21–30 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hydrocarbon-air mixtures are also "EXPLOSIVE". See, e.g thermobaric weapons. Possibly what you're trying to say is that it's easier to get the air in? Or that it's stored under pressure?
The point is that, as scary as gasoline is, the explosive mixture is quite narrow compared to H2. Add in a minuscule spark energy and H2 is no joke
This is why the idea of the public using hydrogen cars is kind of crazy.
Not really - hydrogen shoots straight up into the atmosphere, whereas petrol both pools in the area and also turns to gas and mixes with air quite easily (which is why it's used as a fuel in the first place) In practice, hydrogen cars are quite safe. They're just not worth the cost in infrastructure and lack of efficiency compared to BEVs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hydrocarbon-air mixtures are also "EXPLOSIVE". See, e.g thermobaric weapons. Possibly what you're trying to say is that it's easier to get the air in? Or that it's stored under pressure?
The point is that, as scary as gasoline is, the explosive mixture is quite narrow compared to H2. Add in a minuscule spark energy and H2 is no joke
Hydrogen has zero of those safety virtues.
Yup - hydrogen is a really good coolant, it's just explosive in air. Also popular in Stirling engines for this reason and its very low viscosity.
This is why the idea of the public using hydrogen cars is kind of crazy.
Not really - hydrogen shoots straight up into the atmosphere, whereas petrol both pools in the area and also turns to gas and mixes with air quite easily (which is why it's used as a fuel in the first place) In practice, hydrogen cars are quite safe. They're just not worth the cost in infrastructure and lack of efficiency compared to BEVs.
Don't BEVs weigh more than hydrogen cars, given the same model and range? That would give at least some incentive to use hydrogen over BEV, as it decreases road wear, which reduces the costs associated with the operation of that car.
Additionally, hydrogen cars could be considered safer once they've gotten into an accident, as risk of battery thermal runaway wouldn't usually be an issue for extended periods of time in hydrogen cars, whereas several car carrier ships have been lost due (in part or in full) to battery fires.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really - hydrogen shoots straight up into the atmosphere, whereas petrol both pools in the area and also turns to gas and mixes with air quite easily (which is why it's used as a fuel in the first place) In practice, hydrogen cars are quite safe. They're just not worth the cost in infrastructure and lack of efficiency compared to BEVs.
> They're just not worth the cost in infrastructure and lack of efficiency compared to BEVs. Don't BEVs weigh more than hydrogen cars, given the same model and range? That would give at least some incentive to use hydrogen over BEV, as it decreases road wear, which reduces the costs associated with the operation of that car. Additionally, hydrogen cars could be considered safer once they've gotten into an accident, a…
Gas still has the infrastructure, but batteries are closer to having what they need than hydrogen for critical adoption.
Unless you're in the upper Midwest and your car is one of those stuck at a charger unable to fast charge because it's too cold and you didn't have an hours worth of time and energy to preheat it.
This is why the idea of the public using hydrogen cars is kind of crazy.
Right since we haven’t already used an equal or even more so flammable substance for the past century As far as I’m aware gasoline ignites at much lower mixtures of oxygen than hydrogen. The Hindenburg can’t hurt you and if it was filled with gasoline vapors instead of hydrogen, well it would never get of the ground, but it would have been more dangerous.
Lower spark energy Broader range of combustibility Faster detonation speed (? [1])
It's only positive is it dissipated quickly, but that's not that great because it goes boom boom at 5% H2 -air. Everyone I know who has worked on combustion problems (I haven't myself, but colleagues have) give H2 a lot of respect.
[1] this one is an educated guess on my part based on the thermo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right since we haven’t already used an equal or even more so flammable substance for the past century As far as I’m aware gasoline ignites at much lower mixtures of oxygen than hydrogen. The Hindenburg can’t hurt you and if it was filled with gasoline vapors instead of hydrogen, well it would never get of the ground, but it would have been more dangerous.
The Hindenburg is a largely misunderstood incident [1]. It was one of the safest airplane crashes of the century. As the balloon burned, flames and gasses vented upwards, keeping the cabin and passengers under the balloon safe. Moreover, the balloon descended slowly as the hydrogen was replaced by air. So slowly that most people got off once it was close to the ground. Out of 97 people only 35 died. [1] https://www.h…
I'm all for bringing back H2 blimps, but let's be honest about H2 - it's crazy dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're just not worth the cost in infrastructure and lack of efficiency compared to BEVs. Don't BEVs weigh more than hydrogen cars, given the same model and range? That would give at least some incentive to use hydrogen over BEV, as it decreases road wear, which reduces the costs associated with the operation of that car. Additionally, hydrogen cars could be considered safer once they've gotten into an accident, a…
Even if car registration was taxed completely commensurate with their road wear (i.e. weight) the difference wouldn't be enough to move people over from BEV given the lack of refilling options. Gas still has the infrastructure, but batteries are closer to having what they need than hydrogen for critical adoption. Unless you're in the upper Midwest and your car is one of those stuck at a charger unable to fast charge…
You also have the problem where it is "too hot". Higher battery wear and all. Part of me feels the BEV revolution only considered half the northern hemisphere.
The low viscosity is the reason the energy needed to transport hydrogen by pipeline is only slightly higher than natural gas, even though the combustion energy per molecule is considerably lower.