Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article , "BobG" wrote: And take any modern car and tell me what quadrupling the size of the gas tank does to passenger space or trunk space. ================================= I looked under the back seat of grandma's buick and found about 4 suitcases worth of empty space filled with air. Could you use that?
Under the back seat? On most cars, that space is filled now by the one and only gas tank. Or the spare tire. Or the catalytic converters. Or the rear axle. Which of those do you propose to leave at home?

Hydrogen cars don't need the catalytic converter, but they are never "under the back seat". The spare tire is in the trunk, not under the back seat, Lloyd. The gas tank is now a hydrogen tank, so that space is used for hydrogen storage.
Lloyd, you are grasping at straws trying to badmouth hydrogen, and just making a fool out of yourself in public. Give it up.

In article , "Sparky @zig-zag.net" wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote: In article , "BobG" wrote: And take any modern car and tell me what quadrupling the size of the gas tank does to passenger space or trunk space. ================================= I looked under the back seat of grandma's buick and found about 4 suitcases worth of empty space filled with air. Could you use that?
Under the back seat? On most cars, that space is filled now by the one and only gas tank. Or the spare tire. Or the catalytic converters. Or the rear axle. Which of those do you propose to leave at home?
Hydrogen cars don't need the catalytic converter,

Can they meet the NOx regs without it? Obviously CO and HC = 0.

but they are never "under the back seat". The spare tire is in the trunk, not under the back seat, Lloyd.

For some, it's under a seat (see minivans, for example).

The gas tank is now a hydrogen tank, so that space is used for hydrogen storage.

Except you need 4 times the space.

Lloyd, you are grasping at straws trying to badmouth hydrogen, and just making a fool out of yourself in public. Give it up.

In article , "Sparky @zig-zag.net" wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote: In article , "BobG" wrote: And take any modern car and tell me what quadrupling the size of the gas tank does to passenger space or trunk space. ================================= I looked under the back seat of grandma's buick and found about 4 suitcases worth of empty space filled with air. Could you use that?
Under the back seat? On most cars, that space is filled now by the one and only gas tank. Or the spare tire. Or the catalytic converters. Or the rear axle. Which of those do you propose to leave at home?
Hydrogen cars don't need the catalytic converter, but they are never "under the back seat". The spare tire is in the trunk, not under the back seat, Lloyd. The gas tank is now a hydrogen tank, so that space is used for hydrogen storage.
Lloyd, you are grasping at straws trying to badmouth hydrogen, and just making a fool out of yourself in public. Give it up.
The so far insurmountable problem with H2 is, it's made using other energy,

meaning it's not an energy source but an energy storage medium.

Sparky @zig-zag.net wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article , "Sparky @zig-zag.net" wrote:
Steve Spence wrote:
How about comparing the BTU of gasoline to hydrogen by volume?
A gasoline tank is about the size volume of one large suitcase. A high-pressure hydrogen storage tank is about 4 large suitcases.
So you've got to carry 4 times as much fuel. Yeah, cars can really handle that!
Four times the volume, only one third the weight. Modern Hydrogen Tanks are so lightweight that full or empty they float.
It takes one suitcase of gasoline to go 200 miles and 4 suitcases of hydrogen to go the same distance. No big deal. Even the old VW bugs had room for 4 suitcases in the trunk.

you ever work in a chemical laboratory?
I worked as a chemist in laboratories for about 20 years.
the hydrogen gas cylinders weigh about 140 lbs, empty or full. They don't float.
the pressure is about 2200 psig
for safety in handling high pressure gas cylinders
see : http://www.pp.okstate.edu/ehs/links/gas.htm and : http://www.ehs.iastate.edu/publications/manuals/gascylinder.pdf and : http://safety.science.tamu.edu/cylinderhazard.html
of course, I realize I am wasting my time providing you this information.
"don't try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig"
j.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article , "Sparky @zig-zag.net" wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article , "Sparky @zig-zag.net" wrote:
Steve Spence wrote:
How about comparing the BTU of gasoline to hydrogen by volume?
A gasoline tank is about the size volume of one large suitcase. A high-pressure hydrogen storage tank is about 4 large suitcases.
So you've got to carry 4 times as much fuel. Yeah, cars can really handle that!
Four times the volume, only one third the weight.

