale, then. Better? You dig for oil, with the oil that comes out you can build machines that can dig 10x faster, 10x deeper for 10x longer. That's why we use the stuff.

If we could dig for elemental molecular free hydrogen, we'd do it. It's not freely available, so we have to make it.

Clear now? Sinking in?

Re:What is the idea

[Monkeedude1212]

Do you really think a civilization that had the ability to travel light-years to reach a nebula would really have a need to harvest hydrogen to burn up in wasteful chemical reactions?

A nomadic one, yes. Are you presuming that they have unlocked FTL travel or something? Hydrogen has some very specific properties, in its elemental state and in any compound it ends up in - which makes it valuable. Suppose Hydrogen became the only resource we needed because we could engineer any compound out of simple Hydrogen Molecules

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Go and ask Multivax about that one.

However, we've got about five billion years before the Sun starts to burn out, whereas we've got way less than that before we run out of fossil fuels to mine.

Re:What is the idea

[geekoid]

It's better ti burn them in a centralized fashion.

More importantly, getting people used to other energy storage device is critical to ANY change in how we power are cars.

Re:What is the idea

[cmiller173]

I think your both kind of optimistic on education...

Re:What is the idea

[Shakrai]

All we need is an energy source. And that is the problem with hydrogen.

What's wrong with nuclear as an energy source? Nuclear could completely replace fixed sources of energy production that currently rely on carbon fuels. Hydrogen could be used for mobile applications where a nuclear reactor is not needed or feasible.

There's a perfectly green energy economy that would work with existing technology. All it needs are trillions of dollars of start-up capital and the willingness on the part of the country to rip up the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

Re:What is the idea

[natehoy]

Fossil fuels themselves are a form of solar energy, from sunshine that hit the Earth over millions of years and got stored in a process involving plants growing, being eaten, and the plants and the critters that ate them both dying and decomposing into oil and coal. The only real problem with fossil fuels is that there is a limited amount of this conveniently pre-stored solar power lying about, and using it the way we do releases pollutants and many of the things like carbon dioxide that were sequestered by the processes that created it.

It's only our short worldview that makes us see these as different sources of energy. The Earth has conveniently stored millions of years' worth of solar energy in very energy-dense, easy-to-use forms. Given how long ago they were created, many of us don't think of those as originally created by solar energy.

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

*Sigh* No. Half the world is below the median.

Re:What is the idea

[BradleyUffner]

At the human scale, then. Better? You dig for oil, with the oil that comes out you can build machines that can dig 10x faster, 10x deeper for 10x longer. That's why we use the stuff.

If we could dig for elemental molecular free hydrogen, we'd do it. It's not freely available, so we have to make it.

Clear now? Sinking in?

I think you misunderstand me. I'm arguing that the listed items ARE renewable. I think we agree. I was just following out the flawed logic of the OP in stating that Hydrogen wasn't renewable, but the other items somehow were.

Re:What is the idea

[rujholla]

A "renewable" fuel is a fuel that we can make more of when we need it. It doesn't mean it's something we have to find in a ready state in nature. Hydrogen IS renewable. 100% renewable. We can make shitloads more of it, and you can't differentiate manufactured hydrogen from the stuff you'd find if we ever found it.

By your definition gasoline is also a renewable fuel source. CO2 can be combined with hydrogen and oxygen to build hydrocarbons. The simpler the hydrocarbon the easier it is, but once you have methane it is just more steps to more complex hydrocarbons. It just a matter of how much energy you are willing to spend to create it.

Re:What is the idea

[AJWM]

Depends whether you're talking about the glowing cloud things in the deep sky, or the awards handed out by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. The plural of the latter is correctly Nebulas.

Re:What is the idea

[BradleyUffner]

WOOOOSH...

Try again.
The "logic" is that petroleum based products are made from a source that we find, separate, treat, and distribute. Compared to hydrogen which we separate and concentrate from naturally replenishing sources. We won't run out in our timescale. And not just for the abundance but for how we are using it. Look up a fuel cell and compare it with an ICE. Different methods are used for the extraction of energy. One is a storage system like a rechargeable battery; the other is a one way rapid oxidation. The battery is actually the hydrogen itself, not the tank. You invest in concentrating the hydrogen and compressing it.

 

Yes. as I stated to someone else. I totally agree with you. I was just taking the flawed logic of the OP to it's natural conclusion. The OP stated the hydrogen wasn't renewable, but listed others that were. I was stating that based on his criteria for hydrogen not being renewable, none of the other items in his list were either.

Re:What is the idea

[blair1q]

with calling Hydrogen "renewable fuel"? It still has to be generated

(*looks straight at you*)

The fact that it can be generated (profitably, if you want to quibble) makes it renewable.

We can make oil, but it's not economical, at least not for use as a fuel. The non-renewability of oil means that we will run out and that will be that. Same deal for coal and uranium. We get one shot at those resources.

Whereas hydrogen, when it burns, becomes water, which, when we add a little electricty, becomes hydrogen and oxygen again. And we can get electricity from non-fossil fueled sources.

So you're about to say why not just use solar? Well, for one, solar isn't a fuel so you're changing the argument. Solar isn't as easily stored as hydrogen and isn't usable in many places hydrogen is. (Of course the converse is true for places where combustion or consumption of the oxygen are not desirable, or explosions are not just possible but likely - a jacob's ladder factory, e.g.)

Re:What is the idea

[Flea of Pain]

What's wrong with nuclear as an energy source?

  All it needs are trillions of dollars of start-up capital and the willingness on the part of the country to rip up the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

And I believe that right there is the answer you seek.

Re:What is the idea

[meerling]

There is a fair amount of hydrogen on/in our planet, but it's bound up in molecules with other stuff. To 'make' hydrogen, we really just break it out of whatever molecule it's already in. Some things, like natural gas, oil, even water, have a lot of hydrogen in them and so are good candidates for cracking. The main difficulty is the methods necessary and the byproducts of the process, and that's not even mentioning the fact that it takes energy input to do the work in the first place. Hydrogen isn't free, but it has the unique advantage that when burned, it becomes water vapor.
There's still lots of work to be done if they really want the consumers to use it the same as their traditional petrochemicals, but that does have the advantage that you don't have to re-educate and convince them to do it. The day a consumer can pull into any station and say "Filler up with H, I'm getting a coffee, gotta drive all day", is the day consumers will accept it. Until then, only the fringe and scientists/inventors will go through the hassle.

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

mean != median

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You think many readers around here would know what median is? Besides, the GP qualified things with an "about". :-)

Re:What is the idea

[Moryath]

We can make oil, but it's not economical, at least not for use as a fuel.

We're actually closer to making economically viable, algae-produced "oil" than we are to making economically viable, safe-to-use hydrogen...

Re:What is the idea

[gtbritishskull]

When you harvest hydrogen from the sun, then you can say it is renewable. The sun is a renewable source of energy as far as humans are concerned. That means solar and wind are renewable. Geothermal is debatable, but much better than fossil fuels.

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

*Sigh* No. Half the world is below the median.

It's even worse because the GP is shilling a calculator app in their homepage link...

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

mean != median

Irrelevant. About half the population is below both the mean and the median.

Re:What is the idea

[gtbritishskull]

We use oil as an energy source. If we could use it as a storage medium (create fuel to drive our vehicles synthetically from renewable resources) then I would have no problem with it (except for any health concerns from burning it).

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Well about half the world is below average. ;-)

*Sigh* No. Half the world is below the median.

It's even worse because the GP is shilling a calculator app in their homepage link...

How is that? If you interpret the original use of "average" as mean the statement is still correct. *About half* are below the mean. It might be best to work on your reading comprehension and logic before continuing your career as a grammar nazi.

And did you notice the ;-) in the original?

Re:What is the idea

[noidentity]

What do you mean, can't we just find large deposits of liquid hydrogen to drill wells into and pump out? Are you saying the environmentalists have lied to me about hydrogen being an alternative to oil?!?

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

mean != median

Irrelevant. About half the population is below both the mean and the median.

Q: Take a sample of 100 students writing a stats test; 99 score 100%, while the final student scored 75%. What is the median of this sample? The mean of this sample?

Q: Take a sample of 100 other students who were all caught bringing cheat sheets into their test room. The proctor in a drunken fit of awesome power gives the whole group a mark of 0. How many of the students in this sample are above the median? How many are below it?

Re:What is the idea

[blair1q]

Hydrogen is safe to use, despite today's addition to the anecdotal evidence. It's at least as safe as gasoline.

