Topic: Society's misguided fear of hydrogen; a result of oil corporation? (Read 19545 times)

But I like hydrogens! Yes, I like hydrogens injected into ICE engines. Most of all when they are safely attached in chains until the moment their power is needed. Carbon makes a great carrier for those hydrogens. If we linked the carbon atoms together to form a chain, we could have hydrogens all around on that chain and it would be safe, right up until we wanted to combine it with Oxygen.

Wait...

Did I just invent gasoline?

Everything wrong with hydrogen fuel for internal combustion engines | Auto Expert John Cadogan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu1v7d7-Wh0

Blue is a bit right but in the reverse of what he believes.

Assume that simultaneously, a 10,000psi tank of N2 and a tank of H2 fail.

When 10,000 PSI of a gas is free to move out against 14.7 PSI, the momentum of the gas is the same regardless of what element it is. Smaller, lighter molecules accelerate and reach a higher terminal speed that larger molecules (example, N2=28 vs H2=2).

H2 uncombusted and released would be more destructive.

From Wikipedia.

The potential energy stored in an explosive material may, for example, be

chemical energy, such as nitroglycerin or grain dust

pressurized gas, such as a gas cylinder or aerosol can

nuclear energy, such as in the fissile isotopes uranium-235 and plutonium-239

Explosive materials may be categorized by the speed at which they expand. Materials that detonate (the front of the chemical reaction moves faster through the material than the speed of sound) are said to be "high explosives" and materials that deflagrate are said to be "low explosives".

The wave front from expanding (not exploding or "detonating") H2 is roughly 1200 meters per second, that's four times faster than a 45 caliber bullet.



How would you like to be behind a hydrogen car that got into an accident in a tunnel?

Some more extreme examples...

Horrifying Bleve Explosions Around The World | Explosions Gone Wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuPVEsQaGB0

Three separate people with real world experience (some of it bad and some of it very bad) are trying to tell you things.

Your links-links totally don't matter.

This is lie first day on the job; you WILL wear safety glasses, steel toe boots and helmet, etc.

A few real world examples so you can wrap your head around what we are dealing with here...


https://youtu.be/3_El-4k7xds?t=168

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jyDdeUCihc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drrK3ETymwc


WARNING this one is very graphic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdRwX12XE0A

Energy is energy, you can disregard the contents. Hydrogen is not a magic substance that defies the laws of physics. Tell me the PSI and the volume of the tank, and I can tell you exactly how many joules of energy are stored there. That potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy, and the kinetic energy is what causes problems.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to word it in caps and sarcasm, but without the sarcasm, you are correct.

Scuba Tank video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyINNUaXa8Q
More!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q_nVD3fkIs

Full of air, not an explosive chemical. Unless you are saying that if that scuba tank was full of hydrogen, and someone popped the top off, all of the hydrogen would just stay inside?

I don't think you're reading my links or responses which is the problem. You're saying 'OH NO! PRESSURE == BAD NO MATTER WHAT' and I'm trying to tell you; the way hydrogen escapes mitigates those risks.

'BUT LE PRESSURE = BADDDDD' -- wtf, listen to me.... HYDROGEN PROPERTIES MITIGATE RISKS BETTER THAN OTHER CHEMICALS.

'BUT THEY'RE ALL THE SAMEEEEEEEE' wtf... i give up with you.

I've had plenty. I've said nothing incorrect. We are disagreeing on something very fundamental, and I'm not sure why. We aren't considering hydrogen at all, just compressed gas cylinders.

http://www.hyresponse.eu/files/Lectures/Safety_of_hydrogen_storage_notes.pdf

*facepalms*

I just don't know what to tell you. You need to take a physics class mate.

It doesn't matter if its hydrogen or nitrogen, or metal ball bearings. Pressure is pressure. Its not a matter of it being hydrogen, its a matter of hydrogen fuel requiring a highly pressurized container. If structural damage occurs to a highly pressurized container, explosive decompression occurs. The water heater video from Mythbusters is just pressurized water, yet it still explodes when the pressure goes higher than what the container can handle.

Look up hydrogen explosions; find me a link that shows compressed hydrogen exploding similar to LNG or other more dangerous things like gasoline. You can't because it simply doesn't work that way.

