Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Palaces4People/message/1233
HTML web version http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html 251 kb
My archives or original PDF: http://h2-pv.us/H2/Swain-H2-Car-Video-Description.pdf 549 kb
Author's original http://www.hydrogensafety.info/resources/Swain-H2-Car-Video-Description.pdf 549 kb
Similar - related: http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/30535be.pdf http://www.energieportal24.de/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=94
http://www.h2education.com/index.php/sID/4e43b92b/tID/b68e8eca/fuseaction/education.main.htm
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=482
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid536.php Is Hydrogen Dangerous?
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/hysafety/hysafety.htm
http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/Safety-1.htm Hydrogen can be stored safely. Tanks currently in use for storage of compressed hydrogen (similar to compressed natural gas tanks) have survived intact through testing by various means, including being shot with six rounds from a .357 magnum, detonating a stick of dynamite next to them, and subjecting them to fire at 1500 degrees F. Clearly, a typical gasoline tank wouldn't survive a single one of these tests.
http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/hydrogen/report_6-2002/22966.html At the end of the 1950s, Lockheed Aerospace carried out experiments to test detonation properties of liquid hydrogen (LH2). In a series of 61 tests, where LH2 in thermoses were put under great physical stresses (such as crushing the thermos with a heavy object), there was never a case of detonation as a result of the direct blows. Only in two of the tests - using large amounts of liquid oxygen and a heavy explosive discharge - was it possible to detonate the hydrogen. The conclusion from these tests were that hydrogen is difficult to detonate in open air, and that it is a relatively safe fuel compared to other alternatives.
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/feb02/features/fillerup/fillerup.html Quantum verified the Tri-Shield's toughness by conducting a series of rigorous tests under auspices of the European Union's European Integrated Hydrogen Project. The tests were completed last November. Manufacturers of storage cylinders must pass the tests to be able to make and sell hydrogen storage cylinders in Europe.
"These tests included placing the cylinder in a crash car, firing armor-piercing bullets at it, dropping the cylinder from six feet onto a concrete surface, placing it in a diesel fire, cycling it thousands of times, and subjecting the cylinder to extreme cold and to corrosive liquids encountered in automotive environments, such as battery acids, saltwater, brake oils, and methanols," explained Neel Sirosh, a mechanical engineer and director of fuel storage systems at Quantum.
http://www.commutercars.com/h2/ Hydrogen Safety Many people are concerned with hydrogen's safety. And with good reason. Hydrogen is a fuel and is therefore combustible. Its combustion properties deserve the same caution any fuel should be given (NHA Handling). Hydrogen has been suffering an image problem since the Hindenburg tragically caught fire and burned in New Jersey in 1937. (There were 62 survivors and 35 fatalities; 27 of the deaths resulted from jumping from the airship. Some died from burns and injuries caused by the diesel fuel fire, not from the burning hydrogen (Nadis and MacKenzie 86; MacKenzie 69).) "Fortunately, . . . 'hydrogen is not a particularly dangerous fuel.' If it leaks or spills, hydrogen disperses and evaporates much faster than gasoline, which minimizes the explosion hazard" (Nadis and MacKenzie 86). "The hazards of hydrogen are different from but not greater than those of conventional fuels" (Williams 23). Hydrogen can be and has been handled carefully and safely, just like any other inherently dangerous fuel such as gasoline (Zygmont 20). Hydrogen tanks have been put through series of demanding safety tests. They have been completely engulfed in flames at over 1,650�F for up to 70 minutes, perforated by solid objects (such as armor-piercing bullets), and squeezed until they break with safety valves completely blocked. Sometimes the gas leaked out, sometimes it burnt, but it never exploded (Edwards 42).
http://www.esdjournal.com/articles/blame.htm The Hindenburg: Was Hydrogen Really To Blame?

Global Warming @ARMY.com wrote

BUNCHES OF TOTAL BULLSHIT LINKS TO HYDROGEN SAFETY

Find ONE working hazmat specialist anyplace anytime who is not scared shitless of hydrogen.
Minimimum DOT orange book daytime nonwind evacuation distance is 2600 feet from any occupied structure.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
-- 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

Steve Spence wrote:

How about comparing the BTU of gasoline to hydrogen by volume?