Hydrogen costs about $8/kg to make now, and there's links to things saying it's going to $3/kg, or effectively about the same $/mile as gasoline.

I don't think the algae idea is going to get us there. The algae-based oil has byproducts that have to be disposed of, requires a large investment in land, has inputs and growing conditions that have to be controlled (your operation can be gutted by immoderate weather), and its refining systems are complex chemical processes with their own cost issues. Hydrogen needs water and electricity, its byproduct is oxygen, and its production system needs only a compressor.

If you're going to use chemical fuels in your propulsion systems, just from what I've listed here, hydrogen is going to win the economic battle eventually.

Re:What is the idea

[Teancum]

Unfortunately it takes somebody with slightly more than an 8th grade understanding of science to realize that gasoline is also nothing more than a storage medium too, and not really an energy source.

Point of fact: Far more energy goes into the processing, refining, and transportation of gasoline than is ever extracted from it in the form of pure heat alone (much less propulsion or "useful work") when it is burned in an internal combustion engine.

Both hydrogen and gasoline are fuel sources that allow "portable" devices to operate independently of a large central energy depot for extended periods of time. For that matter, the same goes for electric batteries. The only difference between these fuels is the delivery method of that energy supply.

Re:What is the idea

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

What's wrong with nuclear as an energy source?

Nuclear meltdowns.
Explosions at nuclear plants (like Chernobyl).
Possible nuclear explosion (never been proven impossible).
Radiation release due to malfuction or even normal operation (very low level) and exposures to the people and cancers.
Nuclear waste transport.
Nuclear waste transport accidents.
Nuclear waste storage.
Nuclear waste storage accidents.
Terrorists getting a hold of nuclear fuel or nuclear waste to make a nuclear bomb or dirty bomb.
Fusion uses more energy than it generates.
Fusion won't work because the reactants escape the magnetic fields.

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

mean != median

Irrelevant. About half the population is below both the mean and the median.

Q: Take a sample of 100 students writing a stats test; 99 score 100%, while the final student scored 75%. What is the median of this sample? The mean of this sample?

Q: Take a sample of 100 other students who were all caught bringing cheat sheets into their test room. The proctor in a drunken fit of awesome power gives the whole group a mark of 0. How many of the students in this sample are above the median? How many are below it?

That is an irrelevant change of subject, even without the contrived situations. Intelligence != an exam score, there are primitive tribesman who are far more intelligent than many university grads. You are also gratuitously assuming that global population intelligence would not have a normal distribution.

Re:What is the idea

[Teancum]

Petroleum can be created synthetically (aka "manufactured") from a variety of "natural" stocks that can be replenished. The only significant reason why that isn't happening on any large scale at the moment has purely to do with economics and not with the ability to do that. Also, there is an entrenched interest in the oil drilling industry with established economies of scale to those operations that keep significant efforts to look elsewhere for these stocks.

There are these strange things that create long chains of organic chemicals from raw stocks of CO2, H2O, and sunlight that have been known for some time. They are called... plants. Amazing things, really.

Re:What is the idea

[Teancum]

Hydrogen as the Sun uses it is not really renewable, but it does last on the order of billions of years in the method used within its furnace so it is not really a concern for events on the scale of a human lifetime or even natural selection of multi-cellular organisms to create "intelligent" life.

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

mean != median

Irrelevant. About half the population is below both the mean and the median.

Q: Take a sample of 100 students writing a stats test; 99 score 100%, while the final student scored 75%. What is the median of this sample? The mean of this sample?

Q: Take a sample of 100 other students who were all caught bringing cheat sheets into their test room. The proctor in a drunken fit of awesome power gives the whole group a mark of 0. How many of the students in this sample are above the median? How many are below it?

That is an irrelevant change of subject, even without the contrived situations. Intelligence != an exam score, there are primitive tribesman who are far more intelligent than many university grads. You are also gratuitously assuming that global population intelligence would not have a normal distribution.

Holy shit, are you overseeing the merger of Strawman Inc. and Red Herring Systems? That was an example pointing out trivial situations where: the mean in no way divides the population in "about" half, and that there's a situation where the median has nothing below it.

Re:What is the idea

[KahabutDieDrake]

No, we are not. I don't know where you are getting your information, but as it stands, even at the state of the art (and that's in no way economically viable) Hydrogen is FAR easier, cheaper and safer to "make" than is oil. Besides the economic concerns, there is the fact that "oil" as a fuel is TERRIBLE for the planetary ecosystem. While oil and it's products are needed for certain manufacturing and processes, as a fuel source it's just awful stuff.

Furthermore, just because we have a huge installed base of hydrocarbon fuel systems does not make them safe, or safer than hydrogen. The single largest point worth noting here is, what happens when you rupture the fuel tank? With Gasoline, it spreads along the ground, converting to vapor and becomes explosive in standard atmosphere. With Hydrogen, it goes STRAIGHT UP. Given the typical outdoor nature of fuel stations, this makes hydrogen FAR safer. Furthermore, while hydrogen is in fact a pain in the ass to store and transport, the technology to handle that will surface eventually, just as it did for gasoline.

It's also worth noting that every major town, city and state in this country already has the infrastructure to move hydrogen from one coast to the other. We've been doing it for decades. They call it Natural Gas, and it's piped and plumbed all over the country ALREADY. What the HELL is so difficult? OH right, it's not technological or safety that's the real issue...

Re:What is the idea

[Bryansix]

with calling Hydrogen "renewable fuel"? It still has to be generated - and most of the energy we use to extract Hydrogen comes from burning fossil fuels.

Now let me stop you right there. That is not true in California. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/400733.html Note that this data is from 2002 and renewables are up since then.

Re:What is the idea

[drinkypoo]

I don't think the algae idea is going to get us there.

Well, it's only a proven process, but whatever.

The algae-based oil has byproducts that have to be disposed of,

Pure FUD. The byproducts from the oil separation process are all useful as fertilizer. The byproduct from the biodiesel process is glycerin, which has many uses... among them, it can be fertilizer.

requires a large investment in land,

Land which is currently unused. In fact, the BLM controls many thousands of acres suitable for this purpose, and BLM land is already used for clear-cutting, strip-mining, and oil drilling.

has inputs and growing conditions that have to be controlled (your operation can be gutted by immoderate weather),

You can cover the raceway ponds which are the most efficient way to produce algae. Open raceways are cheaper, though, and don't require any inflation or sealing technology.

and its refining systems are complex chemical processes with their own cost issues.

The USDOE projected that biodiesel from algae grown in open raceway ponds would be profitable by the time diesel fuel reached $3/gallon. I don't see any reason not to believe this, but if you want to debunk their "look back" report I'm interested.

Hydrogen needs water and electricity, its byproduct is oxygen,

This is only true for distilled water. For dirty water there are numerous byproducts possible. For saltwater chlorine gas is a byproduct, but you can grow algae on saltwater just fine.

and its production system needs only a compressor.

Uh, its production system requires some of the most specialized compressors in common use, as they have to use special seals and alloys to prevent damage due to hydrogen embrittlement, and because the gas is literally the smallest possible molecule, it is notoriously difficult to keep sealed. In order to get the energy density into the same neighborhood as gasoline you have to compress it to over 3000 psi, with pressures of 5000 psi being common and 10000 psi not unheard of... in a moving vehicle. This creates whole new classes of safety problem which simply aren't present with other fuels... notably diesel fuel, which will burn and smoke without being pressurized, but that's about it.

If you're going to use chemical fuels in your propulsion systems, just from what I've listed here, hydrogen is going to win the economic battle eventually.

Well, I disagree with every single point, so I'd say just from what you've listed here, biodiesel is the clear winner from a technological or even economic basis. However, if the entities with the most influence are invested in hydrogen, then hydrogen it shall be. The technical or even economic merits to society are largely irrelevant.

Re:What is the idea

[PagosaSam]

All very true. Thank you.

It got me thinking though. I've never seen a solar collector as efficient as a field of sugar beets. ;D

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit, are you overseeing the merger of Strawman Inc. and Red Herring Systems? That was an example pointing out trivial situations where: the mean in no way divides the population in "about" half, and that there's a situation where the median has nothing below it.

Pot, kettle, black. The straw man was the contrived classroom exam with the heavily skewed distribution. The original topic was a population measured in the billions and likely to have a normal distribution. Plus it was referred to in a casual conversation devoid of any mathematical/statistical sub-context and using average not mean. The tangential point of mean != median does not change the fact that for large populations with a normal distribution they are essentially equivalent and that the original informal comment was correct.