Hydrogen just doesn't explode the same way that OTHER high pressure gases explode. They're not even remotely relevant here, but people are so stupid they can't seem to separate the concept of 'UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT GASES'.

Lets take a step back and make sure there are no misunderstandings here. Cars use the chemical potential energy from the combustion of gasoline to create kinetic energy for the car to move. The whole point of a fuel source, is to convert potential energy into kinetic energy. There is chemical potential energy, pneumatic potential energy, electrical potential energy, etc. To make Hydrogen a feasible fuel source, it needs to be compressed and kept under high pressure. That means you need to keep a pressurized fuel source in your vehicle in order to use hydrogen as fuel. As a basic principal, the pressurized fuel will have two energy components to it. 1) The potential energy from the pressurized tank, and 2) the chemical potential energy from the fuel.

We are saying that the potential energy just from the pressure is a hazard when you start applying potential structural damage, such as car accidents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGWmONHipVo  < 300 PSI

Each chemical escapes different. Each compound has different amounts of volumes. It's not just 'OH! LOOK DANGEROUS COMPRESSION ALL EXPLODES DA SAME, HERP DERP'

You need to stop the false equivalency and irrelevancy.

PSI is a measure of force per unit area. 10,000 PSI of air and 10,000 PSI of nitroglycerin have the same potential energy from the pressure. There is additional chemical energy, but we are just talking about the pressure.

10000 PSI of the chemical matter actually really matters when you shoot the tank.


People aren't reading links, i'm pretty much ready to lock this shit because people are too retarded to actually LOOK at the research done with hydrogen. they broadcast their fears (thanks oil corps).

It's a fucking losing battle against the morons.
You literally cannot say "10000 psi tank of whatever == the same no matter what".

The false equivalency is just unwarranted fear mongering.

I used nitrogen as an example in my post, because its safe. My point was that a non reactive inert gas at 10,000 PSI is still a gas at 10,000 PSI. All of those movie scenes you see of people shooting bullets at car's fuel tanks and them blowing up is done with explosives, it doesn't actually work that way. If you shoot a bullet at a 10,000 PSI tank, there are going to be issues. Car crashes don't often cause fuel fires, a crash with a pressurized tank on board would probably cause the entire car to turn into shrapnel.

Pressurized containers are spooky when you consider that there are potential major forces that could be applied. I don't know if a fender bender would cause your car to explode, but a highway speed crash very well could, I might need to look into that. Just imagine the consequences of keeping a scuba tank in your car with you at all times. 12 gallons of gasoline or whatever a typical car holds isn't all that dangerous. If it ignites, the car is going to be engulfed in flames. Blow a hydrogen tank, and I'd be significantly more dangerous than an IED.



I think the point was made that hydrogen is more dangerous than propane, with relation to the pressure it needs to be kept under. Not that it is similar to propane.

Ahaha, idiots think propane is hydrogen. That's great.

Jesus christ, someone needs to learn chemical elements and chemical compounds. "THESE ARE DANGEROUS CAUSE DEY SEEM SIMILAR BEING GASES"

The amount of retardation though; like no wonder the infrastructure isn't deployed with retards spreading the FUD.

Wow, a thought just occurred to me. Think of those cars with h2 popping off in the middle of one of those California fires. That'd be like a damn war zone.

Yes, there are other issues. Traffic jams in tunnels / accidents in tunnels. Parking garages. For that matter, any garage including home garages.

There was a family that I helped out some time back, that had stored a BBQ propane bottle in their garage. It leaked, and their house blew up. That house was nothing but a scatter of 2x4s about 300 feet. Nothing else but the concrete slab. H2 would certainly be more dangerous than propane.

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=482

Hydrogen much safer than gasoline for a car fire, proven

I guess lower insurance rates for hydrogen cars 

That is a very good point. Looking at this from an insurance perspective, I wouldn't touch it with a 100ft pole. Liquid fuel cars at least are pretty much only a danger to the driver and at most someone they impact. Pressurized gas fuel tanks are also a danger to however many bystanders and first responders that may be even great distances away. That is a liability nightmare.

Nitrogen is not nitrous oxide.

An oxidizer tank does not explode.