STP hydrogen is 2.7 watthours per liter versus 9000 watthours per liter for gasoline.
And, of course, the CONTAINED energy density of hydrogen by weight is also MUCH LOWER than that of gasoline. Typically 50X or worse. Most proponents are so embarrased over this figure they will not publish it.
Even when liquified (with its corresponding blindness and frostbite dangers totally unknown to gasoline), there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. And far more total energy in gasoline. Something like 5X, neglecting liquification losses, required venting blowoff, and equipment amortization.
No economically and safety viable personal vehicle compatible means of storing hydrogen is known today.
Also, how about comparing the fact that hydrogen use today is strictly limited to highly trained (and repeatedly certified) professionals in carefully controlled environments. That, with very few and extremely isolated exceptions, is on a scale that is utterly trivial compared to personal transportation.
Wanting to turn hydrogen (aka terrorist bombs) loose on the general public could only come from long hours of thinking in the outhouse alone.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.

-- 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

...there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. And far more total energy in gasoline. Something like 5X, neglecting liquification losses, required venting blowoff, and equipment amortization.

I don't deny the difficulties of storing and handling pure hydrogen, but this particular comparison neglects the fact that hydrogen can be burned in fuel cells that are far more efficient than the IC engines that gasoline requires. And far cleaner environmentally, which is a major part of the discussion.
As I've said before, I suggest the best way to handle hydrogen is to use one atom of carbon to capture four atoms of hydrogen, producing good old methane, which you can make without producing pure hydrogen first. Then what we need to complete the picture is a good fuel cell that can burn the carbon atom along with the hydrogen atoms, not a tall order.

And far cleaner environmentally, which is a major part of the discussion.

Apparently GHG emission is not part of your scientific vocabulary?

As I've said before, I suggest the best way to handle hydrogen is to use one atom of carbon to capture four atoms of hydrogen, producing good old methane, which you can make without producing pure hydrogen first.

Why don't you try learning, before spewing :
http://oregonstate.edu/~atwaterj/h2o_gen.htm

Then what we need to complete the picture is a good fuel cell that can burn the carbon atom along with the hydrogen atoms, not a tall order.

But removing the carbon dioxide and methane pollutants from the atmosphere is.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org

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.

LongmuirG wrote:

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".

Whatever. Methane and carbon dioxide are infrared active polyatomic molecules, as such, they are certainly greenhouse gases.
And you, sir, are simply another crackpot on the usenet, with nothing of any significance to offer us in the form of science.
<plonk>
http://co

Thomas Lee Elifritz quit the field in disgrace.

Dave Gower wrote:

but this particular comparison neglects the fact that hydrogen can be burned in fuel cells that are far more efficient than the IC engines that gasoline requires.

"Far more efficient" is an urban lore myth. And an outright lie.
No fuel cell is known today that is remotely as efficient as an ICE when full burdened accounted for and amortized.
It is conceviebly POSSIBLE that fuel cells may EVENTUALLY show a very MODEST efficiency advantage over the ICE. But "far" certainly does not describe it.
Meanwhile, ICE efficiency is dramatically improving, and smarter and more people are working on this than are working on fuel cells.
If anything, the gap is widening.
Please see http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.
-- 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

LongmuirG wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz quit the field in disgrace.

He will return in the same manner.
I'm probably agreeing with him, but -- there's nothing phony about global warming science at all.
Its proponents typically are state-funded, which is to say fossil fuel revenue-funded, which is to say, they're biting the hand that feeds.
The phonies are the ones who do *not* do this.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html -- fire B good.

"Don Lancaster" wrote

"Far more efficient" is an urban lore myth. And an outright lie.

60% vs 15% isn't a lie. Twit.

Dave Gower wrote:

"Don Lancaster" wrote
"Far more efficient" is an urban lore myth. And an outright lie.
60% vs 15% isn't a lie. Twit.

Quite right; it's *two* lies.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html -- fire B good.

"G. R. L. Cowan" wrote

Quite right; it's *two* lies.

ICE has had over a hundred years of intensive development, fuel cells only really a decade or so for the purposes of mass transport (earlier efforts were geared to space applications). The present technology is far from the final word.

"Dave Gower" writes:

I don't deny the difficulties of storing and handling pure hydrogen, but this particular comparison neglects the fact that hydrogen can be burned in fuel cells that are far more efficient than the IC engines that gasoline requires. And far cleaner environmentally, which is a major part of the

It's not a fact. * -- * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews.

"Dave Gower" writes:

"Far more efficient" is an urban lore myth. And an outright lie.
60% vs 15% isn't a lie. Twit.

There is no roadable fuel cell with an efficiency anywhere NEAR 60%! * -- * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews.