Electric or hydrogen cars?

[Tommygun]

I wonder what the differences are in the carbon footprint and other pollutions (including making the batteries) of an electric car that gets its power from a high efficiency power plant, that uses good stack scrubbers, versus a high efficiency gasoline car.

What I'm wondering about is scale of efficiency. Can you make a big high efficiency power plant run cleaner than a large number of gasoline cars.

As an example: The power planet powers a 1000 electric cars, that move 2000 people 200 km for x amount of pollution versus 1000 gasoline cars moving the same amount of people and distance for x amount of pollution.

[magnemoe]

I wonder what the differences are in the carbon footprint and other pollutions (including making the batteries) of an electric car that gets its power from a high efficiency power plant, that uses good stack scrubbers, versus a high efficiency gasoline car.

What I'm wondering about is scale of efficiency. Can you make a big high efficiency power plant run cleaner than a large number of gasoline cars.

As an example: The power planet powers a 1000 electric cars, that move 2000 people 200 km for x amount of pollution versus 1000 gasoline cars moving the same amount of people and distance for x amount of pollution.

Good question, however its ignore local pollution who is an major problem. CO2 and local pollution is in a bit of an conflict, diesel cars and heating with firewood reduces CO2 emission but increase local pollution.

Here electrical cars has two major benefits, for the owner they will escape attempts to reduce car traffic to reduce pollution, not sure hybrids escape, even the best petrol cars will not.

For the politicians electrical cars has an benefit if you import the electrical power they have no CO2 emissions in their country.

On the gripping hand one good part of car pollution today is road dust from pavement against tire electrical cars also produce this.

[tater]

Do you have any statistics to support that sweeping generalization? Maybe people buy Teslas because, by all accounts, they are a good car rather than because they are clueless hippies who want to drive along singing kumbaya, thinking that they are saving the world? According to Wikipedia, the Tesla Model S won awards such as the 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year, Automobile Magazine's 2013 Car of the Year, Time Magazine Best 25 Inventions of the Year 2012 award and Consumer Reports' top-scoring car ever.

Electric cars tend to be significantly more expensive than fossil fuel powered cars. That means, in order to own one, you need to have more money than the average motorist. At the risk of being accused of making my own sweeping generalizations, successful people tend to be better educated than average. It is difficult for me to believe that the typical electric car buyer is that oblivious to the obvious issue of where the electricity comes from that powers their cars.

Tesla S is a great car, I know about a half a dozen people who have one. They all have 2 other cars (one guy in the neighborhood has 4 other cars, the cheapest of which is a Cayanne). They bought them because they are cool, and fast.

I'm not talking about electric hot rods, I'm talking about the people who buy a Prius to "save the earth." A couple economists at Berkeley studied hybrid car buyers, and checked based on zip code voting prefs and found that in TX, a Honda with basically identical specs to the Prius sold about even with that car. In the Bay Area? All Prius, nearly no Honda… the Honda looks like another Civic, the Prius flies the "hybrid flag." It;s all about signalling.

In short, I refer to anyone buying an electric car for any other reason than cost-effectiveness. (take the Tesla S off the table, and "cool" disappears as a thing right now for electrics). If "carbon" motivates the purchase, it's a Sierra Club demographic that is reflexively anti-nuke. The Berkeley economists also found that in the Bay Area (and places with similar demographics) solar panels on houses are more likely to face the street---even if that is the wrong side for ideal placement (something virtually never seen in less "eco" zip codes). They care more about the PVs being seen by the neighbors than efficacy. Don't ever discount signaling, human psych matters.

[11of10]

What about this?

http://www.gizmag.com/quick-charge-li-ion-battery/34347/

Charge battery to 70% in 2 minutes

My vote is for electric

[PakledHostage]

Don't ever discount signaling, human psych matters.

