Slashdot Mirror
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.
It is pretty fucked up when slashdot gets this up before CNN or Fox News.
Someone will probably try to use this to say hydrogen is dangerous. I'd like to remind you gasoline is dangerous
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.
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...
What else would someone do upon hearing an alarm at a fueling station?
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".
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.
Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
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.
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.
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.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
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. ;)
"... even though he sins so much that people cast him out of demons."
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