Volume adds weight to a car. Make the car bigger, you need more steel, more glass, more plastic, etc. It's also harder to push through the air.
Modern Hydrogen Tanks are so lightweight that full or empty they float.
It takes one suitcase of gasoline to go 200 miles and 4 suitcases of hydrogen to go the same distance. No big deal. Even the old VW bugs had room for 4 suitcases in the trunk.
With no trunk space. And take any modern car and tell me what quadrupling the size of the gas tank does to passenger space or trunk space.

good point lloyd.
j.

You smiled, you spoke, and I believed wrote:

Sparky @zig-zag.net wrote:
Four times the volume, only one third the weight. Modern Hydrogen Tanks are so lightweight that full or empty they float.

Not even wrong.
The weight of CONTAINED hydrogen is MUCH worse than gasoline. Further, improving gasoline to the uncontained hydrogen weight would only have utterly negligible and largeless useless benefits.
Complete analysis at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Let's take a fiber composite Scott Air Pack bottle as a candidate for a "modern Hydrogen Tank."
This is a $400, 150 BAR item, neglecting the costs of continuing hydrotesting and owner recertification and training. It weighs eight pounds.
It measures approximately six inches square by twenty long, or approximately 550 cubic inches, or approximately nine liters. At 150 bar, this would hold approximately 1350 liters of hydrogen, or approximately 3900 watthours.
At 39,000 watthours per kilogram, this would be one tenth of a kilogram of hydrogen, or 0.22 pounds of hydrogen.
Thus, you have an eight pound container holding a maximum of 0.22 pounds of hydrogen.
The effective energy density is thus 36 times worse than unstored hydrogen or TWELVE TIMES WORSE than that of gasoline.
The CONTAINED energy density by weight of hydrogen is RIDICULOUSLY lower than that of gasoline.
In a container that costs more than ONE HUNDRED TIMES as much as a comparable gasoline one.
Energy density by weight is UTTERLY AND TOTALLY MEANINGLESS in terrestral transportation apps.
The claim is totally bogus.
More at http://wwww.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
-- Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Don Lancaster wrote:

You smiled, you spoke, and I believed wrote: Sparky @zig-zag.net wrote:
Four times the volume, only one third the weight. Modern Hydrogen Tanks are so lightweight that full or empty they float.
Not even wrong.
The weight of CONTAINED hydrogen is MUCH worse than gasoline. Further, improving gasoline to the uncontained hydrogen weight would only have utterly negligible and largeless useless benefits.

Says you without proof. You are at least five years out of date. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has been given the lead in research of advanced lightweight hydrogen storage tanks. There is no weight penalty, only a volume penalty (and not severe one at that).
Hydrogen tanks have been tested being shot with armor piercing .30 caliber military issue bullets without exploding, dropped off a tower filled to capacity 46 feet onto their filler mouth without loss of integroty, been put in bonfires of 1000 F fires and performed their safty function without explosion. Hydrogen tanks have been overfilled to 24,000 psi to pass european safety certification.
You are five years obsolete.
Newest concepts in storage go beyond ll this.

Let's take a fiber composite Scott Air Pack bottle as a candidate for a "modern Hydrogen Tank."

Lets not. Car tanks are not retail items any more than car frames are -- they are bought wholesale by the car factory and are merged into the total car package price. Since fuel cell cars omit a $500 carburator, a $200 fuel pump, a $1000 transmission, a $500 driveshaft, a $500 catalytic converter, a $200 muffler, they create lots of empty space and can afford to spend all that money on what they DO HAVE instead.
The rest of your writing is similar bogus crap.
You seek out ridiculous comparisons to badmouth Hydrogen while all the nations of the world are exploring tanks you never mention. You can, if you want to, find a car for sale for $1,000,000, but that doesn't prove that cars usually cost $1,000,000. Likewise you can find a Hydrogen tank not built to modern specifications, not tested to 24,000 psi, and greatly overpriced and dupe the ignorant -- that just shows that you are deeply fundamentally dishonest and corrupt.
Tell me about the LLNL testing program and the advanced concepts under evaluation now. Tell me about the hydrides and other advanced materials testing going on every day, 365 days of the year in the top 20 advanced nations of the world. Don't tell me about stuff you found under a rock which was never designed for the FreedomCAR.

The individual formerly known as Sparky asserted:

Hydrogen tanks have been overfilled to 24,000 psi to pass european safety certification.