But the opposite point applies too: Don't attribute everything to signaling. Just because some people are poseurs doesn't mean that all people are. California and many of the other coastal states in America are also more liberal than much of the interior of the US, especially Texas. There are certainly going to be differences in what is "typical" between those places. And sometimes a car model is just popular in an area. Where I live, it seems like every third car on the road is a Mazda 3. I don't see the same popularity of that car model when I travel elsewhere.

[AngelLestat]

@AngelLestat (or any other pro hydrogen person): Leaking hydrogon? Small spark? Kaboom? What are you going to do about that?

Even worse; a chain collision of hydrogen cars.

An hydrogen base economy is coming, of course this does not mean that all will work with hydrogen, the same that now not all works with oil.

All or almost all hydrogen problems were already solve it in labs, of course they need more research to find the best affordable way to reach the market, quality test, life-time, know the best way to achieve something from all the different approaches, etc..

This may take from 5 years in some application to 10 or 15 years in others. But there is not rush, because the infrastructure and products that use hydrogen will start to appear slowly.

Hydrogen Leak: Reduced Graphene Oxide "rGO", which it is cheap to make, it can be used as a paint to make any hydrogen tank impermeable, it makes them 100 times more effective to stop hydrogen leaks.

Of course pure graphene is better, it will take 1 millon years to leak, but we are not close to make them at big scale.

Hydrogen sensors: The same graphene oxide helps in this matter too, you can make hydrogen leak sensors to control the amount of hydrogen in the air.

Hydrogen spliting (electrolisys) and hydrogen to electricity (fuel cells): Graphene has also the answer in this too, right now this devices use platinum which is very expensive and it has some efficiency problems, they achieve to drop cost from 200 to 50 in the last 10 years, but is not enoght. Now they discover a lot of different ways to remplace the platinum catalyst, the most easy way but hard to implement at bigger scale is with a single graphene layer heat up to 200c, they discover that at that temperature graphene only allow protons to pass making it the perfect solar cell due how fast is this process against platinum.

Another way is with imperfections in the graphene layer without heat, make a imperfect graphene layer is simple than a perfect, this allow protons to pass.

With these devices you can also split the hydrogen from the air humidity, so in the future will be possible to harvester hydrogen meanwhile you drive.

Chain collision of hydrogen cars: It depends, the same that will happen if fuel cars collide, the benefic of hydrogen is that in the face of any tank rupture (depending how you storage the hydrogen, there are ways that it will not present any risk) the hydrogen leaks so fast that it does not gives time to any posterior ignition, this does not happen with fuel which remains with you in the car.

Also hydrogen rise fast, so the flames will rise, so if you are below you will not be touch it.

http://www.avsusergroups.org/tfug_pdfs/2014_9_Urban.pdf

http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/green-tech/fuel-cells/nanoscale-material-enables-cheap-emissionfree-hydrogen-production

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140911/ncomms5843/abs/ncomms5843.html

http://www.greencarcongress.com/hydrogen_storage/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/green-tech/fuel-cells/graphenebased-fuel-cell-membrane-could-extract-hydrogen-directly-from-air

http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/green-tech/fuel-cells/platinum-catalysts-are-outshined-by-graphene-quantum-dots

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/13507/20150318/imperfect-graphene-leads-to-better-fuel-cells.htm

Another possibility is use ammonia as hydrogen carrier, to a given volume ammonia carry 1.7 times more hydrogen than liquid hydrogen, it does not need to be pressurized and is safe, not bad for the enviroment.

They found very easy ways and cheap to crack ammonia on demand as a car would need in a device not bigger than 2 liters.

I wonder what the differences are in the carbon footprint and other pollutions (including making the batteries) of an electric car that gets its power from a high efficiency power plant, that uses good stack scrubbers, versus a high efficiency gasoline car.

What I'm wondering about is scale of efficiency. Can you make a big high efficiency power plant run cleaner than a large number of gasoline cars.

As an example: The power planet powers a 1000 electric cars, that move 2000 people 200 km for x amount of pollution versus 1000 gasoline cars moving the same amount of people and distance for x amount of pollution.

