World's first mass produced hydrogen car hits the market!

[kgrandia]

TAKANEZAWA, Japan — It looks like an ordinary family sedan, costs more to build than a Ferrari and may have just moved the world one step closer to a future free of petroleum.

On Monday, Honda Motor celebrated the start of production of its FCX Clarity, the world’s first hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicle intended for mass production. In a ceremony at a factory an hour north of Tokyo, the first assembly-line FCX Clarity rolled out to the applause of hundreds of Honda employees wearing white jump suits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/business/worldbusiness/17fuelcell.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[loveable liberal]

1. you go Japan!!!

Meanwhile at the GM Humvee plant..(insert cricket noise)....

[rurallib]

2. Is there a hydrogen station on the corner to fill it up?

[madokie]

4. oh its just around the corner

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Is 200 in 3 years "mass produced?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/business/worldbusiness/17fuelcell.html

...

Honda will make just 200 of the futuristic vehicles over the next three years, but said it eventually planned to increase production volumes, especially as hydrogen filling stations became more common. On Monday, Honda announced its first five customers, who included the actress Jamie Lee Curtis.

...

If so, then GM's already got one:
http://gas2.org/2008/05/23/want-to-test-drive-a-hydrogen-powered-car-gms-project-driveway-looking-for-drivers/

Want to Test Drive a Hydrogen Powered Car? GM’s “Project Driveway” Looking For Drivers

Written by Deb Hiett
Published on May 23rd, 2008

Testing the New Equinox Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle

GM’s new Equinox hydrogen fuel cell electric cars are on the road. Well, one hundred of them are, and you can apply to become a test driver for three months.

The Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell has been honored with the http://www.greencar.com/features/vision-award/">Green Car Journal’s Green Car Vision Award, the first time the magazine has recognized a limited-production vehicle for its forward-thinking technologies. “Project Driveway” is the first large-scale market test of fuel cell vehicles with real drivers.

If you live or work in metropolitan New York City; Washington, D.C.; or southern California, you may be eligible to test-drive an Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle. You must be at least 21 years of age, a U.S. citizen and have a valid driver’s license. If you qualify, General Motors will provide the fuel, maintenance, insurance, OnStar service and a support team for a three month period. You drive what appears to be a very cool car, and give your feedback.

Visit www.chevrolet.com/fuelcell/checkzipcode for more about “Project Driveway,” and check out this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9KArp1OyAw">informative and interesting short video made by a current test driver.

[wtmusic]

5. And pray you don't get in an accident.

Saw one of them at Pep Boys a couple of months ago and had a chat with the GM tech. Two tanks pumped up to 700 bar each, or 10,000 PSI.

[Greyskye]

6. Oh please.

The tanks are designed to split in case of accident, releasing the gas - not explode. The hydrogen, if it did ignite, would quickly burn off in an almost invisible blue flame. A gas tank explosion, sending liquid fuel everywhere, has much more potential for catastrophic flamage.

This kind of hyperbole is not helpful. :eyes:

[wtmusic]

7. Hyperbole?

If you think any kind of catastrophic gas release at 10,000 PSI will not be an explosion, you're kidding yourself.

Hydrogen has three times the energy density of propane. Here is a propane canister exploding - pressurized to 125 PSI, or about 1/80 the pressure of the tanks you're sitting above in an Equinox:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pOZT0dg-KwU

Here is unpressurized hydrogen gas burning -- your "invisible blue flame" in action:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MMB2VR0087w&feature=related

[Greyskye]

8. I am LITERALLY lmao at these

The most important thing that it does not appear that you comprehend, is the design of the hydrogen tank. It is not designed like the propane tank you linked to, or even the balloon video. Propane tanks are the design equivalent of a bomb. You contain an explosion in a container which resists the increasing internal pressures until you have a catastrophic (and usually quite spectacular) failure. Hydrogen tanks are designed - if they cannot absorb an outside shock - to split, not explode. The hydrogen will jet out, and being lighter then air - will dissipate into the atmosphere.

1) Sure the propane cylinder exploded, and I bet there was some nasty shrapnel from that as well. But as I stated, hydrogen tanks in cars are designed to 'split' upon major impact, releasing the gas and avoiding shrapnel. In addition, propane is heavier then air - you can see the results of that in the lingering fire long after the initial explosion.

