Society's misguided fear of hydrogen; a result of oil corporation?

[bones261]

Why do people fear hydrogen so much? It's literally safer than gasoline. It may seem that several myths were spread throughout the public (probably by big-oil).

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

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.

     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.

The theory that hydrogen was ignited by a static spark is the most widely accepted theory as determined by the official crash investigations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#Cause_of_ignition

     Second, I qualified my statement.

Perhaps the dangers are a bit overinflated.

     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.

[Spendulus]

.... I realize that gasoline is also a highly volatile substance that can also have negative circumstances if not properly contained.
[img]https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SolidObeseCaimanliz...

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.

[bluefirecorp_]

Especially when you state that only 35 died, like its some insignificant number.

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.

[bones261]

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.

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

[Spendulus]

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.

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

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

[bluefirecorp_]

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.

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

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

Gasoline fires often cause people to suffocate to death actually.

[Spendulus]

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.

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

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

Gasoline fires often cause people to suffocate to death actually.

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?

[bluefirecorp_]

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?

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

[Spendulus]

....

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)....

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

[bluefirecorp_]

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

So safe, many explodes.

[SaltySpitoon]

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

[bluefirecorp_]

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

Having places to fill up your car is important; that's why building out the infrastructure is totally serious; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5037134.0

[Spendulus]

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. ....

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.

[bluefirecorp_]

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.

[Spendulus]

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

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.

[TECSHARE]

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. ....

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.

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.

[bluefirecorp_]

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 

[Spendulus]

...

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.

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.

[bluefirecorp_]

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.

[SaltySpitoon]

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 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.

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.

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.