Hmmm! I would like to hear more about that test.
If that claim is valid -- very big if -- then it probably eliminates the hydrogen fueled vehicle for the next hundred years or so, maybe for ever. There have been Natural Gas-fueled Vehicles (NGVs) for decades -- everywhere from Italy to New Zealand, and maybe even in your city. The big drawback with NGVs has been their limited range due to the relatively low amount of gaseous fuel that can practically be carried on the vehicle. If there are real 24,000 psi cylinders, that problem just went away. Natural gas is much easier to handle than hydrogen -- don't have the embrittlement problem; already have gas pipeline systems installed in most developed countries; spark ignition Internal Combustion engines can readily be tailored to CH4. And this would avoid the wasteful step of turning CH4 into H2 -- which is where most hydrogen today comes from.
Buh-bye, hydrogen fuel. Sparky says you're history.

In article , "Coby Beck" writes:

"Nanook" wrote in message My own personal viewpoint is even if we had been producing no CO2, we'd still be seeing global warming right now from natural sources.
I think we're making it happen faster and more dramatically, but I think it would happen with or without us.
Have a look here for a comparison of global temperature hindcasts over the last century with and without anthropogenic influences: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
According to the AOCGCM's, not perfect but better than your or my specutations, without human influences we would have seen a slight cooling.

It's a computer model, at least eight different such computer models exist and they predict radically different amounts of warming.
And since we can't run the experiement and test the model we have absolutely no way of knowing they aren't total crap.
Mars is warming, Pluto is warming, and I'm pretty sure it's not man-made greenhouse gases responsible for their warming.
-- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting. Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers. See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.

Once again the poisonus snakes crawl out of their holes: LongmuirG wrote:

The individual formerly known as Sparky asserted: Hydrogen tanks have been overfilled to 24,000 psi to pass european safety certification.
Hmmm! I would like to hear more about that test.

What's stopping you. Google ir right there, in the toolbar on ever modern browser top panel.
24,000 is the 2.35 safety margin for 10 ksi pressure tanks. They have to endure over-filling to 24,000 psi in order to be certified @ 10 ksi.
THe same rules apply here, except no mfgr has yet applied for US certification, and mfgrs have in Europe.

If that claim is valid -- very big if -- then it probably eliminates the hydrogen fueled vehicle for the next hundred years or so, maybe for ever. There have been Natural Gas-fueled Vehicles (NGVs) for decades -- everywhere from Italy to New Zealand, and maybe even in your city.

You still don't get it. Hydrogen is the fuel that the terrorists can't cut off by blowing up the pipeline, like they did in Russia last week. Hydrogen is the fuel that is equally distributed everywhere, with no localized monopolie of supply choke-holds.
Hydrogen from Wind or Solar is pollution free, especially if the wind-solar generators are themselves made from renewable wind-solar power.
Natural gas still pollutes. The term has entered the politicians and investors vocabulary "CARBON-CONSTRAINED ECONOMY". Learn it -- everybody else has.
http://snipurl.com/lxxg Google Results about 568 for "CARBON-CONSTRAINED ECONOMY". http://snipurl.com/lxxh Google Results about 40,900 for "CARBON-CONSTRAINED" ECONOMY.
You know what "constrained means, right? It's exactly like the straightjackets we make nuts wear who try to pollute the Earth. Society has long knwn how to take proactive steps to prevent insanity from being a public nuisence.

The big drawback with NGVs has been their limited range due to the relatively low amount of gaseous fuel that can practically be carried on the vehicle. If there are real 24,000 psi cylinders, that problem just went away. Natural gas is much easier to handle than hydrogen -- don't have the embrittlement problem;

Hydrogen doesn't have any embrittlement problem either if you avoid the high-strength steels and welds that are suceptable to it. Low-strength steels have plenty of surplus strength to contain Hydrogen, and besides, the world has moved to plastic tanks -- those 24,000 psi tested tanks (actually RATED for 10,000 psi us) are made of plastics stonger than steel.
There's no big difference between LNG or CNG and Compressed Hydrogen. People readily adapt between the two. As you say, lots of people have experience fueling with CNG, and as of today people are using blends of HCNG in California, including fleets of garbage trucks on city streets daily. You are soooooo far obsolete I'm wondering if you have reached to fashion statement of checkered bell-bottom pants yet?

already have gas pipeline systems installed in most developed countries; spark ignition Internal Combustion engines can readily be tailored to CH4. And this would avoid the wasteful step of turning CH4 into H2 -- which is where most hydrogen today comes from.