Easy, electric cars has lower carbon footprint in their life time even with its low production and yet not perfect systems.

But even if the footprint right now is equal, you need to start developing electric cars in some moment.

When you reach higher production and they are manufacture in several countries that footprint is reduced way more.

You save energy in the process, transportation, and many other factors.

What about this?

http://www.gizmag.com/quick-charge-li-ion-battery/34347/

Charge battery to 70% in 2 minutes

My vote is for electric

For cars works fine, the problem is when you need higher energy densities, for a large vehicle as bus, trucks, airplanes, ships, etc.. You can not use batteries. It will be always better hydrogen.

Edited March 23, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Albert VDS]

...Graphene Oxide "rGO"...

Do you have a source? All I could find was that it can be used as a sieve to filter hydrogen out of the air.

[AngelLestat]

Here:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.2360.pdf

The first time I read this was an improvement in 100 times longer durations on hydrogen tanks leaks treated with rGO, it seems that now with a 100nm cover is enoght to remove any leak.

But you still have the problem of the weight of the tank due pressure, for big volumes this is not a problem, but for small ones is considerable, from here my posture that small vehicles should use batteries instead, plus you can charge them in home, besides it helps to balance the economy, because not all the energy should be produced in electrical way the same that not all energy should be distribute as h2/ammonia.

Although using ammonia as hydrogen carrier has a lot more sense now that they found a cheap and simple way to cracked.

And you can use the existing fuel infrastructure (with few changes) and fertilizer infrastructure to transport and sell it.

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-hydrogen-breakthrough-game-changer-future-car.html#jCp

here a complete study of a ammonia economy without take into consideration the new discover of how to craked with cheap materials.

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2119&context=etd

[Technical Ben]

All advances for hydrogen can be used on electric/artificial petrol first. So we are as far away from a hydrogen fuel system as we are from fusion power sources.

[AngelLestat]

not you cant, there are good breakthrough coming on electric storage as new batteries (flow, air, chemical...) , super capacitors, air compression, kinetics, etc.

But none of these had a the weight energy ratio of hydrogen, neither the cost.

Also these advances in hydrogen are not very related to wherever you want to mean with "electric/artificial petrol".

Or maybe I didnt understand your point.

Imagine an airplane or ship, at certain scale you can have batteries to storage X amount of energy at the same cost than hydrogen tanks + fuel cell, but if you increase the scale, hydrogen becomes much more cheaper.

Edited March 24, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Albert VDS]

Hydrogen still has the same "flaws" as any other combustible fuels;

making hydrogen costs more energy than it contains.

the largest portion of the energy is turned into heat.

the heat needs to be controlled by a cooling system.

the internal moving parts need to be lubricated.

the vehicle's battery needs to be charged.

So it cost a lot of energy compared to the useful energy.

The whole point isn't making a vehicle that doesn't produce CO2, that is a big part, but an other part is using energy as efficiently as possible.

[AngelLestat]

What flaws?

And the only flaw of oil is Co2 + depleted reserves in 50 years which hydrogen does not share.

Hydrogen is not an energy source. Is a way to storage energy like a battery.

A real comparison is battery vs "hydrogen+tank+fuel cell".

Lets compare energy density:

Hydrogen: 142mj/kg and 5.6 mj/liter

Best Ion lithio in the market: 0.67mj/kg and 1.8mj/liter

Look how little you rise the volume, and how much autonomy you get.. This is a clear case that any kind of vehicle beyond 1500kg and over 500km on autonomy hydrogen is a clear winner. Also hydrogen tanks are much cheaper than buy batteries.

The only drawback for the moment is the fuel cell and electrolysis catalyst (platinum). But it will take no more than 5 or 7 years to be remplaced in the market by a graphene base catalyst. When this happen, the cost would drop, the efficiency will rise and the production will be faster (so extra power) in both cases.

About energy production comparison in make hydrogen vs direct power I already detailed in this post:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113563-Electric-or-hydrogen-cars?p=1796829&viewfull=1#post1796829

[Bill Phil]

What about the 70Mpa line? Is that petrol based fuels? It looks to be better than hydrogen...