Re:What is the idea

[gtbritishskull]

I have no doubt it can be created synthetically. But, we are never going to use that to fuel our cars because you would have to get the energy to create those molecules from another energy source. At that point it would probably be cheaper and more efficient to just drive electric cars.

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Gasoline is a renewable energy source. The question is, "How long are you willing to wait for it to renew?"

Re:What is the idea

[blackraven14250]

We just don't have the time needed to build substantial amounts of crude oil from scratch. Hydrogen is flat out easier to make.

Re:What is the idea

[blair1q]

Oh, and biodiesel is still diesel and still results in noxious pollution and global warming.

The mechanical issues in the vehicle are a wash (though Diesel tech has about 150 years head start so it seems easier and cheaper to go with now).

From a process standpoint, the extra steps and inputs and outputs involved in the algae process make it less efficient than the hydrogen process.

And it's not portable. You have to have a big space and access to all of the inputs in mass quantities. Hydrogen production takes a little space, only as much water as you want to split, and an electrical outlet. You could probably build a refinery into a car so you can dump in water and plug it in, and in the morning drive off on a full charge of hydrogen. No more supertankers delivering goo to far off lands or isolated islands; just drop off a few solar-powered hydrolysis units and let them make their own.

As for who wants to do it, that's currently up to them. Big Business thinking it can pwn something as scalable as hydrogen production is shooting itself in the ass. But it could easily take advantage of the need for scale and distribution in the algae-biodiesel process to keep mom'n'pop producers from competing with them.

Re:What is the idea

[the phantom]

1. The original post said average, not mean. Average is an inexact term, and can refer to the median, as well as the mean (and is sometimes used to refer to the mode, as well).
2. In the original context, the mean and median are very near to each other, if not identical. Every measure of intelligence that I have ever seen is approximately normal. Hence the median, mode, and mean are all about the same. It is not incorrect to state that "about half of the population is below the mean."

I really don't understand people like you who respond in the way in which you did. The original poster was clearly trying to make a joke. It was moderately funny---the joke has been made before, which is really the only thing that distracts from the humour content. Instead of trying to appreciate the joke, you decided to show off the knowledge you gained from the statistics unit in your high school algebra class, and pretend that it in some way mattered, or was significant.

In short, you tried to show off how very smart you are, and ended up looking like an ass.

Re:What is the idea

[the phantom]

Intelligence is approximately normal. In a normal distribution, the mean does, in fact, equal the median. Hence it is not incorrect to say "about half of the population is below average intelligence." The original poster was not incorrect, and by correcting him you showed yourself to be a misinformed pedant. This ignores the fact that "average" is an inexact term, and can refer to the mean or the median (and sometimes the mode).

Re:What is the idea

[KaptainKrunch]

Sources I have seen say that gasoline is about 1:5 spent to gained efficiency. If you are going to say things atleast do some research to back it up... Oh wait this is slashdot.

Re:What is the idea

[pipingguy]

The point is that we have nearly infinite supply.

This also appears to be true regarding opinionated, vocal, ignorant Slashdot posters (I'm not referring to you).

BTW, "making" hydrogen is not easy.

Re:What is the idea

[Khyber]

"Hydrogen IS renewable. 100% renewable."

This is dead wrong.

In fact, Hydrogen escapes our atmosphere quite often. We will run out of it. It is nowhere near 100% renewable.

Re:What is the idea

[Khyber]

"We're actually closer to making economically viable, algae-produced "oil" than we are to making economically viable, safe-to-use hydrogen..."

We've been doing it for a while, my company provides specialized panels specifically for algae biofuels production.

Re:What is the idea

[Khyber]

"From a process standpoint, the extra steps and inputs and outputs involved in the algae process make it less efficient than the hydrogen process."

Which outdated crap process have you been focusing on? We've been blowing it away at 0.55c per gallon production cost in algae biofuels, in far greater quantities than you can refine, process, and safely store hydrogen.

Re:What is the idea

[Khyber]

"I don't know where you are getting your information"

From sources about 1,000x more reliable than yours, son. And I've been doing this EXACT production for a little while, now.

Sit down, be quiet. Real men involved in the industry are talking.

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The "WHOOSH" is on you, buddy. His point was that all energy in the universe originated at the Big Bang (and he's right). And furthermore, what the hell do you think happens in a hydrogen fuel cell? Oxidation! It's the same chemical process that powers an internal combustion engine. The only fundamental difference is the timescale involved.

Re:What is the idea

[drinkypoo]

Oh, and biodiesel is still diesel and still results in noxious pollution and global warming.

So where does the energy come from to make the hydrogen again?

The mechanical issues in the vehicle are a wash (though Diesel tech has about 150 years head start so it seems easier and cheaper to go with now).

The diesel can be made highly reliable with simpler, cheaper materials. I really think that a revolution in ICEs is pointless. I see biodiesel as a band-aid until we can go full-EV. The batteries get better all the time, and I think we're on the cusp of being permitted to own the vehicles :p But I wouldn't advocate that everyone buy one tomorrow if it were possible, even putting aside the energy cost of production; the only EVs which can be added to the system without increasing pollution are those which can be charged from the wasted base load at night, or from power banks charged at night and used to charge the vehicles during the day. Battery swapping counts.

From a process standpoint, the extra steps and inputs and outputs involved in the algae process make it less efficient than the hydrogen process.

Once you have it plunked down, all the energy comes from the sun. None of the equipment is especially expensive. This is true in either case but it's true a lot sooner for biodiesel.

And it's not portable. You have to have a big space and access to all of the inputs in mass quantities.

Still not seeing how this differentiates it from electrolysized hydrogen.

Hydrogen production takes a little space, only as much water as you want to split, and an electrical outlet.

And there's the problem. Most of what comes out of the wall comes from coal. Burning biodiesel is preferable to that any day.

You could probably build a refinery into a car so you can dump in water and plug it in, and in the morning drive off on a full charge of hydrogen.

The best idea is actually to have the fuel cell in an EV do it. But the problem here is that having practical non-reversible fuel cells is one of those things that's perpetually a decade off, and the practical reversible types are always well behind that. You can buy reversible fuel cells for R/C cars right now, but they're a long way from being production-ready for 1:1 scale automobiles. Adding such a system to a vehicle with an ICE means adding a compressor, at least in practical terms. And it's going to be either very heavy, or very failure-prone, or both.

No more supertankers delivering goo to far off lands or isolated islands; just drop off a few solar-powered hydrolysis units and let them make their own.

The supertankers can deliver vegetable oil to far off lands, and it can be converted to biodiesel there, if necessary. In tropical climes, or indeed anywhere temperate when it is not very cold, you can start and run on vegetable oil all year with minimal modification.

As for who wants to do it, that's currently up to them. Big Business thinking it can pwn something as scalable as hydrogen production is shooting itself in the ass.

I would argue that it is actually harmful. I think some people could make some money on some contracts if they could get the pork train routed properly.

But it could easily take advantage of the need for scale and distribution in the algae-biodiesel process to keep mom'n'pop producers from competing with them.

I don't much care who makes it, so long as they make it from algae. All the other feedstocks are topsoil-based and therefore stupid.

Re:What is the idea

[evilviper]

most of the energy we use to extract Hydrogen comes from burning fossil fuels.

Guess where most of the electricity we generate comes from...

Hydrogen is renewable precisely because it "has to be generated". Or rather, CAN be generated.

(and we NEED nuclear, because there's no way solar/wind/geothermal can equate to even 25% of our current use, let alone what increased population will need), maybe.

In fact, solar is THE ONLY power generation technology that can supply all our power needs into the future. We would need to build a nuclear power plant each week to keep up with demand. Solar has incredible potential, there are just some growing pains getting it off the ground.

Not that I'd mind more nuclear. They're seriously impressive up close, with a thick white steam cloud (larger than most skyscrapers) billowing out the top... but in all honesty, going forward, the future is UNDENIABLY solar powered.

Re:What is the idea

[mdielmann]

Absolutely, but always at a loss. That's not an energy source, it's an energy sink, also known as a battery.
Ultimately, there are three places you can get energy: nuclear power (fission or fusion), solar (specialized subset of nuclear), and gravitational. Everything we use for power comes from one of those three. Hydro and oil are concentrated solar, tidal is a combination of solar and gravitational, and nuclear is pretty obvious. Any method to produce hydrogen is going to be an energy sink from one of those.

