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

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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...

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:Geeze

[oldspewey]

They still need time to figure out their editorial spin.

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

[networkBoy]

yes, and they both want to blame BP separately.

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: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.

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: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

[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: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: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. ;)