And that's just volume. What about mass?

[Camacha]

What about the 70Mpa line? Is that petrol based fuels? It looks to be better than hydrogen...

Synthetic fuels are another option, though those leave us with a pretty low efficiency (despite a century of improvements), local exhaust fumes and more. It might be a temporary solution, but I feel that the key solution to this problem lies in storing electric energy in a light and efficient manner. Current batteries and even fuel cells are hopelessly clunky.

[Iskierka]

That would be a higher pressure tankage line for hydrogen - 35 MPa vs 70 MPa, different safety factors and tank masses. Additionally, not marked on that table but something to consider is that metal hydride storage can be used to carry hydrogen at an efficiency somewhat worse than the basic hydrogen compressed storage, but with significantly lower odds of leakage and still far superior performance to regular batteries. As all of these are functionally identical systems of storing an energy supply for the vehicle's independent use, and because batteries are not, as seems to be commonly believed here, 100% efficient storage, the result is that while batteries are simpler and require less tech, they very obviously do not perform as well as a hydrogen system.

Most good batteries have about 80% charging efficiency, which is the kind of ballpark you'll be looking at with graphene-based fuel cell, especially if an additional heat engine is used on wastage. Current hybrid fuel cells are already around 85% efficient at generation, and if a claim I saw earlier in this thread is true that electrolysis is around 95% efficient, that puts current hydrogen storage almost exactly on-par with batteries for charging efficiency. Charge retainment is something to consider, but considering most batteries do drain rather quickly in relative terms, that may not be particularly different either. Unless battery density hugely increases in the next few years, hydrogen may be very interesting for cars simply as a lighter and smaller energy storage medium, and the vehicle may still be charged from electricity, meaning no additional infrastructure required.

[AngelLestat]

And that's just volume. What about mass?

In that graph, the mass value is already integrated and related in the autonomy value.

and if a claim I saw earlier in this thread is true that electrolysis is around 95% efficient, that puts current hydrogen storage almost exactly on-par with batteries for charging efficiency.

Yeah these are PEM electrolysis (platinum catalyst) which can reach 95% or even overseed 100% if you use waste heat of any other process.

In theory, electrolysis may reach 100% efficiency without add any external heat.

But different catalyst with 70% or 80% of efficiency make hydrogen at lower cost than PEM in some cases due how much cheap is the catalyst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis

About batteries, we need to take into account the lifetime in the cost.

[Fel]

People will not accept bikes. Main reason: wheather. You need to be able to commute even while it's pouring buckets or while it's -20°C on a crisp winter morning.

And... I still see motorcyclists braving the weather with nothing more than a poncho.

Public transport has an even longer way to come towards the cities of the future than we as people have.

Well, the problem is that the CITY has to be designed with public transportation in mind; quite frankly, it could even be better to develop multi-level cities to minimize the distance from point a to point b. (we really do waste a large amount of "up/down" space.)

Add on that the public transportation budgets are tiny because few people use them because it is easier to drive... but to expand the public transportation you would need to spend money ;p So yeah, it's a bit recursive.

Well yeah, that's a valid argument, but only in the short-term. I think we can all agree that a "Mr. Fusion" car engine is a bad idea. Even if we technically could do it, vehicles generating power with volatile energy sources is quite obviously a bad idea.

This, I disagree with. Gasoline is a highly volatile energy source, it can explode! Steam is a volatile energy source, it can explode! You're just using scare tactics here. The energy in a hydrogen bomb is VASTLY different from the energy in a controlled fusion reaction, so much so that from one you do not get the other. Fusion "doesn't want to happen" and you have to supply energy to make it happen, so Mr. Fusion would have to be generating an excessive supply in the small containment field that is designed to handle only a specific energy output.

As I said, scare tactics.