There is no difference in which pressurized gas is contained, when the containment breaks open. Then the tank disassembles rapidly. The speed of escaping gas may be calculated from its pressure; the force and speed that it accelerates shrapnel may be similarly calculated.

You know nothing about these subjects.

I like how all of a sudden, idiots think nitrogen is the exact same chemical as hydrogen.

Let's base all the fears of previous gas failures on hydrogen because there's other gases that had what feasibly could be similar issues.

So much misguided fear in today's society; such sad.

I'm sure you are familiar with Burt Rutan's Spaceship One concept and vehicles. During testing of the nitrous oxide rocket motor, there was a mishap. That was a hybrid motor, with the nitrous oxide as the oxidizer and plastic as the fuel. The plastic simply lined the sides of the combustion chamber. This is considered a far safer motor than either a solid propellant motor or a bipropellant motor.

There was a mishap. The N2O tank had a weak point, and it disintegrated. The internal force of the pressurized contents threw the pieces out, literally with the force of an explosion. Three engineers were killed 800 yards distant.

That was pretty much the exact type of tank that would be required for h2 storage in a car. The talk about those tanks being safe has to be taken with more than a grain of salt.

Having places to fill up your car is important; that's why building out the infrastructure is totally serious; https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/us-hydrogen-economy-a-requirement-for-a-sustainable-future-5037134

Car fires/explosions are incredibly uncommon. I'd be willing to bet that cars full of gasoline are safer than a vehicle with a 10,000 PSI tank of nitrogen, let alone hydrogen. When servicing machinery, pneumatic pressure is a dangerous proposition. Its easy to cut electricity and bleed a fuel line. Forgetting that there is a hose full of compressed air somewhere is somewhat common.
 
All of that said, if a billion people come into contact with ducks, and 2 people die from them. And one person comes into contact with a shark and dies from it, that doesn't mean ducks are more dangerous than sharks. Its kind of hard to draw any type of useful conclusion about hydrogen safety based on a small handful of incidents and their casualty counts, versus completely unrelated metrics, ie a blimp versus cars.

About energy density, cost, etc all of the limiting factors of batteries, they improve every year. Internal combustion engines for example haven't gotten all that much better in the past 100 years. The Model T got like 20 miles per gallon. Don't get me wrong, ICEs are becoming more efficient, more reliable, etc, but not at the same rate as batteries. In under 10 years, the cost per KWH of electric car batteries has decreased 70%, and the energy density has increased 3x recently with new Lithium batteries. Assuming it'd take... 30 years generously to introduce hydrogen as a useful fuel, where will battery technology be at that point? Just to reiterate, my position is to skip hydrogen, and just improve what we have for clean electricity already.

On a side note, while I was looking for some info about the fuel cells themselves, I found this article. I didn't really use the information in it to draw any conclusions, but its pretty interesting.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/pump-it-up-we-refuel-a-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle

https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/9xpxw5/firefighter_still_standing_after_a_car_explodes/

So safe, many explodes.

None would have died if it had been helium, in fact, there would have been no crash or mishap.

The vast majority of people are way smarter than you 

==

Overall, the cause of death was flying in a blimp. If it were helium, there's a good chance many people would have died (probably the same amount). It's crazy how people date back to an incident that occurred in the last millennium as a danger.

I wonder how many people first died when fire was utilized by man? I'd imagine thousands

Oh WELL THAT'S NOT DYING FROM A GASOLINE FIRE! THAT'S DYING FROM SUFFOCATION!

Be logically consistent please. When it's hydrogen, you want to assert that Hindenburg deaths were not from the hydrogen. When it's gasoline, side effects of the disaster are included in the death count.

Really? How dumb do you think people are?

Gasoline fires often cause people to suffocate to death actually.

In the one case a person would burn to death; in the other his body would be disassembled before the brain received signals that there was a problem

   I'm not certain that dying from a rapidly moving flame front is any more pleasant than dying in an explosion.

In the grand scheme of things, more people died between your post and this post from dirty air inhalation from coal, but that's not a big deal (to most people, it seems).

Not all blimp technology is safe it seems (regardless of the fuel used); http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/blimp-pilot-dies-saving-passengers-from-fiery-crash/

Turns out using flammable lighter than air gases to float isn't the safest thing in the world.

