Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fire and Explosion At Hydrogen Station Near Rochester Airport

Posted by timothy on from the nothing-can-go-wrong dept.

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.

42 of 357 comments (clear)

  1. A close call but we made it this time by Orga · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:A close call but we made it this time by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      "... even though he sins so much that people cast him out of demons."
    2. Re:A close call but we made it this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:A close call but we made it this time by meerling · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    4. Re:A close call but we made it this time by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:A close call but we made it this time by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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=

    6. Re:A close call but we made it this time by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    7. Re:A close call but we made it this time by lennier · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where are our values?

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

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    8. Re:A close call but we made it this time by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:A close call but we made it this time by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."
  2. God damn it... by boneclinkz · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  3. Obligatory by bigredradio · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh the humanity...

    --
    Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
  4. Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire by SETIGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Support SETI@home
    4. Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire by pipingguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Despite the much higher energy per volume...

      Huh? Were you referring to hydrogen?

    5. Re:Like there's never been a GAS STATION fire by dangitman · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  5. What is the idea by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What is the idea by BradleyUffner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:What is the idea by natehoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    3. Re:What is the idea by natehoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:What is the idea by rujholla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:What is the idea by Moryath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

  6. Felt this from 2 miles away by Fwipp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Felt this from 2 miles away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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 ./

    2. Re:Felt this from 2 miles away by echucker · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Felt this from 2 miles away by FloodSpectre · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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 ;)

  7. Hmm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Hmm... by blair1q · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  8. Piss poor planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

  9. Re:Geeze by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They still need time to figure out their editorial spin.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  10. Re:Burger King worker? by Disgruntled+Goats · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Geeze by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  12. Re:Cause is under investigation? by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    +1 Disagree
  13. Re:Geeze by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  14. Re:Geeze by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    yes, and they both want to blame BP separately.

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  15. Re:Ouch by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 4, Funny

    Too soon?

    --
    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  16. Re:Danger is known by perpenso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  17. Where are the stats??? by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  18. Re:Geeze by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  19. Re:Burger King worker? by RossR · · Score: 4, Informative

    The press conference said she had ear pain.