Chain collision of hydrogen cars: It depends, the same that will happen if fuel cars collide, the benefic of hydrogen is that in the face of any tank rupture (depending how you storage the hydrogen, there are ways that it will not present any risk) the hydrogen leaks so fast that it does not gives time to any posterior ignition, this does not happen with fuel which remains with you in the car.

Also hydrogen rise fast, so the flames will rise, so if you are below you will not be touch it.

Really, I think this is something that needs to be repeated... people make a small hydrogen explosion out to be as dangerous as a hydrogen bomb; but this is a matter of stoichiometry, and when it is compact into a container like that there really isn't enough oxygen for it to react with. Once it starts leaking enough to be hostile, it is going to go straight up out of there. Hindenburg type fear spreading isn't really that productive.

Of course, what people AREN'T saying is that compacting energy in ANY FORM is extremely dangerous. A battery CAN explode; and if you have a supercharged battery you are still ridding around with a massive bomb waiting to go off after getting just enough excitement. (Say, a car crash, getting punctured, a little heat, fire even.)

Safety is relative, even puncturing a gasoline tank can be deadly.

[VirtualCLD]

Really, I think this is something that needs to be repeated... people make a small hydrogen explosion out to be as dangerous as a hydrogen bomb; but this is a matter of stoichiometry, and when it is compact into a container like that there really isn't enough oxygen for it to react with. Once it starts leaking enough to be hostile, it is going to go straight up out of there. Hindenburg type fear spreading isn't really that productive.

Of course, what people AREN'T saying is that compacting energy in ANY FORM is extremely dangerous. A battery CAN explode; and if you have a supercharged battery you are still ridding around with a massive bomb waiting to go off after getting just enough excitement. (Say, a car crash, getting punctured, a little heat, fire even.)

Safety is relative, even puncturing a gasoline tank can be deadly.

I agree that hydrogen dangers tend to be exaggerated. A common phrase/analogy is "it's like driving around miniature Hindenburgs!" which I disagree with. I have never heard a hydrogen fuel tank likened to a hydrogen bomb, which is a (parse the next part carefully before jumping to conclusions) nuclear fission energy-triggered, nuclear fusion energy-explosive device. However, as with any form a energy storage, one must be aware of dangers associated with each one. We have hydrogen storage tanks and vent stacks at my work. One of those dangers that has come up from time-to-time is that hydrogen burns with an invisible flame (this has unintentionally occurred at the top of the vent stacks outside). We have many sensors and safety equipment to detect leaks to avoid any accidents. However you can imagine a scenario in a car accident where you have a leak that catches fire with a flame you can't see. In practice, it would quickly heat up and ignite surrounding objects so you'll know it's there, but you could see how it would be a potential hazard to consider.

I'm not saying this is a show stopper, I'm just saying it's something to be taken into consideration when designing a car (or any system) around hydrogen. Just like you need to consider the safety and hazards of gasoline or Li-Ion batteries when designing a system that uses them.

As for the topic, if given the choice between hydrogen and battery powered vehicles, I predict that electric cars will win out, even though I don't think it is necessarily the best choice. We have more infrastructure and mass production built-up around batteries than we do hydrogen so I see the market adopting electric. That being said, I prefer synthetic hydrocarbon fuels as the future since we already have an entire industry and infrastructure built-up around hydrocarbons (more so than high-density batteries). Why tear down everything to switch? If you're worried about the release of pollution carbon into the environment, synthetic fuels would keep it a closed cycle, taking carbon in from the environment before putting it back out (similar to the hydrogen-water cycle).

Doesn't matter though since I still predict battery powered vehicles becoming the dominant trend in the long run (decades).

[Rakaydos]

Historically hydrogen cars have been propped up as an alternative to electric cars, given just enough funding to say "we're working on it" and forgotten.

Electric cars are only a thing because Tesla. Which is more than hydrogen cars are.

[AngelLestat]

I agree that hydrogen dangers tend to be exaggerated. A common phrase/analogy is "it's like driving around miniature Hindenburgs!" which I disagree with.

Everybody who has to said something bad about hydrogen, they all quote the Hindenburg..

Now I ask them.. ok.. give me another example in the history where people die due a hydrogen vehicle...

...

.....

....... space shuttle? -well there a lot of rocket explosions without hydrogen in it.. but well, one more example?? none?

Ok, so hinderburg then, it was the only airship which burn in flames.. From the 97 passagers and crewmembers plus people on the ground, only 35 died.

But it was not all due hydrogen, the major cause of this disaster was that hinderburg was the only dirigible painted with thermite, iron oxide+aluminum as others know as rocket fuel.

Airships fly over decades using hydrogen and technology from 1930 carring 350000 people without any problem.

Ignorance is the thing that most kill, in that time the hinderburg explosion was one of the first disaster transmitted by TV and radio to all the world, that is why is in the memory of everyone.

Edited March 25, 2015 by AngelLestat

[GreenWolf]

The Hindenburg was not doped with thermite. The doping compound used was similar in composition to thermite, and it was flammable, but it was not thermite. Additionally, the doping compound used was not unique to the Hindenburg. It was first used on the LZ 126, which was given to the US as part of Germany's war reparations following World War 1. LZ 126 served a rather uneventful career with the US Navy as the USS Los Angeles from 1924 to 1933. The Graf Zeppelin also used the same compound as the Hindenburg for its doping.

The doping did not cause the fire (although it probably contributed to it). The cause of the fire was almost certainly a static discharge igniting hydrogen leaking from a punctured gas cell. The Hindenburg had been flying through rather rough weather, and would have built up a large amount of static electricity in its skin and frame. When the mooring ropes that were in contact with the ground became wet, they grounded the frame, but not the skin. The resulting difference in potential would have caused a spark. The leaking hydrogen came from a gas cell that had been punctured when one the airship's duraluminum ribs broke during a sharp turn as it was coming into Lakehurst.

As for your claim that the Hindenburg was the first airship to be lost in a fire, this is patently and absurdly false. Most of the airships lost during World War 1 were lost due to hydrogen fires. And before you argue that this was because they were being shot, many other airships have been lost due to fire outside of warzones. LZ 4, one of the very first Zeppelins, caught fire after it broke loose from its moorings. Fire is, in fact, one of the more common ways that hydrogen airships are lost.

TL;DR: Surprisingly, when you fill something with a flammable gas, it will burn.

[magnemoe]

I agree that hydrogen dangers tend to be exaggerated. A common phrase/analogy is "it's like driving around miniature Hindenburgs!" which I disagree with. I have never heard a hydrogen fuel tank likened to a hydrogen bomb, which is a (parse the next part carefully before jumping to conclusions) nuclear fission energy-triggered, nuclear fusion energy-explosive device. However, as with any form a energy storage, one must be aware of dangers associated with each one. We have hydrogen storage tanks and vent stacks at my work. One of those dangers that has come up from time-to-time is that hydrogen burns with an invisible flame (this has unintentionally occurred at the top of the vent stacks outside). We have many sensors and safety equipment to detect leaks to avoid any accidents. However you can imagine a scenario in a car accident where you have a leak that catches fire with a flame you can't see. In practice, it would quickly heat up and ignite surrounding objects so you'll know it's there, but you could see how it would be a potential hazard to consider.

I'm not saying this is a show stopper, I'm just saying it's something to be taken into consideration when designing a car (or any system) around hydrogen. Just like you need to consider the safety and hazards of gasoline or Li-Ion batteries when designing a system that uses them.

As for the topic, if given the choice between hydrogen and battery powered vehicles, I predict that electric cars will win out, even though I don't think it is necessarily the best choice. We have more infrastructure and mass production built-up around batteries than we do hydrogen so I see the market adopting electric. That being said, I prefer synthetic hydrocarbon fuels as the future since we already have an entire industry and infrastructure built-up around hydrocarbons (more so than high-density batteries). Why tear down everything to switch? If you're worried about the release of pollution carbon into the environment, synthetic fuels would keep it a closed cycle, taking carbon in from the environment before putting it back out (similar to the hydrogen-water cycle).