2) If you'll notice, there were people all around that balloon - maybe 30' away tops. Sure there was a big sound - and that was about it. On edit: Oh - I forgot. That balloon is a hydrogen/oxygen mix. You do realize, don't you, that having O₂ in the mix is a completely different animal then straight hydrogen, right? I mean come on, it's been over 25 years since my last chemistry class, and I still remember that.

But hey, if you don't believe me, how about some real experts. The first link really says it all - but some mass media links in easier to digest form follow:

http://www.directedtechnologies.com/publications/storage/H2VehicleSafetyReport97-05.pdf
HYDROGEN VEHICLE SAFETY REPORT
PREPARED FOR: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES
1. The automotive industry has successfully developed the equipment and procedures for the
safe use of gasoline by the general public in motor vehicles, such that the risks of death or injury
from a gasoline fire during a 4,800 kilometer cross-country trip are less than the risks of other
common human activities such as skiing for nine minutes, rock climbing for 41 seconds, working on
a farm for nine hours, or flying on a scheduled airline for 33 minutes. The public has accepted these
extremely small risks of gasoline, so hydrogen should be considered acceptably safe if it has equal or
less risk than gasoline — gasoline is a good reference point to judge hydrogen safety.

2. In normal operation, a hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicle and dispensing system, with
proper engineering, should be as safe as a gasoline, natural gas, or propane vehicle system.

3. In a collision in open spaces, a safety-engineered hydrogen FCV should have less potential
hazard than either a natural gas vehicle or a gasoline vehicle due to four factors. First, carbon fiber
wrapped composite storage tanks (the leading high pressure storage tank material due to its low
weight) are able to withstand greater impacts than the vehicle itself without rupture, thereby
minimizing the risks of a large release of hydrogen as a result of a collision. Second, hydrogen, if
released, disperses much faster than gasoline due to much greater buoyancy, reducing the risks of a
post-collision fire.1 Third, the FCV will carry 60% less total energy than a gasoline or natural gas
vehicle, resulting in less potential hazard should it ignite. Finally, the design recommended here
includes an inertially activated switch in each FCV that, in the event of a collision, will
simultaneously shut off the flow of hydrogen via a solenoid valve or valves, and will cut electrical
power from the battery.

http://www.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/archives/2005/dec/responders.asp
Will the vehicle explode like the hydrogen-filled Hindenburg in 1937?
What will emergency responders such as firefighters do at the scene?
A conference Wednesday in Torrance brought about 200 emergency responders, building safety personnel, public officials and others from across the state to discuss hydrogen car safety.

"Hydrogen is not the threat or terror people associate with it when they think of the Hindenburg," said Ruben Grijalva, California state fire marshal, who delivered the keynote speech. "A key thing here is identifying what are the public safety issues, and that includes getting rid of the myths."

For example, if hydrogen escapes from a vehicle tank, the gas usually disappears into the atmosphere in a harmless manner. However, gasoline tends to pool on the ground, posing a fire risk, Grijalva said.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/03/16/hydrogen.cars/
BMW conducted numerous crash tests to see what would happen if the hydrogen tank was punctured or damaged. Their engineers report the liquid hydrogen dissipated harmlessly into the air.

Yeah. Hyperbole. That's exactly what I meant.

[wtmusic]

9. Nonsense.

Ford Motor Company, BMW, and the Fuel Cell Initiative are your sources? Laughable.

"A big sound, and that's about it"? Observe real compressed hydrogen combusting in a real-world scenario, sparked by a tiny flame:



"BMW conducted numerous crash tests to see what would happen if the hydrogen tank was punctured or damaged. Their engineers report the liquid hydrogen dissipated harmlessly into the air."

Did they also conduct numerous crash tests to see the effect of fire on their carbon tanks? Still looking, I know it's here somewhere...

There is no material in the world which is strong enough to prevent the explosion of a burning 10,000 psi tank of hydrogen. Period.

[Greyskye]

10. The facts are not on your side

Google "hydrogen vehicle safety". Give me one link there that supports your hypothesis. And just keep right on ignoring the fact that your example - the freaking Challenger disaster, is just about as different from the types of storage tanks under discussion that you can get.