Re:What is the idea

[dachshund]

And indeed, if we had an efficient technique for manufacturing gasoline then gasoline could absolutely be called a renewable fuel. If that technique existed we probably wouldn't be messing with hydrogen. Hydrogen is being considered as a likely future transportation fuel precisely because we don't know how to manufacture gasoline efficiently without using petroleum products.

There's some hope for doing it with biofuels (algae based, especially) and Slashdot has some new science story on this subject every other week. But the point here is that a fuel is only renewable if we have a practical technique for renewing it, not just because such a technique might theoretically exist.

Re:What is the idea

[jheath314]

The point is that we can't mine hydrogen as a primary source of power, since the process involved in extracting it (by electrolysis, or steam reformation of methane) requires more power than what you get out. This makes hydrogen just an energy storage medium, unlike oil, coal, solar, etc, where we get more energy out of the "extraction" process than goes in.

Moreover, hydrogen is a particularly lousy energy storage medium. Whether you make it by electrolysis or steam reformation, you lose significant useful energy in the conversion process... you'd be better off just using the electricity or burning the methane directly, rather than bothering with converting it to a less useful form. Piping it long distances is out of the question, since it can escape through solid metal (and embrittles the metal in the process). There are also significant safety issues, as evidenced by TFA.

Re:What is the idea

[dbIII]

What's wrong with nuclear as an energy source?

A very large number of things - thus we should put more work into nuclear R&D to reduce that to a small number of things.
Nuclear "could" do a lot of things, but we won't get there just by dreaming. "All it needs" is a shitload of work but the payoff is likely to be worth it. As it stands "existing technology" is 1960s designs built with a few 1970s improvements and a hand stretched out for welfare from the taxpayer.

Re:What is the idea

[sunspot42]

Point of fact: Far more energy goes into the processing, refining, and transportation of gasoline than is ever extracted from it in the form of pure heat alone (much less propulsion or "useful work") when it is burned in an internal combustion engine.

Uh, you have a source for that assertion? Because I can tell you right now, everything I've ever read on the subject indicates that a gallon of oil (and gasoline, which is just refined oil) contains a lot more energy than it costs to extract that oil from the ground, refine and transport it. When it becomes uneconomical to continue extracting oil from a given well that well is shut down.

We still had oil-burning power plants in America last time I checked.

Re:What is the idea

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hydrogen is, in essence, a battery with infinite recharges"

False. Hydrogen fuel cells degrade over time, faster than lithium based batteries. The current record for a fuel cell is 200 days of continuous operation which averages out to 7 years of moderate driving before the fuel cell has to be stripped down, resurfaced with precious catalyst metals and reassembled.

Re:What is the idea

[Black Gold Alchemist]

we NEED nuclear, because there's no way solar/wind/geothermal can equate to even 25% of our current use, let alone what increased population will need

While I support nuclear energy, this is just wrong. The Earth is hit with over 175 petawatts of solar power. An American uses about 10 kW of power (two X over estimate with current solar plus current solar to gasoline). Total, 9 billion of them is 90 terawatts, or %0.05 of the solar influx.

Re:What is the idea

[Black Gold Alchemist]

We do know. All the technology is proven. The integration is not. We can expect 60 percent electricity to gasoline efficiency. The best way to store hydrogen is in the form of gasoline, which is 1.75 times richer in hydrogen by volume than liquid hydrogen. And that does not include the energy of the carbon.

Re:What is the idea

[jez9999]

The irony is that some fuels we call 'renewable' aren't... solar is just used up once we've absorbed it... and most fossil fuels are ultimately renewable, if over millions of years.

It's an unfortunate term. 'Sustainable' is better. :-)

Re:What is the idea

[necro81]

What's wrong with nuclear as an energy source? Nuclear could completely replace fixed sources of energy production that currently rely on carbon fuels. Hydrogen could be used for mobile applications where a nuclear reactor is not needed or feasible.

Unfortunately, I think you underestimate the scale of what you are suggesting. Nuclear supplies about 20% of the United States' electrical power. But electricity is itself only about 40% of our total energy consumption - the rest largely being transportation fuels, heat, and industrial. In total, the US consumes approximately 100 quads (quadrillion BTUs - a terribly arcane unit. It's also about 105 exajoules) of energy. Nuclear right now supplies about 8.3 quads, and that's all electricity. To replace all the rest with nuclear would require a twelve-fold increase in nuclear capacity - at least. To replace just our petroleum consumption would require enough nuclear to roughly double the entire US electrical grid.

Is that really how we want to solve our problems?

Re:What is the idea

[natehoy]

"Sustainable" is a more useful term, true.

"Renewable" is important for a fuel. We need to be able to create more of the fuel as needed so we don't have a supply crunch of a specific fuel (or means of storing portable energy for use - for this purpose "fuel" and "battery" are pretty much the same thing).

But, to your point, the process by which it is renewed needs to be something we can do for a very long time. If we can renew a fuel but we don't have a sustainable energy supply to feed it, renewability is sorta useless.

Similarly, if the use of a fuel causes really nasty pollution or some other severe effect, it's not a fuel we want even if it is renewable.

Re:What is the idea

[natehoy]

You're confusing the fuel with its method of consumption. Hydrogen, itself, as a fuel, is renewable. I burn Hydrogen, it makes water. I take the water and apply electricity, it makes hydrogen and oxygen. I repeat the process 10 trillion times, and it works.

An automobile that burns hydrogen or otherwise consumes it will have parts that break down. I agree that those issues have to be taken into account, and could make the fuel non-sustainable. The more complex an engine you need to consume a fuel, the more it will cost (fiscally and environmentally) in the end to consume it.

That's why electricity is such a great fuel overall. The engines are as simple and reliable as it gets. Unfortunately, our current methods of storing it are pretty poor, have relatively short lifespans, and very low energy densities.

Re:What is the idea

[Teancum]

Oil-burning power plants don't use refined gasoline for electrical production, at least power plants that are "main" producers on the grid mixed with other electrical sources. Perhaps as back-up power supplies that are used intermittently during peak power demand, but not something that is intended to be used on a daily basis. In fact, most of what a power plant uses is the left over "sludge" from the refinery that can't be used in other circumstances or has very light refining.

Refineries use a variety of energy sources to power their facilities as can be seen on this chart: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/iab98/petroleum/fuel.html

Regardless, what isn't being shown is that it takes several gallons of crude oil to produce a single gallon of gasoline... provided that the refinery is using petroleum at all in the production of its products. Many use electricity, coal, and even natural gas for the energy needed for the refining process. My point is that the refining process consumes an incredible amount of energy and you certainly consume more energy through that process than is even possible to extract from the gasoline when it is finished.

Another chart that I can show you is here: http://www.need.org/needpdf/infobook_activities/IntInfo/ConsI.pdf

On page 3 of this document it blatantly states that nearly half of the energy stocks produced by a refinery are consumed in the process of refining petroleum. It also states that petroleum refining is currently the largest consumer of energy in American industrial processes. It isn't a trivial amount of energy.

My point is that those who complain about hydrogen being incorrectly compared to gasoline and other "energy" stocks as a fuel source aren't really comparing all of the actual costs involved and that hydrogen as a fuel source may even come out favorable from a pure production viewpoint... or at least not nearly as bad of a source. You also have to separate the notion of an energy source from a fuel source... which is two different things entirely.

Besides, petroleum has too many beneficial uses that sticking it into a furnace of some kind and burning it (speaking broadly including an internal combustion engine) seems to be the most wasteful thing you can do with the stuff.

BTW, I never said that it was uneconomical to burn two to three gallons of crude oil to produce a gallon of gasoline. I just suggested that the raw energy used in the processing of that fuel is more than can possibly be extracted from it when it is finished.

Re:What is the idea

[jez9999]

My point is that you're not 'renewing' solar power, you simply have an enormous and very long-term supply.

Re:What is the idea

[natehoy]

Well, true. But I didn't use the term "renewable" in terms of solar (a power source), only in terms of one of the fuels (a power storage mechanism) it creates.

In the end, no power sources are actually renewable. In fact, no power sources are actually truly sustainable given heat death and entropy over the next few trillion years. ;)

But for our purposes, "sustainable" can mean "for the practical future", and should include some discussion of the consequences of using the energy source and its resulting fuels as well.

Re:What is the idea

[djdanlib]

Good sir, I approve of your post and thank you for it.

Re:What is the idea

[thegarbz]

BTW, "making" hydrogen is not easy.