Doesn't matter though since I still predict battery powered vehicles becoming the dominant trend in the long run (decades).

I agree, the fire risk is overrated, any leak would be below the car or in the engine compartment and you would not see it for a long time if hydrogen or petrol. Hydrogen probably have benefits as its an gas who would blow away or float up, petrol will drip down and might generate pools who then ignites because of sparks or hot parts.

Main issue is the pressure container, if you get an fire from other reasons who get plastic in the car burning you can easy get into an situation where the hydrogen tank becomes overheated, the result is an fuel air explosion who is many time more powerful than the same weight in TNT. Solution might be to have an blow out panel venting downward.

Note that batteries have some of the same issues, with an downside, blocking out air will not save you, how better batteries become how more explosive will an critical fail become.

Found it funny that Sci-fi predicted this, in the Man-kzin wars, the Kzin did not allow humans to have electrical cars only the old IC engine type as it was too easy to convert the battery to an bomb.

[AngelLestat]

GreemWolf: Thanks to your clarification on thermite and the cause of fire in the hinderburg, I never said that thermite cause the flame, I just said that it was the main cause of the disaster/fatalities. I am 100% agree with your review of the accident.

But...

1- If you have a not flamable envelope, even if you have a leak (which always will be from inside to the outside) and this ignite, you get a flame depending the size of the hole and the pressure difference (in airships the pressure difference is very low), but the hole will not grow in size, in fact the flame will help to avoid any danger oxygen-hydrogen mixture to develope in any closed ambient.

We have cheap hydrogen sensors which detect even as 0.1% in mixture. Today materials not flamable and heat insulators are those which are most lightest than all. You have thermal cameras that will detect any flame.

So if the hinderberg envelope would be not flamable, this disaster never would happen.

2- So you are quoting dirigibles which were used in war as an example of not safety???? hahahaha

Of course I was just refering to the comercial age, so with your logic a Tank vehicle is not safety because thousands was destroyed in war?? lol

And dirigibles was the most feared weapon in that time, because airplanes could not fly so high, they carry tons of bombs, bullets reach the dirigibles but they get only holes, at equal pressure they almost not lost any hydrogen, so the dirigible keep bombing and returned safe to base.

That was after some time and many bombs they started to use incendary bullets. But even with that it would not be a problem if you have a not flamable envelope.

3- You said that fire is the most common way that dirigibles are lost?? Ok, name a case where hydrogen flame was the cause of a dirigible fall or when people die...

I will save you the search, all dirigible disaster (which was not many) was do it weather. If some get fire after crash, was due the crash (they carry fuel too), and they was very very few and there is not fatalities (even with flamable envelope).

Hydrogen is not more danger than gasoline or batteries. And you can use ammonia instead hydrogen which eliminate all issues with pressure and fire.

[SargeRho]

Ammonia is flammable, toxic and corrosive, and an environmental hazard. It's not something you want to carry around in large quantities as power source.

[Tweety]

So a pressure chamber that will likely be rated well and above the operating usage is more dangerous than lots of lithium ion batteries sitting in your car...I will just say both are dangerous in their own ways so I will not get into the debate about which is safer. I voted hydrogen for various reasons though. I enjoy driving my car, I especially enjoy the engine noise. I like being able to hear how fast I'm going and hear when to change gear which simply won't work with an electric car. The vast, VAST majority of the electricity we use is still created in fossil fueled power plants, I have also almost been knocked off my bike by 3 *insert profanity* people who drive electric cars around my old home town. I was not in the wrong in any of those cases and the only reason I haven't ended up in hospital is because I have spotted them just in time. I have never been caught out in the same manner by cars that have an engine noise.

I do believe electric cars have a place, preferably in books where people will one day say look at those things!!

Also why not have hybrids between the two? Run it like a locomotive and have the engine consistently produce an electric charge for the batteries to power the wheels?

Tweety