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

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[uniquename72]

Additionally: The Mythbusters take on the Hindenburg.

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

God damn it...

[boneclinkz]

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

Obligatory

[bigredradio]

Oh the humanity...

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[pipingguy]

Despite the much higher energy per volume...

Huh? Were you referring to hydrogen?

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.

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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...

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

[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

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

[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.

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

[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 ;)

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.

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.

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

[idontgno]

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

Re:Geeze

[oldspewey]

They still need time to figure out their editorial spin.

"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"

[brainboyz]

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

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:Cause is under investigation?

[yurtinus]

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

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

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.

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:Geeze

[networkBoy]

yes, and they both want to blame BP separately.

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

Re:Ouch

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Too soon?

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: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: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: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.