Highlight tragic events involving individuals is easy to do with any energy technology. Take a look at nuclear and all those disasters, yet it's still statistically safer than solar roof top installation...

These knee jerk emotional reactions to disasters aren't a great way to define "safety" of the technologies involved.

Yes, the Pinto had problems, but you have to pretty much go to that to show "cars exploding."

Movie producers routinely have to add explosives to get the "car to explode."

By the way, it's important to note that the Pintos did not actually "Explode." You are seeing a rapidly moving flame front based on a fuel mist, not detonation.

By contrast hydrogen is gonna actually explode. Giant difference.

     First of all, the Wikipedia article on the Hindenburg does acknowledge that the most accepted theory is that the hydrogen was ignited by a static spark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#Cause_of_ignition

     Second, I qualified my statement.
     Third, the people obviously jumped to their death because they were trying to escape the flames. Just like in the Titanic, the iceberg didn't directly kill anyone. However, the Titanic crashing into it definitely started the ball rolling for many to die. So I don't really see your point. Especially when you state that only 35 died, like its some insignificant number.
However, I realize that gasoline is also a highly volatile substance that can also have negative circumstances if not properly contained.

So when a car veers off the road on a mountain, the people die from falling, not from a traffic accident. Really?

Batteries aren't very energy dense. It takes hundreds of kg of batteries to equal the same amount of energy as a tank of compressed hydrogen.

Batteries are about 10x more expensive than hydrogen tank / fuel cell combination (per kwh). Fuel cells have more durability than li-ion batteries (so longer lifetimes without having to replace the systems).


Technically, fuel cells can get up to 60% currently. As we find better catalyst for PEM fuel cells, it's theoretically possible to hit 95-99.99%.

Both technologies do use an electric motor, so that drive-train remains the same, allowing you to take advantage of features such as regenerative braking.

The problem really with batteries is the energy density... there's absolutely no way you're going to be able to compete with a battery (or capacitor) against compressed hydrogen in terms of energy / weight.

If we had magic super batteries, I'd say "sure, let's skip the step of hydrogen", but we've been working with battery technology for like 2000 years. While battery energy technology is getting better and better, it's not even close to the energy density than compressed hydrogen gives.

--

I think hydrogen is the best solution going forward, as it requires way less resources to create the hydrogen tank and PEM fuel cell than what it takes to make a li-ion battery. Also, production of hydrogen can be done cleanly with a nuclear reactor (steam biproduct -> hydrogen instead of massive cooling towers to reclaim water).

Hydrogen can be used in many applications... cars, boats, and even planes. There's no way we're going to be able to fly a jet with batteries. Batteries are just simply too heavy for the energy they hold.



Perhaps you should read the wikipedia article. Most individuals died from jumping. Out of the 85 people onboard, only 35 people died. And there's no evidence anyone died due to the hydrogen. This thread covered the hindenburg hydrogen myth several times now... which shows you hadn't read before posting.

I may have a misunderstanding of hydrogen fuel cells, isn't hydrogen driven through a catalytic converter and combusted?

I take that back, I was mistaken about how the energy was captured, its not thermal its creating current from the splitting of H2 gas and separating the electrons off. In this case, how is that any different than just using batteries? I suppose the only benefit would be "charge" time where you just refill the hydrogen rather than recharging a battery in its place. It'd still be far less energy efficient than just using batteries.  If we make the splitting process more efficient and it takes 1.1 joules to get 1 joule worth of hydrogen. Then you get a 50% efficiency from the fuel cell, wouldn't you have been better off just taking that 1.1 joules, putting it into a battery at negligible loss, and running a 80% efficient electric motor?

I'm all for clean energy, I'm particularly pro nuclear, but I'd be perfectly content if we increased our solar/wind/hydro/tidal/geothermal power instead. I'm not "against" hydrogen. I just don't think its a practical option.

Perhaps the dangers are a bit overinflated. But we do have a rather dramatic example of how hydrogen could be dangerous.

I'm not sure anyone's petitioning for hydrogen combustion when hydrogen fuel cell is so much safer. No flame = safer to work with.

+++

It's worth looking at Ford and Chevrolet. Chev became "gov motors", all the know-it-all greenies went in, forced them to make the puke-worthy Volt.