Not technically, you are right. But the point is that it is very easy to tap into supplies we are currently making. Any refinery which runs a hydrocracking plant will often have a gasification plant along side it. The local refinery in our city burns of hydrogen 24/7 stopping only every 4 years for a month of maintenance, and of course during catastrophic maintenance.

Catalytic Reforming also produces excess hydrogen. Some plants with a cat reformer but no hydrocracker very often don't use up their hydrogen supply in diesel hydrotreaters either. In these two cases you have covered a large portion of the worlds refineries generating excess hydrogen continuously. Compress this offgas, transport it, and use it, and only THEN come back with the "making" hydrogen is not easy argument, because right now it's as easy as adding some pipe to a lot of existing process plants.

Re:What is the idea

[pipingguy]

Sorry for the reply delay.

I think the transport thing might be more difficult, and I'm not one to say 'no' to more piping! Most of my (admittedly) limited experience with hydrogen is regarding LH2, not gaseous.

Thanks and regards,

Paul

Re:What is the idea

[thegarbz]

Indeed, it's a highly volatile gas which will ignite at the drop of a dime. Transportation is non-trivial in bulk.

How do you put out a hydrogen fire?

[A nonymous Coward]

If the byproduct of a hydrogen fire is water, does it put itself out?

Does water do any good? The spray can both cool fire and reduce oxygen, but how does that work on a hydrogen fire?

Only half :-)

Re:How do you put out a hydrogen fire?

[daid303]

Hydrogen has a tendency to explode, not to burn slowly like a common fuel fire, where only the vapors burn.

Re:How do you put out a hydrogen fire?

[jmichaelg]

Not sure where you got that idea. Hydrogen burns very well if you can control the feed line. It's used for welding, and less commonly, driving space shuttles.

  When the first H-bomb was being setup for the test, one of the tanks needed venting to release some excess hydrogen. Instead of just letting it vent off into the atmosphere, they lit the hydrogen as it came out the vent tube. Hydrogen flames aren't visible so the the way they knew it was burning was from the heat and from the fact that burnt seagulls kept falling out of the sky. The birds couldn't see the hazard until it was too late.

I hear seagull isn't very tasty but then maybe it was overcooked.

Re:How do you put out a hydrogen fire?

[natehoy]

Precisely. Only the vapors (gasses) burn, and that's basically true of any fuel (even wood, which is why wood is so hard to start). Solids need to be vaporized before they can mix with oxygen and burn.

Hydrogen is a gas at standard pressures and temperatures, similar to propane and natural gas. No vaporization required, it's ready to go. These fuels are the hardest to store safely because of this, and because they all pretty much need to be stored under pressure (liquified, usually) to have a sufficient quantity to be useful. Give it an environment where it can mix with air, and it will do so EXTREMELY rapidly, and spread really fast, and expose it to a spark and the whole lot goes at once.

Gasoline is (especially in warmer temperatures) a liquid that is very prone to vaporization. So it's not quite as likely to burn as hydrogen (but it's pretty damned close, since it vaporizes so readily), but there tends to be less initial "boom" and more sustained burn as the liquid vaporizes. Vaporize gasoline quickly and thoroughly enough, though, and it's got nearly the explosive potential of hydrogen.

Diesel (and Bio-Diesel, jet fuel, kerosene, home heating oil, lamp oil, cooking oil, animal fat, etc) are much less prone to vaporization at standard temperatures, and require more heat to vaporize, but they are more energy dense. So these fuels are relatively safe to handle compared to the other two (a single spark is highly unlikely to set them off - they require more sustained pre-heating to start the combustion), but once you manage to light it up it's a lot harder to put out, and it burns a lot hotter, and burns for a very long time.

Re:How do you put out a hydrogen fire?

[Abcd1234]

Not sure where you got that idea. Hydrogen burns very well if you can control the feed line.

Yeah. That's, like, totally the same as a container truck exploding...

Danger is known

[dmitriy]

Behind Cisco campus in San Jose, there is a very nice trail running by a creek. This trail runs next to VTA bus depot that has a hydrogen fuelling station.

This trail has HUGE signs saying (someting like) HYDROGEN FUELING STATION - RUN AWAY IF ALARM ACTIVATED

Re:Danger is known

[MobyDisk]

What else would someone do upon hearing an alarm at a fueling station?

Re:Danger is known

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why would they run towards the explosion?"

Re:Danger is known

[Un pobre guey]

Oh, I don't know. Run over and watch it blow up and burn?

Re:Danger is known

[cygnwolf]

Well it's obvious. When you hear alarms, you go see what all the commotion is about and see how in the way of emergency personnel you can get. Bonus points if they end up having to rescue you too.

Re:Danger is known

[perpenso]

What else would someone do upon hearing an alarm at a fueling station?

I'm sure some would reach for their phone/ipod to begin recording video.

Re:Danger is known

[flink]

I used to live near a rubber factory and it had a pretty big areas fenced off around it with signs that said "WARNING: DEPRESSED AREAS MAY HARBOR NON LIFE-SUSTAINING GASSES". I'm guessing they vented CO2 there or something, but why the couldn't vent it out the smoke stacks with the rest of the crud they produced was always a mystery to me.

Re:Danger is known

[Raptoer]

If the gasses are heaver than air, then they might have been putting them out of the stack, or it may have been impossible to. A stack only works if you can force the gasses out, however being heaver than air, you have to heat it up (to reduce the density) to get it to go out the stack. Once it goes out the stack and cools, it might just fall down anyways.

If they vented CO2 then it would probably be hot enough to vent out of a stack. CO2 is probably classified as a poisonous gas, as it has to be at only 6%+ to cause major harm, instead of simply displacing the oxygen like a non life-sustaining gas would.

Re:Danger is known

[crakbone]

or tweeting it.

Re:Danger is known

[dmitriy]

Signs are placed ~200m away from the hydrogen station. Most people would come closer and take a look.

Re:Danger is known

[Khyber]

"CO2 is probably classified as a poisonous gas, as it has to be at only 6%+ to cause major harm,"

WAY less than that. Anything over 1,000PPM can produce ill effects, and anything over 3,000PPM is very harmful to humans.

We're not even talking 1% to cause major harm.

Re:Danger is known

[mjwx]

This trail has HUGE signs saying (someting like) HYDROGEN FUELING STATION - RUN AWAY IF ALARM ACTIVATED

Well no shit, you say this is on a running trail no less.

Sounds like VTA is just trying to help everyone get fit.

Re:Danger is known

[soliptic]

Walk away from it in nonchalant slow motion, quipping as it explodes.

Cause is under investigation?

[Meshach]

FTFA:

The cause of the explosion is under investigation but Brooks says there are no indiciations it was anything other than an accident.

I am surprised that this type of an "accident" is able to occur. Did someone forget to cap something? Was someone smoking? I would hope that this kind of process would be somewhat failsafe.

Re:Cause is under investigation?

[yurtinus]

Pretty sure you should go look up the definition of "accident" and get back to us...

Re:Cause is under investigation?

[countertrolling]

Under investigation?

Nope.. The guys stood around for awhile, sprayed some water on the ashes, and then;

"Ok fellas, that's good enough.. It's Miller Time"

Re:Cause is under investigation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure you should go look up the definition of "accident" and get back to us...

Perhaps you should, in turn, look up 'failsafe'?

Reminds me of when Perl was born

[Anonymous Coward]

There's been an explosion at the ascii factory
    /
  o /|\
/ \

Felt this from 2 miles away

[Fwipp]

It was actually kind of scary, my whole office building felt & heard this from two miles away. I can't imagine what it would have been like to see up close.

It wasn't until a while later that we found out what had happened, though. Luckily, I hear that there was only one injury though.

Re:Felt this from 2 miles away

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird, I'm about 1.5 miles away and didn't feel / hear anything. Didn't even know it happened until I read this story on ./

Re:Felt this from 2 miles away

[echucker]

Interesting.. I work 3 miles directly SE of the site, and knew nothing about it until I heard a traffic update on the radio at 3:30 on the way home.

Re:Felt this from 2 miles away

[Anonymous Coward]

I was at ground zero, and I was smoking the cigarette. :/

Re:Felt this from 2 miles away

[roman_mir]

Something about August, bad shit happens in August. 2 years ago I was standing on a balcony in apartment on Young street in Toronto and saw this explosion, we had a propane explosion in a depot in the city, some building were destroyed, it was pretty and somewhat scary looking.

