When will people learn that hydrogen is safer than petrol/gas

[Kerbollo11]

when hydrogen burns it burns quickly also if it was to leak it would ascend quickly in to the air while with petrol/gas when it burns it burns much longer, hotter and burns dirty and if it was to leak it would just stays on the ground

[drakesdoom]

Modern gas I can give to any yokel with a bucket and he just has to pour it in a hole to power things, he could even put his lit cigarette out in it without causing a fire. In fact it is nearly impossible to accidentally light gas on fire.

Compare to hydrogen where you need a pressure vessel to store or transfer it. Also a slow leak of a tank could lead to an explosion if flame comes in contact with the leak because it will lead back to the tank and rupture it from a heat build up.

[ItchyBrother]

In the same vein, when will people learn that nuclear engineer is far more safer than coal/gas/hydrogen.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't consider hydrogen safer than gasoline, so I guess I haven't learned yet. Cryogenic cooling, high pressures, high flammability and ability to escape any container make hydrogen more hazardous, to my mind. Both need to be treated with respect, of course.

[Seret]

High pressure and/or very low temperatures means hydrogen isn't very safe to store or handle. It's also flammable and attacks metals.

Petrol is flammable, but it can be stored at room temperature and pressure, which makes it much safer to handle.

[Albert VDS]

I say forget about using a combustion engines, where most of it's energy turns into heat, and switch over to electric engines.

[Red Iron Crown]

I say forget about using a combustion engines, where most of it's energy turns into heat, and switch over to electric engines.

I thought electric personal vehicles would never be a practical replacement for internal combustion, but I'm coming around to the idea as batteries get better and better. Tesla's supercharger stations make me think that long distance trips aren't out of the question, either.

I'd imagine that the transition will happen slowly, with most 2+ car families retaining at least one combustion vehicle, with 1 car families being slower to make the change.

[Nibb31]

The best combination IMO, is something like the Chevy Volt: an electric vehicle with a small combustion generator to recharge on the go.

[Idobox]

It also react with a lot of things other than oxygen. For example you need special equipment to compress hydrogen, because if you use the same stuff as for air, it will leak and react exothermically with the grease on the piston, possibly causing fires and explosions.

Oh, and hydrogen/oxygen flames are not visible because they are too hot, and will melt through almost anything.

Hydrogen is far more dangerous than gasoline to handle.

[lajoswinkler]

Hydrogen is not safer than hydrocarbon fuels. If anything, you can detect the fuels with your nose.

Lower safety would not matter much if it was economically viable today.

[Kerbollo11]

but hydrogen floats in the air

[Galacticruler]

I thought electric personal vehicles would never be a practical replacement for internal combustion, but I'm coming around to the idea as batteries get better and better. Tesla's supercharger stations make me think that long distance trips aren't out of the question, either.

We have the technology...now its just getting the oil companies to stop forcing constant recalls over flimbsy evidence of flakey breaks.

[Nuke]

electric makes more sense than hydrogen. its better to leave power generation to the industrial plants where efficiency can be maximized and pollution can be minimized (or eliminated). you also dont need to carry the weight of your power plant around with you everywhere you go. using hydrogen as energy storage is less efficient, it takes a lot of energy to make it, and then you burn it in an internal combustion engine, where you only get about 25% efficiency (and thats after the process of creating and storing the hydrogen).

[lajoswinkler]

electric makes more sense than hydrogen. its better to leave power generation to the industrial plants where efficiency can be maximized and pollution can be minimized (or eliminated). you also dont need to carry the weight of your power plant around with you everywhere you go. using hydrogen as energy storage is less efficient, it takes a lot of energy to make it, and then you burn it in an internal combustion engine, where you only get about 25% efficiency (and thats after the process of creating and storing the hydrogen).

Hydrogen is a chemical storage if it's made from water. If it's made from oil ("black hydrogen"), it's truly a power source. One way or another, electricity is a better choice in a world where most of the power comes from uranium.

In a world where energy comes from coal, it's better to stick to gasoline.

but hydrogen floats in the air

It does not float. It rises up, eventually it escapes the planet.

On its way up, it reacts with ozone. Hydrogen depletes ozone. Heavily.

[K^2]

but hydrogen floats in the air

Not instantly. And it has a very broad range of mixtures at which it is flammable. So if you have a leak, there is going to be enough in the immediate surroundings to catch fire. And if the leak happened while vehicle is parked in the garage, you're almost guaranteed an explosion.

[magnemoe]

I thought electric personal vehicles would never be a practical replacement for internal combustion, but I'm coming around to the idea as batteries get better and better. Tesla's supercharger stations make me think that long distance trips aren't out of the question, either.

I'd imagine that the transition will happen slowly, with most 2+ car families retaining at least one combustion vehicle, with 1 car families being slower to make the change.

Yes, pretty common in norway to have one electrical and one combustion car.

And yes long term hybrids will take over the marked as they will have both performance and pollution benefits.

As for hydrogen, its to hard to handle, if you want to get away from oil go for alcohol, butane or propane.

[phoenix_ca]

When it comes to Tesla motors, the price needs to come way, way down (like $400/month, not $800-1000/month) before it becomes viable for enough people for it to matter. That or the price of gasoline needs to skyrocket (more), but if it did then the cost of living would be so damned high we'd have other problems.

[cantab]

I don't think that many people *do* think hydrogen = oh noes explosion. But then, when it comes to vehicle propulsion it's scarcely an issue with hydrogen powered cars and hydrogen stations so rare.

The pressurised storage aspect, though it does create some hazards, probably isn't much of an issue given plenty of people have happily had their cars converted to run on LPG (AKA Autogas, CNG, etc.) Detecting leaks by smell can be enabled by adding an odourant to the fuel, as is done with LPG and natural gas.

[Othuyeg]

This is the answer to most of our problems in the future:

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

[Red Iron Crown]

When it comes to Tesla motors, the price needs to come way, way down (like $400/month, not $800-1000/month) before it becomes viable for enough people for it to matter. That or the price of gasoline needs to skyrocket (more), but if it did then the cost of living would be so damned high we'd have other problems.

It's like any new tech in cars, it starts at the high end and works its way down. I have an economy car that has power windows, locks, ABS, cruise control, available navigation and stability control, all of which were mostly limited to the high end when I started driving.

I don't think that many people *do* think hydrogen = oh noes explosion. But then, when it comes to vehicle propulsion it's scarcely an issue with hydrogen powered cars and hydrogen stations so rare.

The pressurised storage aspect, though it does create some hazards, probably isn't much of an issue given plenty of people have happily had their cars converted to run on LPG (AKA Autogas, CNG, etc.) Detecting leaks by smell can be enabled by adding an odourant to the fuel, as is done with LPG and natural gas.

Hydrogen is much, much harder to handle than LPG, as I understand it. It needs cryogenics to get any kind of sensible density, and it leaks far more quickly from any pressure vessel.

[jwenting]

And what many people don't know is that the only way to make hydrogen gas on a commercial scale is through the chemical breakdown of natural gas in the presence of water and high temperatures, which process yields large amounts of CO2.

While CO2 is harmless, it's also the boogeyman of the people claiming hydrogen is a clean and abundant fuel supply.

[jwenting]

Hydrogen is much, much harder to handle than LPG, as I understand it. It needs cryogenics to get any kind of sensible density, and it leaks far more quickly from any pressure vessel.

worse, it leaks THROUGH the walls of most any pressure vessel.

Which is why hydrogen can't be stored for very long.

[Stargate525]

worse, it leaks THROUGH the walls of most any pressure vessel.

Which is why hydrogen can't be stored for very long.

Which pretty much means that any vehicle that tends to sit for any length of time is a) a constant, small fire hazard and going to be empty when you need it.

[phoenix_ca]

There are other ways of storing hydrogen:

See also:

Reading:

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2009/june/feather-fibers-fluff-up-hydrogen-storage-capacity.html

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/06/24/hydrogen-fuel-tanks-made-from-chicken-feathers-could-save-55-million/

And what many people don't know is that the only way to make hydrogen gas on a commercial scale is through the chemical breakdown of natural gas in the presence of water and high temperatures, which process yields large amounts of CO2.

While CO2 is harmless, it's also the boogeyman of the people claiming hydrogen is a clean and abundant fuel supply.

Not if you have a lot of cheap electricity available. If fusion works, relatively small fusion reactors could provide enough electricity to use electrolysis of water on a commercial scale, producing hydrogen for fuel and oxygen, well, for breathing I suppose. (Iceland already does this to some degree, but mostly because they have access to relatively cheap geothermal energy.)

[Nuke]

Hydrogen is a chemical storage if it's made from water. If it's made from oil ("black hydrogen"), it's truly a power source. One way or another, electricity is a better choice in a world where most of the power comes from uranium.

In a world where energy comes from coal, it's better to stick to gasoline.

thing is we get power from a hodgepodge of sources. here its almost exclusively hydro power (rainfall that makes seattle look dry, mountainous terrain, prime dam territory) with some backup from fuel oil generators, electric cars are somewhat popular here. i would stick to gas in locations where a large fraction of power is coal based. then comes the question, why not just use gasoline power plants? you can bring the effitiency way up with turbine powered generators, you can better collect and utilize waste heat. there are lots of things you can do in a power plant that you cant do in an engine block.