Ford stayed independent, kept improving the internal combustion engine, now has a F150 for sale that gets 30 mpg.

Pretty cool, right?

Well, its a bit beyond hobbyist, but its not industrial production. Saying leaks are only dangerous around flames or enclosed spaces is a not very helpful condition to place, considering we are talking about fuel gases around flames/combustion.

I don't recall why, but I was under the impression that fuel gases that are lighter than air pose some additional risk, such as acetylene, from when I was researching propane vs acetylene fuel sources. I mostly only work with Propane and Hydrogen though, so I can't recall the finer details of acetylene at the moment.

Another thing I thought reading back at your posts. You said Hydrogen Refineries are safer than Gasoline refineries. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that since I don't know if they are actually safer, or if there are just 1000x more oil refineries than hydrogen refineries. But to the point about brain dead people pumping or not being allowed to pump their own gas. People working in refineries are rigorously trained on all aspects of safety. Their equipment is top of the line, they pay attention to hazard details that others wouldn't know about, or might not have the safety equipment mandated by OSHA or whoever.

I hesitate to say that anything is more dangerous than something else. How do you say, whats more dangerous, a duck or a barbed wire fence? It really depends on the situation. The same is true of any fuel. I guess my position on the matter is that gasoline is more idiot proof than hydrogen. If you want to be safe with gasoline, you don't put it in the oven, don't throw a match at it, and if you smell it or see it leaking out, you do something about it that isn't throwing a match at it. Hydrogen is less intuitive, and I think there is more room for mistakes to be made. I know all of the safety protocols, I follow a pretty strict safety routine, like that guy you all know that actually checks and adjusts their car mirrors every time before they start driving, yet I still run into somewhat hazardous situations. I'm confident I wont blow up, but I'm also purposely limiting my risk exposure by not allowing another variable of pressure potential energy along with my chemical potential energy.

Individuals aside, As soon as we have hydrogen for consumer applications, we now have to trust Toyota hydrogen combustion engines, *shudders* Chevy hydrogen combustion engines. Weird chinese off brand $50 leaf blowers hydrogen combustion engines, etc. That's why I think its better to skip hydrogen fuel development research and just stick with a more sure thing. We've been searching for that magic battery for years now, we haven't found it, but battery technology is getting better. I think it'd be cheaper and safer to get closer and closer to that magic battery than to engineer "pretty" safe hydrogen appliances.

Ah, so you're doing hobbist hydrogen projects more than anything. I've read stories about low-pressure hydrogen.

The thing with hydrogen leaks is they're only dangerous in enclosed spaces. Hydrogen rapidly dissipates (as it just floats upwards); so leaks aren't really an issue unless there is flame nearby or if it's enclosed.

In some states, we don't allow brain dead morons even to pump their own gasoline...

But that's a feature not a bug! We'd have as a result a happy society with fewer morons!

I generate my own hydrogen with water splitting, compress it to a low working pressure, under 2 million Pa, and burn it. I do not store it, I use it as soon as I produce it, for a few reasons. One, I can't store it, hydrogen atoms are small, and they slip through solid objects. Two, while storing any compressed gas is typically not the safest thing, its far more difficult to find hydrogen gas leaks than a more common odorized fuel. If the propane line on your gas stove springs a leak, you smell it and know there is a gas leak. In that case, don't light any open flames, turn off the gas, and get some ventilation going. No big deal. With hydrogen you don't know until its too late.

The issues I've personally come in contact with are burn hazards, and backfire. As I mentioned, burning hydrogen, there is no flame that you can see. If there is a hydrogen fire somewhere, you might not even know if other things around it aren't catching on fire. On that note, I'll mention that you need to wear protective eye wear to protect from radiation. The second one that I've dealt with somewhat frequently is startling, but not dangerous since I don't compress it much, is backfire. I use flashback arrestors in my torch lines, but I've had condensation accumulate in my fuel lines, dampen the arrestors, and then have a little explosion blow the hoses off of my generator a few times.

Now I'm sure there are ways to mitigate backfire with a lot more certainty, but the fact that I have an issue with it, even with safety gear in place is a little alarming. We trust brain dead morons with fueling up their cars at a gas station. I think we'd have a lot more accidents with hydrogen in the hands of the general public.

Hey, did you know that owning a pool increases your chances of drowning? Owning a car increases your chances of getting in an auto accident. Also owning more than 2 functional brain cells increases your chances of understanding the more commonly used it is the more deaths there will be, and that is not a valid indicator of the safety of the technology.

lol....

So you don't want to work in MAKING hydrogen, which is steam reforming with methane. You just want to use it? Or is there GOOD hydrogen and BAD hydrogen, like GOOD being made from water and BAD being made from fossil fuels?

Because we sure wouldn't want to have the BAD stuff, right?

Fuck dying working with oil. That's how you get killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_gas_and_oil_production_accidents_in_the_United_States

All the deaths.

I actually tried research death for hydrogen and got a french link of accidents dating back to the 1980s:


80 deaths due to hydrogen total.

No problem, get a job in a refinery and come back in a year or two and tell us about it.

You really need to be listening to people who have worked with hydrogen and stop believing you know something because you googled it. That's literally a way to get killed.

I already cited a battery explosion event, which is hydrogen.

We've been searching for the "next" super battery for ages. Honestly, the universe kinda already shows that hydrogen's a great fuel (at least for fusion).

Honestly, just because we have shitty catalyst now doesn't mean they we can't hit better energy conversion rates from and to electricity. Ideally, with perfect catalyst, you could convert nearly freely.

Instead of searching for that magic battery, I don't see why we don't search for the magic catalyst instead.



Liquid or compressed? Also, have you ever had a dangerous incident with hydrogen? If so, can you describe how so?

From all the sources I've read, it is dangerous, but you'd be safer working with hydrogen than gasoline in a refinery.

I use hydrogen fuel on a weekly basis anyway, and can say from personal experience, that the potential for danger is much higher. There are a lot of reasons why we don't use hydrogen commonly as a fuel now but.

Cons:
Proper materials for long term safe combustion are very expensive, its hard on equipment, when it burns you can't see the flame, its difficult to compress, it escapes through container walls

Pros:
Clean burning, water vapor as a byproduct, higher energy density.

As a matter of cost, its been getting cheaper to produce it. New technology that uses Nickle Oxide catalysts instead of Platinum lowered the cost to produce hydrogen gas, at least from water splitting. That said, it still requires that you put more energy into it than you are going to get out. I don't see the benefit over just keeping your electricity as electricity, except for specialized cases.

Rather than use the funds on researching and developing new ways to use hydrogen, I don't see why we wouldn't be better off finding new ways to store and use electricity, and then just generate clean energy from solar/wind/geothermal/hydro and call it good.

For those fear mongers out there, that's a list of most of the dangers of hydrogen. Let's pull up a couple more.


There's so much evidence that shows that hydrogen is safe and even possibly safer than our current fuel source.

It's crazy that people believe into the myth that "it's more dangerous than gasoline". I'm sure this myth is propagated by big oil.

If you have any issues with my "previous" sources (literally pulled off random .coms), here one from a .gov:

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/doe_h2_safety.pdf

Last month a friend of mine was woken up at 4am by fire trucks arriving to put out his neighbor's car fire. It seems the battery had exploded. No, we're not talking Tesla here, but a regular car. Now how do you think that might have happened?

I already explained in detail above why compressed gas fuels are more dangerous than liquid fuels such as gasoline. If you can't understand why fuel under pressure is more dangerous than fuel in liquid form at atmospheric pressure, then I do not know what to tell you.

Wasting my time educating the uneducated bums like you? Ha, it's quite fun to educate people on misconceptions. It's just amazing you can muster up any response considering how retarded you actually are.

Liquid hydrogen is literally super cooled. It doesn't matter what liquid cooled material you leak. At least it doesn't cause cancer in its natural state. In reality, you walk away from the frozen cooled liquid that's quickly converting to hydrogen gas (cause air is warmer than literally -200+C). But anyway, other than venting the area, I don't really see what damage would be done by the actual material. It's the lack of heat energy and everything around it that's the problem. If you build a proper containment area for something like "massive huge liquid hydrogen" storage areas (50 liters 8000 psi of liquid hydrogen ~= 111 kwh, which is a crazy amount of energy).

Of course, we're talking about compressed hydrogen rather than liquid hydrogen which doesn't have that whole freezing problem.

Yeah, I actually joined a local fuel cell coalition mailing list. I'm learning about cool applications with hydrogen through those streams. When I started this thread, I didn't. It turns out, there's public funding for these programs, so I might be able to suck off the tit of the masses of people I'm fooling into making the world a better place.

Hydrogen compared to gasoline, propane, or pretty much any other fuel shows it's much safer, especially if you look at the MSDS.

Spendulus, if you're done trolling and willing to learn more about the benefits (because you're nearly to the right path), I'd recommend you join a local coalition for the support of hydrogen.

You are truly wasting your time, but I do have a question.

Just one quote from MSDS for liquid h2 (roughly equal to 8000 psi h2 gaseous)

"Isolate spill or leak area for at least 100 meters (330 feet) in all directions. "

THE QUESTION: Are you influenced by the combustion products of h2 being h20 and not predominately Co2, since you view that as a GREAT EVIL?

Because I do suspect that's your motive.

Use your new found skill to search an actual element like I was implying originally; hydrogen.

Compare and contrast with gasoline; make my arguments for me

Yes, that is certainly possible.



Wow! I've now learned one can find an MSDS with a Google search!

And Gasoline's an element, lol!

Are you insane or just retarded? Nah, it seems you lack the ability to read. That's par the course.

If you think a chemical that causes leukemia is safer than one that does not, you probably deserve to have cancer.

I don't get how you think you're winning, you're just being more and more retarded by the post. Your arguments wane in strength each and every post. I prove you wrong, each and every post. You just troll, each and every single post. I don't understand why you're even bothering unless you're either doing this because you have no actual life (in which case, I recommend a shotgun to your head) or you're state sponsored, in which you should probably put a shotgun to THEIR head.

Maybe a corporate oil shill rather than state sponsored, then again doesn't Russia have a pretty strong interest in oil? Maybe you're just both.  

So now you are saying liquid gasoline is safer? That... is exactly what we have been arguing. Thanks for going full circle with your retardation.

Lol. It's crazy how wrong you guys are about pretty much everything.

It's kinda cool having my own personal trolls though. Spendulus and TECSHARE both have their points refuted multiple times, yet they call "me" the idiot.

It's pretty obvious these guys are concern trolls.

Finding the MSDS is pretty easy; you literally just google element name + "msds".

Gasoline:


Many dangerous, no breath, keep away from so spark. Wow!

You don't think that someone's level of ignorance and misunderstanding in science and politics would be equally astonishingly wrong, do you?

I mean, even a stopped clock....

Seriously, you need to come back after some chemistry and physics. You are wasting your time on this subject.

Or grab a triple point diagram and come back, but be ready to learn some things.

.......Still waiting for that triple point diagram.

While you are at it how about some MSDS sheets?

nice save. /s

Hydrogen's liquid state requires super cooling.

Maybe if you went to science class once, you'd know this.  

Uh huh. You don't know that elements have different states of matter, and that compressed gases such as hydrogen and LPG form into a liquid but I need to go back to 8th grade science.



Literally no one said that they are the same in every way. However they are both compressed fuels subject to the explosive atomization effect I previously described. Keep digging that hole. You are SOOOOO CLOOOSE.

You're just highlighting your ignorance. It's not liquid, it's compressed gas.

If you want to talk about liquid hydrogen, well, that's a different thread.


Only an idiot would think LPG = hydrogen. That's like saying "COPPER IS IDENTICAL TO IRON IN EVERY WAY".

It's two entirely separate chemicals.

===

Yall gotta go back to 8th grade chemistry.

Some years ago I helped a family who had the misfortune to have a propane cylinder stored in their garage malfunction. Their house blew up, there was not one piece of wood left standing. They were severely burned but all lived. This is no different if propane or LPG or h2.

It's just plain stupid to argue that hydrogen is safer than gasoline.

If you are going to criticize my points at least address the correct scientific effect. Shooting tanks doesn't dismiss anything I said. Also the fact that you think liquid fuel tanks will explode when shot tells me you get most of your "scientific knowledge" from movies and TV.

Try watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM0jtD_OWLU

Bah.

You have not shown that it is safer. Routine tests are done shooting bullets at tanks. All varieties of tanks.

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/accidents-hazardous-conditions/can-you-blow-up-a-car-by-shooting-the-gas-tank.htm

Go ahead and try again please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNojwqylYM

Many explosion, such fear, wow.

--

No, but seriously, the youtube video shows a tank of compressed hydrogen being shot. The gases escape and quickly rise into the atmosphere.

If we tried that same test with either natural gas, gasoline, or pretty much any other carbon based fuel, it'd probably explode terribly.

Hydrogen is dramatically safer than petroleum.

Ah, no. You can't cherry pick a quote and change reality. Reality is what it is. Hydrogen presents special problems in handling and materials. Let's just look at a Wikipedia clip on the problem.

If steel is exposed to hydrogen at high temperatures, hydrogen will diffuse into the alloy and combine with carbon to form tiny pockets of methane at internal surfaces like grain boundaries and voids. This methane does not diffuse out of the metal, and collects in the voids at high pressure and initiates cracks in the steel. This selective leaching process is known as hydrogen attack, or high temperature hydrogen attack, and leads to decarburization of the steel and loss of strength and ductility.
Copper alloys which contain oxygen can be embrittled if exposed to hot hydrogen. The hydrogen diffuses through the copper and reacts with inclusions of Cu2O, forming H2O (water), which then forms pressurized bubbles at the grain boundaries. This process can cause the grains to literally be forced away from each other, and is known as steam embrittlement (because steam is produced, not because exposure to steam causes the problem).
A large number of alloys of vanadium, nickel, and titanium absorb significant amounts of hydrogen. This can lead to large volume expansion and damage to the crystal structure leading to the alloys becoming very brittle. This is a particular issue when looking for non-palladium based alloys for use in hydrogen separation membranes.[21]

Sure, with care we can work around problems with hydrogen. This is routinely done with spacecraft H2O2 engines. So what is proposed here is literally "rocket science." It's simply not true that there is a "misguided fear of hydrogen."

I am not saying LPG is not a viable alternative, but it is a valid point that it is inherently more dangerous based on some simple mechanisms. Pressurized gas, if there is any puncture will evacuate nearly all of the fuel in the container, presumably resulting in a flame plume. Depending on the rate of escape, tank orientation, fuel levels, etc it could easily erupt resulting in aerosolization of the fuel mixture with the oxygen in the atmosphere. This is an EXTREMELY destructive effect. It does not always happen, no, but the chances are never zero.

Now lets look at liquid gas fuel. Most of these fuel tanks are not pressurized, and have special bladders to prevent punctures and leaks. If they are leaking the fuel will only empty to the level of the puncture at a generally slower rate. Most liquid fuels also have the added safety benefit that the liquid itself is very difficult to ignite. It requires it to first vaporize and get a proper fuel air mixture, then have a spark be introduced.

So again, I am not saying we cant use these alternative fuels, but lets argue facts please. Pressurized fuels will be inherently be more dangerous to use in vehicles just based on simple physics.

Jewett, R.P. (1973). Hydrogen Environment Embrittlement of Metals. NASA CR-2163.

https://books.google.lv/books?id=K7agHFmzfbAC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=Jewett,+R.P.+(1973).+Hydrogen+Environment+Embrittlement+of+Metals.+NASA+CR-2163.&source=bl&ots=gLefw0uTCv&sig=-FO3HATdym957VXmgbk5aWfUtCk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjM4NzauKHeAhXi-ioKHfv1DloQ6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=Jewett%2C%20R.P.%20(1973).%20Hydrogen%20Environment%20Embrittlement%20of%20Metals.%20NASA%20CR-2163.&f=false

"Steel with an ultimate tensile strength of less than 1000 MPa (~145,000 psi) or hardness of less than 23 HRC is not generally considered susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement."

Sounds good to me!

He is right. It is very simple. Pressurized fuel is more dangerous than liquid fuel by its very nature. It may be managed to an "acceptable" level of risk, but one is always going to be less safe than the other.

.....
I've looked up the facts about LPG I was planning to buy a car from a manufacturer which fitted LPG as standard.. The last thing manufacturers want is more law cases on their hands. I pretty much think if the manufacturers have decided to fit LPG or Hydrogen they have to a high percentage mitigated all the typical risks.