Re:Felt this from 2 miles away

[roman_mir]

pffft, I wrote the street wrong again, do it all the time. Well, it's Yonge street.

Re:Felt this from 2 miles away

[roman_mir]

Actually here is a better video with sound and Cloverfield-like special effects.

Re:Felt this from 2 miles away

[GodfatherofSoul]

I can't imagine what it would have been like to see up close.

It's easy, go outside sometime sunrise and sunset and look up. And, before one of you junior high physics grads pipes in, that was a joke.

Re:Felt this from 2 miles away

[FloodSpectre]

I heard it in the South Wedge too, just off of Mt. Hope. I was home for my lunch break and heard something like a dump truck hitting a brick wall. With all the construction going on, I assumed that too ;)

Re:Felt this from 2 miles away

[Anonymous Coward]

i was in the terminal waiting to board a plane when when we all felt it- I thought maybe a plane crashed into the terminal, but the staff seemed so blase...we all went back to our magazines like sheep. about 10 minutes later, we all calmly boarded the plane, sat there for about 10 minutes at the gate, then then closed the airport, had us leave the plane, and evacuated both terminals. I think it was on the other side since we couldn't see anything. All fairly orderly, but one has to wonder about the 10-15 minute delay between the explosion and the evacuation during which the airlines continued to operation calmly.

Glad no one was killed. No free drinks sadly.

Re:Felt this from 2 miles away

[djdanlib]

Lucky you, I work around 2.5 miles away, can SEE the airport if I walk over to that side of the building, and didn't even know about it until much later.

The recent earthquake though, that was a lot of fun.

Burger King worker?

[dkuntz]

I'm wondering how this BK worker got hurt... did she lean too far out of the window and fall?

Re:Burger King worker?

[Disgruntled Goats]

Considering the usual size of a BK worker, I'd be more worried about the ground being hurt if she fell out of the window.

Re:Burger King worker?

[RossR]

The press conference said she had ear pain.

Re:Burger King worker?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Burger King is just down the road, across the street with the drive through window facing the general direction of the hydrogen station... working the drive through, she probably had some concussive ear pain from the force of the explosion channeling into the drive through "tunnel."

Loud boom

[HaloZero]

I was out to lunch when this occured. It sounded like a giant dump truck slamming it's trailer. Glad to hear everyone is okay.

Weird

[Murdoch5]

Is it just me or are they listing what was around the station more then information about the station itself. How did this truck blowup exactly, wouldn't you think a hydrogen truck would be specially outfitted to not in anyway be combustible.

Re:Weird

[boneclinkz]

Haven't you heard? Hydrogen is ultra-combustible-dangerous! Somebody on the sidewalk across the street probably lit up a cigarette. I imagine the trucker reaching out in slow-motion and screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo."

Re:Weird

[Murdoch5]

I know it is, thats my point. wouldn't the truck be secured in someway to make it near impossible to blowup.

Re:Weird

[Un pobre guey]

Failures occur. Defects occur. Accidents occur. In engineering there is no such thing as perfection. Risk can only be mitigated, never eliminated entirely.

Hmm...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It must have been a rather interesting looking fire.

Unlike materials that contain their own oxidizers, pure hydrogen will do basically nothing outside of the conditions that the fusion kiddies are working with. It needs to mix with air first. However, it is also substantially lighter than air, and would thus rise fairly quickly out of any non-sealed area. If you had a big hydrogen leak, burning, you'd presumably have a rising column of hydrogen, gradually mushrooming, surrounded by localized pockets of combustion in areas where turbulence had created a critical mixture of fuel, air, and temperature. That must have been an odd sight.

The "explosion" bit suggests that either there are other chemicals on site in fair quantity(quite possible, if the hydrogen is being generated locally in some way) or somebody foolishly built a confined area for the hydrogen to build up in when it leaked...

Re:Hmm...

[blair1q]

All combustible gases I know of are stored without their oxidizers mixed in. (Not so for all solid fuels I know of, but we're not talking about solid fuels.) Probably because people who store combustible gases like to live.

And they all burn in roughly the same way, with a plume of fire as the oxygen mixes with the fuel, usually as it rises.

Hydrogen is the same, but since hydrogen is very light it rises very fast. Like your average hollywood explosion, played back at 2-3X normal speed.

And while it's a light-yellow flame, it's not invisible.

I can still see a couple of reasons for firemen to stay away from it after the initial explosion:
1. there might be other tanks that could explode, and shrapnel of any size can ruin your day
2. there might be other chemicals and materials involved making using just one firefighting method unworkable
3. there might be more hydrogen in the tank that's still leaking out, if the tank had a leak and not a big rupture
4. there might not be anyone on the truck who's allowed to fight a hydrogen fire, even if everyone knows how to
5. the safest thing may be to let it burn out the supply in the leaking tank
6. it might backfire into the leaking tank as the tank runs low, and then you're looking at shrapnel issues again

Okay. More than a couple.

Re:Hmm...

[Raptoer]

Well that critical mixture is more of a range. It doesn't have to be a perfect mixture, just close. There has to be enough combustible density for ignition energy to pass from one particle to another, and enough oxygen density so that the combustibles can cause combustion. This is close to how a fuel air bomb works. However it's likely that the explosion heard wasn't directly related to the hydrogen at all. (skip to the 4th paragraph)

Note that the combustible density has to be high for stable/weak combustibles, or it can be lower for unstable/strong combustibles. Hydrogen is rather unstable (doesn't need much activation energy) and thus the particles can be really close, or relatively spread out.

Not all of the combustible has to go at the same instant, an explosion in one part might cause the density in another part to change, or could collectively give enough energy to cause ignition. Some things not normally considered explosive can become explosive if given the proper conditions (including a pressure vessel). Sugar dust, wheat dust, flour, and sawdust have been known to cause explosions in very rare conditions.

A pressure vessel failing is essentially an explosion, so it could be that the tank failed, and it just happened to be filled with this flammable gas, which then caused a fire. An explosion in the tank is nearly impossible, simply because there is no oxygen. Most combustibles need some sort of a pressure vessel to cause a proper explosion, if the ignition velocity is not fast enough, then it will cause a big fireball (think Hollywood explosion) but won't cause much explosion damage.

The real safety problem with using compressed hydrogen as a vehicle fuel is that it is a compressed gas. Even if a tank failure doesn't cause a lot of damage, the hydrogen will come out very quickly, leading to a possible fire. This isn't a problem with gasoline as it is a liquid, and on top of that only the vapors are really flammable. I don't know the safety ratings on a hydrogen tank put in a car, but the tanks would have to be done very well to be equal in safety to a gasoline tank (which can have inner bladders, that don't work with compressed hydrogen).

Hydrogen stored in metal hydrates is very stable, and easily safer than gasoline. But I don't think the energy density is high enough yet for practical use.

This post ended up being a lot longer and more of a ramble than I intended, sorry.

Re:Hmm...

[EmagGeek]

"However, it is also substantially lighter than air"

I promise you that 1 ton of standard air weighs exactly the same as 1 ton of pure hydrogen gas.

Re:Hmm...

[Jesus_666]

Sugar dust, wheat dust, flour, and sawdust have been known to cause explosions in very rare conditions.

And they're dangerous even outside those conditions. Yes, there are ranges etc. but essentially when you have a cloud of aerosol it's a very bad idea to get an open flame anywhere near it.

My father used to be the security manager of a local shipping/milling company. Apart from a huge book of materials and how and when they are dangerous when airborne he had his fair share of fun with workers who had bright ideas like entering the mill with burning cigarettes. If you manage to ignite the dust hanging in the air nobody cares if it's an explosion or "just" a fire; you will damage or destroy the mill and endanger the lives of the people inside.

It's pretty amazing how many things become really dangerous when mixed with air. Oxygen is pretty nasty stuff for the precise reason we breathe it. (And that's one reason why gaseous fuels require special care: Once the fuel can leave the tank all of it will form a fuel-air mixture while liquid fuels have to evaporate first.)

Re:Hmm...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

But, at equivalent temperature and pressure, the 1 ton of hydrogen will occupy a substantially greater volume. "Less dense" would have been more precise; but "lighter" is a perfectly acceptable informal usage, especially when everybody involved is in the same gravity well...

Re:Hmm...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It really doesn't help that, in addition to Oxygen being fairly peppy, many of the chemicals we care about sufficiently to transport and process in quantity are either foodstuffs(which wouldn't be foodstuffs if they weren't a good source of energy) or fuels(ditto) or chemical intermediates(which tend to be reactive in some way, or they wouldn't be useful as chemical intermediates).