It's not wasteful if you want H2, which the world has been getting by the billions of tons annually for a long time from CH4. The Haber-Bosch process of making NH3 out of H2 and N3 is still the leading use of Hydrogen at about 50% total world consumption, ahead of the high tonnages (40% worldwide) used in refineries boosting the octane of gasoline. Your modern cars could not drive on refinery gasoline without H2 boosting, so 40% of all hydrogen production in the world has been driving around in fuel tanks already for decades.
Obviously, since all the major governments and biggest corporations in the world have jumped on the Hydrogen Bandwagon, I surely must have superhuman powers to bend these people to my will despite their struggles to defy me on Hydrogen. In that case, you ought to be a lot more polite to me. I just might sent a coded message to the NSA who is reading every datum that passes on the internet, to have the Black SUVs pick you up and "re-educate you" at Gitmo. (ATTN: NSA, this is a coded message -- pick that guy up, end message.)

Nanook wrote:

Have a look here for a comparison of global temperature hindcasts over the last century with and without anthropogenic influences: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
According to the AOCGCM's, not perfect but better than your or my specutations, without human influences we would have seen a slight cooling.
It's a computer model, at least eight different such computer models exist and they predict radically different amounts of warming.
And since we can't run the experiement and test the model we have absolutely no way of knowing they aren't total crap.
Mars is warming, Pluto is warming, and I'm pretty sure it's not man-made greenhouse gases responsible for their warming.

It's called ENTROPHY, culminating in the Heat Death of the Universe in about 120,000,000,000 years. EVERYTHING is getting warmer, but that's no excuse to not call the fire department when your house is burning down.
The Earth is where we live. Our duty is to see tha we do whatever it takes to make the Earth good for as long as we are here. The Martians and the Plutotians have their own duty.
Try not to have an MTV attention span deficit, OK? Pay attention. Earth urgently needs you to do your duty NOW, without looking for excuses to evade your share of responsibility.

In article , "Coby Beck" writes:

"Nanook" wrote in message In article , "LongmuirG" writes: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: Apparently GHG emission is not part of your scientific vocabulary?
If you dig a little deeper, you will find that the scientific term for molecules which absorb & re-emit infra-red radiation is "Radiatively Active Gas".
"Green House Gas" was a junk science term, popularized by political extremists with no understanding of science and even less interest. It is not clear if the extremists adopted "GHG" out of ignorance, or if they were frightened by the concept of radiation in Radiatively Active Gas.
Either way, the extremists drive the funding, and once proud scientists are now using the junk science term -- especially when they are looking for funding. It tells us something about the anthropogenic global warming alarmists that even their language is the language of junk science.
I think you're typing a lot without really saying anything.
I have to agree with that!
Solar radiation peaks in the visible but is also significant in near IR. When it is absorbed by the ground and warms the ground, the ground re-radiates it in the millimeter range, 1000x longer wavelength.
If you have a gas that is transparent in the micron range but opaque in the millimeter wavelength region, you have a "Greenhouse Gas", there is nothing "junk" about this term; it is analogous to glass used in greenhouses which is transparent in the micron range and opaque in the millimeter range.
However, he has one small thing correct: the Greenhouse Effect is misnamed. The way a greenhouse works is by trapping air, not radiation. By stopping convective cooling the ground and surface air temperature inside the greenhouse gets much warmer than the surroundings. It is fundamentally different than what is now widely refferred to as the earth's greenhouse effect.
Is this evidence that climatologists are incompetent or quacks? I think that accusation says much more about the accuser than the accused.

The green house doesn't JUST work by trapping air. Yes, by stopping convective cooling it reduces heat loss, but because glass is transparent to the wavelengths in the near IR and visible but relatively opaque to millimeter wavelengths so it's also reducing radiative heat loss.
So the analogy is at least partially correct. Anyway you should have a very good collection of nits by now.
-- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting. Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers. See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.

In article , Charlie Edmondson writes:

Lloyd Parker wrote:
Evolution is a slow process. Organisms cannot adapt to rapid change.

Obviously, you know little about the present 'state of the art' of evolutionary theory. Its name is Catastrophism, and is basically the study of how things change VERY RAPIDLY when the exrement hits the air moving instrument in the environment.
It is also why many folks look at evolution with very questioning eyes...
Charlie

I had heard the term punctuated equalibrium. At any rate; the rapid evolution that occured after impact events and what not often resulted in a very large percentage of the species being wiped out. Sure a very small percentage survived and then evolved to fill the newly created econological niche, but the majority of species did not.
-- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting. Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers. See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.

In article , Dan Bloomquist writes:

oilaholic wrote: Joshua Halpern wrote:
Global Warming @ARMY.com wrote:
we know we have.
Most of those cost about as much energy to extract them as you get from them. You are talking about shale and oil sands. Oil has to be well about $50 a barrel to make that attractive. The cost of pumping a barrel of oil in the Middle East is a few dollars, if you don't expense the army.
josh halpern
Shale and oil sands are two very different animals. I haven't seen a good estimate of the cost to produce shale. There is no commercial production at this point. But oil sands is being extracted for total costs in the range of $20 - $25 per barrel now. A more efficient technology used by OPTI Canada is expected to shave about $7 a barrel off that when it starts up later this year. About 1 million bpd of oil is currently being produced from the oil sands, and that is expected to about triple over the next five years.
Shale has yet to show an EROEI of greater than one. Oil sands are poor at that. That we are out of natural gas as feed stock for oil sands also needs to be considered. It means using oil sands to produce hydrogen. There is waste water that has to be dealt with. No, it is not expected to triple until 2015 and that is without the natural gas problem.
Once global production of oil goes into decline it could head down at some 3 to 5 million barrels a day per year. Two mb/d in 9 years will hardly make a difference.
Best, Dan.
-- "We need an energy policy that encourages consumption" George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Vice President Dick Cheney

There is a commercial shale oil plant in operation in Utah and it's producing oil at around $15/barrel; by contrast there is a company now producing oil from tar sands in Alberta at a cost of $10/barrel Canadian, so the latter is definitely more cost effective.
-- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting. Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers. See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.

Nanook wrote:

There is a commercial shale oil plant in operation in Utah and it's producing oil at around $15/barrel; by contrast there is a company now producing oil from tar sands in Alberta at a cost of $10/barrel Canadian, so the latter is definitely more cost effective.

Psychopath!
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
Mountain Top Removal Coal Strip Mining
Another form of Coal Power Environmental Destruction.
Coal Power Plants have a specific area consumption on a particular piece of real estate. However they are useless and do nothing without three other consumptive territories.
Coal power plants require
1. fuel to be provided from vast tracts of land, 2. require large volumes of atmosphere to dispose of the invisible but destructive gases output up the flues, and 3. require cemetery tracts to bury the dead killed by the entire process.
As can be seen by the pictures on the left side of the page, mountain top removal is by no means a small footprint of land used for coal plants. It is, however, dwarfed by the size of the effects of the carbon-dioxide Greenhouse Gases that contribute to hurricane formations. A satellite image on Saturday shows the center of Hurricane Jeanne arriving over Florida. Hurricane Jeanne was a mere hurricane category force three on the scale, but it covered the entire state of Florida in one moment of time. 3,035 people are known to have been killed by Hurricane Jeanne, mostly in Haiti, and $6.9 billions of wealth was destroyed.
Hurricane Ivan struck Florida three weeks earlier. Both Ivan and Jeanne were active at the same time, and satellite photos exist showing both in the same wide-angle picture. Actually, there were four hurricanes operating simultaneously in the region and Jeanne would never have struck Florida except that it collided with Hurricane Karl at 8:00 pm, 21 September, 2004, and rebounded into Florida as a result of the recoil. Hurricane Lisa was also active in the area during Jeanne's path to Florida.
Hurricane Katrina was famously destructive to three Gulf States on August 29th, 2005, when it destroyed New Orleans. 1,383 people have been confirmed dead across 7 US states. Once damage totals come in, Katrina will likely be the costliest hurricane in U.S. history, with damage totals expected to reach as high as $100 billion (USD). The damage and fatality estimates remain incomplete.
Hurricane Stan occurred one month later. Torrential rainfall caused catastrophic flooding and mudslides which were responsible for at least 1,153 deaths in six countries; 1,036 of these casualties occurred in Guatemala alone.
30,000 People Are Killed Every Year by Coal Pollution in the USA.
That's enough to completely fill one new Arlington National Cemetery every ten years.
FACTS: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, Link 5...
Solar Photovoltaics Power can totally replace coal power. Hydrogen from Solar or Wind can totally replace oil. Here's a map prepared by the US government Department of Energy which shows how much land is required if Solar Photovoltaics alone does it all. http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
Here is a WIND POWER concept that could do it all without the Solar PV (or use both). http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html