Here, let's let NASA in on the conversation:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/multimedia/photogallery/photos/photogallery/shuttle/shuttle.html
The External Tank - 154 feet in length with a diameter of 27.5 feet—is the largest single piece of the Space Shuttle. During launch the External Tank also acts as a backbone for the Orbiter and Solid Rocket Boosters to which it is attached. In separate pressurized tank sections inside, the External Tank holds the liquid hydrogen fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer for the Shuttle’s three Main Engines. During launch the External Tank feeds the fuel under pressure through 17-inch-wide lines which then branch off into smaller lines that feed directly into the Main Engines. Some 64,000 gallons of fuel are consumed by the Main Engines each minute. Machined from aluminum alloys, the Space Shuttle’s External Tank is the only part of the launch vehicle that is not reused. After its 526,000 gallons of propellants are consumed during the first eight and one-half minutes of flight, it is jettisoned from the Orbiter and breaks up in the upper atmosphere, its pieces falling into remote ocean waters. (Lockheed Martin)

You keep ignoring this point that I repeatedly bring up: O₂. Without an oxidizer, as well as an ignition source, you don't get the kind of chemical reaction that not only lifts skyscrapers into space, but goes BOOM in a spectacular fashion when it explodes in a confined space.

Please take some time and research this yourself, and don't take the word of a Pep Boys oil changer. :eyes:

And if you can dispute any of the facts that I've introduced into the dialog, please do so

[wtmusic]

11. The "Pep Boys oil changer" worked at the GM tech center

in Burbank where 20 or so of the Equinoxes are parked right now. He told me they are pressurized to 700 bar. Ironically, it was the last home of the EV1s.

And I can tell you have no concept of the energy contained in a 10-ft long canister pressurized to 10,000 PSI (80 times the pressure of the propane in propane-powered vehicles). When one explodes, whether "designed to split" or not, it will take out windows for blocks around. But I guess with all the propaganda coming out of the Fuel Cell Initiative a few people will have to be blown into teeny tiny bits before word gets around.

[Greyskye]

12. Which means what, exactly?

An extra $5/hour?

I can see that you have your mind made up. I'm not a Hydrogen cell proponent by any stretch of the imagination - the infrastructure problems are huge.

Look to Occam's Razor if nothing else. Do you honestly believe that any automobile manufacturers would open themselves up to the liability which would fall upon them if a hydrogen cell exploded in an accident, "taking out windows for blocks around"? Because if you do, man do I ever have some investment opportunities for you! :rofl:

I'm not sure what the bug up your ass is about hydrogen vehicles, but ignoring simple chemistry as well as simple logic isn't helping you to make your case. :shrug:

[wtmusic]

16. I have no idea what you're talking about.

The man I talked to drove up in the Equinox. He had some kind of GM shirt on and I talked with him for several minutes, and he gave me detailed specs on them. We were 1/2 mile away from the GM service center where the Equinoxes are parked so I knew he worked there.

You're right, I do have my mind pretty much made up on the impracticality and the dangers of hydrogen, and a lot of it comes from Joe Romm's book "The Hype About Hydrogen". It's a smokescreen to keep you buying gasoline for another ten years instead of electric cars.

Valence Electronics has created a video where they demonstrate safe Li-Ion battery technology by shooting a rifle slug through a battery. It's very clear and convincing. Your simple logic is obviously at odds with mine, but there are two things I don't expect anytime soon:

* The ability to lease any hydrogen vehicle without signing a liability waiver
* A video of anyone shooting a rifle slug through a topped off hydrogen tank

[Greyskye]

19. So your knowledge is based on "several minutes" conversation?

Did the GM Tech tell you that if the tank ruptured it would blow out windows for blocks? Or is that your assumption?

Why do you assume that I'm pro-hydrogen and anti-electric? I'm pro anything that makes an incremental difference in solving our energy needs in as non-destructive fashion as possible. As I've stated earlier, I don't feel that hydrogen vehicles are currently feasible due to lack of infrastructure.

We own a hybrid right now, and I'm actively researching a number of electric vehicles - the one I'm most interested in this as a commuter vehicle: http://www.electricmotorsport.com/store/ems_electric_motorcycle_gpr-s.php">A fully electric motorcycle. I'm also watching the Carver/VentureOne and Aptera vehicles with a lot of interest.

So you're barking up the wrong tree with me. I'm no hydrogen advocate, I just don't care to have wild hyperbole being thrown around without it being disputed.

[kristopher]

13. This is a moot point you're discussing.

compressed H is not a good deal when it comes to energy economics. The pressurization, storage and distribution infrastructure costs are prohibitive when compared to battery electric. It really isn't even a contest; H is out and batteries are in.

I'd bet this is a dream car that has been on the drawing board and Honda is engaging in an internal reward of fulfilling one of their engineering team's dream while getting a lot of good press in the process. Fits right in with them.

For example, their top motorcycle designer leads a small group coast to coast in the US each year as a test of their new models. The tests themselves are secondary, the engineer told me, to the feedback he gets from talking to people along the way; feed back he depended on for designing the next model.

[Greyskye]

14. It's doubly moot.

And I agree with you completely. I just couldn't let that kind of misinformation stand.

The other fact that the poster is missing is that the Shuttle uses liquid hydrogen, not compressed hydrogen gas. I thought the lack of a cryogenic cooling system was a giveaway, but I guess not. :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage
Hydrocarbons are stored extensively at the point of use, be it in the gasoline tanks of automobiles or propane tanks hung on the side of barbecue grills. Hydrogen, in comparison, is quite difficult to store or transport with current technology. Hydrogen gas has good energy density by weight, but poor energy density by volume versus hydrocarbons, hence it requires a larger tank to store. A large hydrogen tank will be heavier than the small hydrocarbon tank used to store the same amount of energy, all other factors remaining equal. Increasing gas pressure would improve the energy density by volume, making for smaller, but not lighter container tanks (see pressure vessel). Compressing a gas will require energy to power the compressor. Higher compression will mean more energy lost to the compression step.

Alternatively, higher volumetric energy density liquid hydrogen may be used (as in the Space Shuttle). However liquid hydrogen requires cryogenic storage and boils around 20.268 K (–252.882 °C or -423.188 °F). Hence, its liquefaction imposes a large energy loss (as energy is needed cool it down to that temperature). The tanks must also be well insulated to prevent boil off. Insulation for liquid hydrogen tanks is usually expensive and delicate. Assuming all of that is solvable, the density problem remains. Liquid hydrogen has worse energy density by volume than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline by approximately a factor of four. This highlights the density problem for pure hydrogen: there is actually about 64% more hydrogen in a liter of gasoline (116 grams hydrogen) than there is in a liter of pure liquid hydrogen (71 grams hydrogen). The carbon in the gasoline also contributes to the energy of combustion.

[wtmusic]

15. Hydrogen compressed to 700 bar is essentially a liquid

It's density is a little over half of cryogenically-cooled liquid hydrogen. Above about 900 bar the energy/mass ratio required for compression increases exponentially so the juice ain't worth the squeeze (also from the "oil changer").

The only misinfornation here is your assertion that hydrogen at 700 bar, under far more pressure than the liquid hydrogen of the space shuttle, is not explosive.

[Greyskye]

20. You are asserting that hydrogen vehicles are likely to explode

Please provide any links to back up your claim. You have repeatedly ignored all claims to the contrary, while posting YouTube videos and pictures of the Challenger tragedy as your 'proof'.

Good night.

[wtmusic]

22. Well we don't know, now do we?

You're providing a "tech" paper from a biased source, no video or photographs, no test data, with anecdotal and/or hypothetical conclusions. I'm providing video of less flammable gas, at a fraction of the pressure, in tanks of far smaller capacity exploding like a bomb (incidentally, the propane tanks contain not an ounce of oxygen within). I would post video of these smaller cylinders being launched like missiles but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't do any good.

It would be a simple matter for GM to post video of their ultra-safe cylinder being punctured in a crash situation. Why don't they? In the meantime, I'll let someone else be their guinea pig, thanks.

[Greyskye]

24. Yes, we DO know.

Good grief.

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=482


http://evworld.com/library/Swainh2vgasVideo.pdf

On a dark Florida night in 2001 an unusual and revealing experiment took place. Dr. Michael Swain with the University of Miami at Coral Gables attempted to simulate two car fires, one created by a 1/16th inch puncture in a gasoline fuel line, the other by a leaking hydrogen connector. He video taped the experiment to document what would happen if the leaks ignited. As the photos below clearly demonstrate, consumer fears about hydrogen as a transportation fuel would seem to be pretty much unfounded.