Re:Hmm...

[ridgecritter]

It is actually (nearly) invisible, and it's not "a light-yellow flame". I have a hydrogen generator, puts out 99.9995% pure H2. I have ignited the outlet stream to test a UV detector (hydrogen flame in air is UV-rich), and it's a faint, bluish flame. Quite hard to see in normal room lighting, clearly visible when the environment is dark. In sunlight, you wouldn't have a prayer of seeing a hydrogen flame from a leaky pipe fitting. If the flame looks yellow, it's because of dust, probably carrying sodium compounds. Sodium compounds have strong yellow emission lines in flame and plasma spectra.

Piss poor planning

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out the hydrogen refueling facility was adjacent to an oxygen storage facility.

The zoning board is currently in hot water over this mistake.

Re:Piss poor planning

[yurtinus]

Shoot... just posted a comment in this discussion... want to buy more funny mods!

Re:Piss poor planning

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine the fueling station is rather steamed by the whole situation as well.

Re:Piss poor planning

[blair1q]

So you're saying both were put in the Zoning Board's back yard?

Re:Piss poor planning

[idontgno]

I'd expect the neighborhood is pretty steamed about it.

Re:Piss poor planning

[Nethead]

Turns out the hydrogen refueling facility was adjacent to an oxygen storage facility.

and then got hit by lightning. Fortunately they did have flood insurance.

Re:Piss poor planning

[ciaohound]

I'd say it's all water under the bridge now.

Re:Piss poor planning

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the hydrogen station has gone back to being vaporware...

Ever wonder why you work at BK?

[HungryMonkey]

"A 20-year-old female fast food employee was injured when she leaned out of a nearby Burger King drive-thru window to see what the explosion was." Nope, that answered that.

Re:Ever wonder why you work at BK?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like nobody else would be curious. Come on, I bet you would be climbing out the window to have a look (otherwise your curiosity might be too low for you to be reading this site).

And since it's on topic: I don't eat fast food much but when I do Burger King rocks, the burgers taste great (and they actually resemble the tasty pictures!), and the workers at Burger King are always nice and friendly. Stop disrespecting honest workers, your feeling of superiority is unwarranted and makes you a fool.

Re:Ever wonder why you work at BK?

[ModernGeek]

Was she hot?

Re:Ever wonder why you work at BK?

[mjwx]

Was she hot?

Depends how close to the explosion she was.

"Hard to see flames"

[bill_mcgonigle]

No news yet if the hard to see flames of hydrogen combustion contributed to this delay.

So, you'd think if they went to the trouble of building this that the local fire department would have been involved and procured the necessary equipment, say a pair of night vision goggles so that a man on the truck could see the flames.

Outfitting each firefighter with the right training and equipment won't be cheap, but neither are ladder trucks.

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[Un pobre guey]

Night vision goggles in broad daylight?

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[DrgnDancer]

The airport's Fire Rescue squad responded first, maybe they didn't get the training. You'd think they'd give it to all likely first responders, but who knows. Government bureaucracy is often about doing the minimum you can: "Huh, regulation says we gotta get special training and equipment for the Fire Dept... what's minimum we can spend doing that and still be legal?"

Course the submitter was just speculating, so maybe that wasn't eh problem at all.

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably, burning hydrogen doesn't give off the same distinctive orange/yellow/green/blue/white light that other combustibles do, but does still give off infrared (heat) radiation that would show up on the goggles.

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[brainboyz]

Infrared goggles, not amplified light goggles. Both can be considered "night vision" as they allow vision in low-light situations.

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[Un pobre guey]

Not all NVGs use infrared, and even for those that do the background heat under a hot midday sun might result in too small a signal to noise ratio. It would have to burn very hot, like gasoline, to have a strong IR signature. Also. I wonder if typical IR goggles would be overwhelmed by a bright midday scene. I seem to recall that military FLIR can be used in daylight...

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[Anonymous Coward]

Near IR goggles would help you see the nearly invisible hydrogen flames.

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[PPH]

Briefly spray the area with a fog and see if it flashes into steam?

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[bill_mcgonigle]

Since everybody is asking, yeah, there are daylight IR ('night vision') goggles and they can detect very small temperature differences. Here's one from a quick Google search. Here's an image of daylight and minor temperature differences (compared to a hydrogen fire).

You can get an energy auditor to come out to your house and image it to look for heating or cooling leaks with this kind of gear. Their less-fancy gear is in the $3500-ish range, the fancy binoculars are probably more, but, again, not out of line with fire-fighting equipment. There's a company that makes helmet-mounted versions for finding children in housefires.

Don't let me spoil the fear-mongering about hydrogen though.

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[bill_mcgonigle]

Clever. Good in a pinch, I'd reckon, but touchy SOP for a fire crew.

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[PagosaSam]

Usually, the best thing for fire fighters to do with compressed gas fires is to let them burn. The fuel most likely can not be removed because the container is broken or valves blown off, etc. Controlling the area and letting the fuel consume itself is often the best or only choice.

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[mjwx]

So, you'd think if they went to the trouble of building this that the local fire department would have been involved and procured the necessary equipment, say a pair of night vision goggles so that a man on the truck could see the flames.

You could give the fire dept of Rochester the entire NY state budget for equipment and you wouldn't get half of what they'd need for every conceivable emergency.

Besides, that is not what would have likely held up the fire fighters. In Australia many fire fighting units have specialisations (bushfire, chemical, petroleum and so forth) so they can deal with different types of fires. It's impractical and phenomenally difficult on the people to have every fire fighter trained up to have every specialisation so we have specialised units to deal with specialised emergencies. The fire fighters were probably hanging back until a unit who had the right training and knew what they were doing got there and issued orders to the other guys. Rightly so too, to do otherwise would have put those firey's at risk (unnecessary risk).

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[bill_mcgonigle]

You could give the fire dept of Rochester the entire NY state budget for equipment and you wouldn't get half of what they'd need for every conceivable emergency.

And that would be a silly thing to do. But in this case, the City government built a hydrogen filling station. It would not be silly for the fire department to be involved with that project and procure the necessary equipment to deal with a fire there.

Re:"Hard to see flames"

[mjwx]

And that would be a silly thing to do. But in this case, the City government built a hydrogen filling station. It would not be silly for the fire department to be involved with that project and procure the necessary equipment to deal with a fire there.

the points over here mate, you seemed to have missed it.

It's not about the equipment, it's about the training. Given that Firey's over here are/can be rotated and that a specialist unit (such as chemical) tends to be shared amongst several jurisdictions. All the equipment in the world is useless if you dont know what to do with it.

Better than gas fire!

[Kagato]

Hydrogen burns in a much more controlled manor compared to gasoline. So I'm not surprised they took a bit of a wait and see attitude.

Re:Better than gas fire!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gasoline lives in old, run-down manors.

Hydrogen keeps its property up, and the result is it looks like a much nicer, better controlled manor.

Right?

H can be generated from water and sunlight ...

[perpenso]

with calling Hydrogen "renewable fuel"? It still has to be generated - and most of the energy we use to extract Hydrogen comes from burning fossil fuels ... But it's still lossy as fuck making hydrogen.

That is true today. However various universities are researching the generation of hydrogen using biological processes, organism + water + sunlight --> H.

Re:H can be generated from water and sunlight ...

[Abcd1234]

That is true today. However various universities are researching the generation of hydrogen using biological processes, organism + water + sunlight --> H.

No, that's solar energy.

Re:H can be generated from water and sunlight ...

[Khyber]

No, it's biogeneration. In fact, we just discovered a NEW type of chlorophyll (which I'm dead surprised slashdot hasn't picked up on it, yet. So much for being news for nerds you slow slackers,) which can use IR light to perform photosynthesis, split water, and build sugars, which we thought previously impossible.

And that pretty much throws out so many prior EE beliefs and makes hundreds of new energy systems possible.

Re:H can be generated from water and sunlight ...

[Abcd1234]

No, it's biogeneration.

No, it's solar energy. What part of *photo*synthesis don't you understand?

Re:H can be generated from water and sunlight ...

[Khyber]

What part of ENERGY do you not understand? It may use solar energy for the initial bit, but the main energy MOLECULE is ATP, pal, and it's ATP which drives EVERYTHING ELSE in the plant.

Photosynthesis in a plant may be SIMILAR to solar energy as we currently define it, but it's more complex and isn't 100% reliant upon the sun, hence BIO-GENERATION OF POWER.

You clearly fail to understand the processes involved in photosynthesis, in which sunlight barely plays any role. (Plants are less efficient than solar panels, BTW.)

Also, we can grow plants WITHOUT LIGHT AT ALL, that's one of my company's crowning achievements. Water energized with certain frequency electrical pulses, sound waves, specialized nutrient solutions. We can bring many crops to fruition without a single photon.

So your entire statement just became 100% moot and irrelevant.

Come back and talk when you're actually a part of the horticultural industry, performing research, and producing working products.

Here's the station - a hydrogen boondoggle

[Animats]

The fueling station has a web site. They offer hydrogen, compressed natural gas, bio-diesel, and ethanol options.

Only one (1) vehicle used hydrogen from that station - a fuel cell powered 2008 Chevy Equinox from GM's now-concluded "Project Driveway".

Re:Here's the station - a hydrogen boondoggle

[Un pobre guey]

"Hydrogen boondoggle"? You fool! You Luddite! You latte-drinking bisexual socialist! Hydrogen is the energy source of the future and always will be! In the future there will be a Hydrogen Economy! We'll use it for everything! Radios! Laptops! Cell phones! Everything will have a hydrogen fuel cell, not just cars! We'll mine the asteroids! Get our asses to Mars! Get off this rock! We'll... We'll...

etc etc

Almost certainly the tank failed mechanically

[Thagg]

The Equinox fuel-cell vehicles have three high-pressure tanks, that can be filled up to 10,000 psi (more than 3x what a SCUBA tank pressure is)

One of those tanks failing will make a big boom! The fire, if there was one, would probably burn out almost immediately, as the hydrogen will disperse quickly and then got straight up fast.

There's a nice bit in "Dark Sun" about filling the Ivy Mike device with dueterium. All the leftover was burned, and made a roaring news but didn't have any visible fire.

Thad

Ouch

[postermmxvicom]

Just sayin, the Hindenburg was an awful disaster. Have you ever listened to that broadcast?

Re:Ouch

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Too soon?

Re:Ouch

[geekoid]

I have. Your point?

Re:Ouch

[postermmxvicom]

It always had a weighty emotional impact with me. Kinda like watching people die on 9/11.

Re:Ouch

[GuruBuckaroo]

I happen to be the first person (that I know of) to make a joke about 9/11. (bracing for the karma hit)

I was discussing the site with a co-worker about 3 days after the event, and he remarked "I wonder what they will do with the site once it's cleared."

Before I could staple my lips shut, I said "Turn it into an Airport?"

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope a Mosque

Re:Ouch

[Ironhandx]

I think we may have been separated at birth. I made a very similar joke within a week or so.

Did you get the same reaction? One guy started to laugh before he caught himself and the rest looked at me in horror.

oh man!

[CodemasterMM]

kind of crazy. I remember driving past here a few times not too long ago. I wonder what exactly happened during refueling that triggered the explosion (as it's not covered in the article).

Let me correct that for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox news needs to figure out how to blame Obama and CNN needs to find a way to blame the oil industry?

Fox news needs to figure out how to blame Obama and CNN needs to find a way to blame Bush?

Conspiracy

[X_DARK_X]

Obviously this bombing was staged to incite more fears amongst general public about the use of alternative energy methods. +1 Big Oil.

Where are the stats???

[gurps_npc]

I would love to know if this is newsworthy, unfortunately, they did not give us the important details. For example, what percentage of gasoline stations have fires in any year, and how many other hydrogen refueling stations of this type exist. Without that information we have no idea if this is a far greater risk or a far lesser risk.

Re:Where are the stats???

[GodfatherofSoul]

Well, a local station is probably just interested in reporting another story about a processing plant fire with pretty footage, not providing talking points for a Slashdot debate among geeks.

Re:Where are the stats???

[TheSync]

Without that information we have no idea if this is a far greater risk or a far lesser risk.

Evidently this happens at gasoline stations as well: ...Police have identified a man killed by an underground explosion at a gas station in Stone Mountain...

Re:Where are the stats???

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this single data point would surely put this issue to rest.

Re:Where are the stats???

[gurps_npc]

In other words, the local station is just interested in attracting attention, and willing to do a crappy job of reporting, so that they don't actually inform the people they are trying to serve.

Because honestly, anyone interested in this story would STILL need the information I requested.

Cars that go Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of reminds me of this video - different kind of boom though

Instant Water

[istartedi]

Instant Water, just add^%$^$ NO CARRIER.

Yikes

[carconsumer]

Well that would be a terrible way to start the day

Hydrogen is a bad idea to fuel cars.

[John Sokol]

It doesn't store well. It's just a bad idea all around.

So I am not surprised because people were saying it's going to be a real safety issue are refueling stations.
Bush kept pushing it and many went along with it anyway.

In the end I am sure electric will win. It's safer the Gas, stores better, transports better and is far cheaper.

Anyone notice the reporting station?

[GodfatherofSoul]

13WHAM! Bad luck and the sound of an explosion all rolled into one!

The path to enlightenment is filled with ... stuff

[madbox]

And why is this news? Oh, right, because all of our energy needs will be met by a fully-functional Hydrogen Economy(TM) within 10 years, so this is obviously a potential road-block on the path to Enhyrdogenment. Silly me.

    Stuff Burns! News at 11!

Some excitement for nearby college students I hope

[penguinchris]

I was in Rochester a couple days ago (I currently live in nearby Buffalo), and drove through the University of Rochester campus, from whence I graduated two years ago. The students were just moving into the dorms. The campus is fairly close to the airport (not as close as RIT), so I certainly hope they were able to hear or feel the explosion to provide some entertainment before classes start... because Rochester is pretty dull normally :)

Hydrogen Flames

[pipingguy]

My understanding is that "hydrogen flames" are invisible.

Rochester Institute of Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Right down the street from RIT. Coincidence- I think not!

The Onion was brutal

[Anonymous Coward]

In my memory, it seems like the Onion was right on it. But the internet tells me it wasn't until 9/26/2001

I also made a 9/11 joke and never intended to let it slip into the wild. But, it did :/

Ironic

[Internetuser1248]

I was listening to a BBC program on the radio yesterday where some researcher was saying there has never been an incident like this with hydrogen fuel cell technology. Well now there has. He also made other claims, such as that hydrogen is "emissions free". I would like to remind everyone who bought lines like that in the past that hydrogen is made using electricity with a thermal efficiency (including compression) of around 45% at best.

I would also like to remind everyone that the majority, around 64% of the worlds electricity is produced using fossil fuels.Don't believe the hype

Re:Where are the stats??? --- only 30x more risk

[Anonymous Coward]

According to The National Hydrogen Association, this morning there were 72 fully operational battle^H^H^H fueling stations in the United States and Canada. ( I wonder how long it will take them to update their database?)

"U.S. & Canadian
Stations as of 8/26/2010
Operational: 72
Planned: 24"

http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/fuelingSearch.asp

If we guess that the mean age is 5 years ( Reasonable since 1/3 growth is currently planned, suggesting rapid expansion) That would be about 360 station years of operating experience. So in a given year a Hydrogen station has about a 1/360 chance of exploding. If there were 1000 stations built (20 per state) then about one a day would explode.

This analysis has the problem of a small sample size. (Was there a 0% failure rate up to now?) Hopefully, this case will be examined and its failure mode eliminated from future operations.

Now to make the comparison for gasoline:

For 2002 the Economic Census Industry Series Report indicates that there were 120,902 gasoline stations (126,889 in 1997)

The Petroleum Equipment Institute has some tracking of fires at stations. From 1992 to 2010 they have reports of approximately 200 fires that appear to be ESD related. 120,000 stations * 18 years > 2 million station years and 200 incidents give about 1/10,000 chance that a station will have an ESD fire event in a given year.

Of course not all fires are ESD related, recent years have had very few, not all fires are big explosions and gasoline stations get used much much more often (this Hydrogen station was reported to be used about once a day)

Example of presumed ESD caused gas station fire.

So if you ignore the fact that gas station could easily be used >100 of times a day instead of once a day, then the risk looks to be only about 30x greater for Hydrogen for an ESD linked fire.

Petroleum Equipment Institute: ESD data

Hydrogen explosion and fire?

[icannotthinkofaname]

Fire? As in, the hydrogen reacted with the oxygen in the air?

Oh no! Water we going to do now?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion