0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
OK, I will get a road tanker full of liquid hydrogen and spill it onto the surface of a small lake, half an hour later I will go down there with a lit match. (This experiment has been done as a publicity stunt, but many years ago so I doubt it's on youtube)If you think gasoline is safer you do the same thing; you go first.The fact is that any energy storage system is, by that very fact, dangerous.
BC makes an understandable point, that hydrogen dissipates rapidly. Like any compressed flammable gas, all have a potential of being explosive. Liquid gasoline vapors ignite, and will show some path to a delayed, abrupt explosion. Now even though hydrogen dissipates almost instantly, the chances of the build up of concentration is less then rare with respect to the vapors of gasoline.Although for any flammable, there is still chance of an ignition. Since you can not smell, taste, or see hydrogen that is where the hazard sits. Propane needs the stinky odor added, holds the same safe guards. Hydrogen does have a short delay from ignition to explosion, even if it burns colorless to a faint blue, it is a short viewing.There are not enough of fuel cells out there being used over a long duration to be compared in statistics. A dime on a dollar says, like anything being manufactured, quality control will slip, it is Murphys Law.The only way to detect hydrogen safely is with an electronic snifter.That also may needed to be certified because it is electronic and that imposes a spark hazard.Not getting on a soap box, all this is conveying my thoughts.The reason hydrogen is looked at as an alternative, is that it burns efficiently giving a waste product as only water.As long as the hydrogen is made using a non flammable energy source, other than that, the effort is self defeating. We will still need the petroleum for the making of these other devices to make the hydrogen. Depending on which characteristic in comparison will dictate which is more dangerous, I say both are!
Doesn't the podcast expressly mention that the new materials being developed can trap hydrogen molecules at very much lower pressures than a straight-forward 'tank'?Also, I understand that the material has to go through some form of low heating cycle to release the hydrogen bound up in it.Although this doesn't remove all the safety concerns it should dramatically reduce the risks.
Anyway, as I said before, any fuel tank is a potential bomb; the question is how easy is it to set off.My personal opinion is that they should be looking at methanol or some such as a fuel.The really big problem with hydrogen is that we simply don't have a lot of it.There are no hydrogen mines.
I registered just to note the irony of a flame war starting over this topic. 
True, not a cat in hell's chance.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/09/2010 20:26:52True, not a cat in hell's chance.That's only adding fuel to the fire.
Perhaps politicians are more repulsive?