While the gasoline-fed fire eventually consumed the second test vehicle, leaving it a smoldering heap of charred steel and melted glass, the hydrogen fire was over in less than two minutes and left the hydrogen-tank equipped test car virtually undamaged. In fact, the heat inside the car never got above 67 degrees.

Dr. Swain points out in Fuel Leak Simulation that while the gasoline fire started as the result of a simple, small hole in the fuel line, for the hydrogen fire to occur, it would have taken the catastrophic failure of four separate safety systems, all at the same time, a highly unlikely occurrence.

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-distribution/truck-carrying-compressed-hydrogen-crashes-no-explosion/
Truck Carrying Compressed Hydrogen Crashes, No Explosion
To those people who think a large semi tractor trailer truck carrying compressed hydrogen would be akin to the Hindenburg if it were ever in a crash, here is the counterpoint to the Hindenburg fallacy.

A large truck this week carrying 25,000 lbs. of compressed hydrogen gas, did in fact, cross a couple of lanes and crash. The crash caused by a sleepy driver in Middlebury, Connecticut, however resulted in no explosion.

This is not to say that hydrogen gas is completely safe, because it isn’t. It is a flammable fuel and needs to be handled with care. But, hydrogen is no more dangerous than many other fuels that travel our highways and byways.

For instance, when a truck carrying gasoline gets in a crash, the fuel may explode upon impact, or more likely spread about all over the ground. If this liquid gasoline is ignited the flames stay close to the ground where people are.

By contrast, hydrogen is the lightest element in the universe. So, when it escapes its container it goes up. If hydrogen catches fire it also burns upwards. The truck that crashed this week, was very well constructed to handle impacts.

The hydrogen that did escape after the crash was from a pinhole leak at the valve of one of the canisters. The rest of the canisters suffered no leakage.

[wtmusic]

25. Doesn't anything strike you as odd about this experiment?

Like the fact that the hydrogen leak is pointing straight up at the rear of the vehicle, while the gasoline fire is underneath? That only a pinhole leak is considered, and no pressure is given for the hydrogen tank?

As EVWorld admits, "Yet to be tested is what happens in a typical collision. Will the hydrogen tank(s) explode?"

Re: your second link, I don't see the value of a another biased source like HydrogenCarsNow providing an example of a hydrogen truck not exploding, especially with astute observations like, "If hydrogen catches fire it also burns upwards." (does gasoline burn downwards?).:crazy:

This example from an NTSB report of the crash of a hydrogen-carrying tractor-trailer sheds a little more light on the potential of an exploding cylinder (these cylinders were charged at 1/4 the pressure of the Equinox):

"About 3:35 p.m., the chief of the Tulsa hazardous materials team formally assumed command of the incident, after he and the director had agreed on how to evacuate personnel and equipment to a safer distance. They agreed to use the Bartlesville pumper truck and unmanned ground monitors to continue cooling operations while personnel left the area. The chief then directed the firefighters to move away from the scene. He proceeded to develop an action plan that included moving the fire suppression personnel across the highway and setting up water shuttles and unmanned monitors. He established a hot zone perimeter of 300 to 600 feet, a warm zone perimeter of 600 to 900 feet, and a cold zoneî perimeter of 1,500 feet. The Tulsa hazardous materials team sent a reconnaissance team in to survey the condition of the valves on the cylinders and monitored the temperature of the cylinders."

http://www.ntsb.gov%2Fpublictn%2F2002%2FHZM0202.pdf&ei=eh9hSP6aEpGqsAOuxbHOAw&usg=AFQjCNG1v6QyYhfq9A5uE7Ft3r0e_Ov5vA&sig2=MYC4sxG2u0IflaFX04Ul6A

[Greyskye]

26. Dead link.

Address Not Found

Firefox can't find the server at www.ntsb.gov%2fpublictn%2f2002%2fhzm0202.pdf&ei=eh9hsp6aepgqsaouxbhoaw&usg=afqjcng1v6qyyhfq9a5ue7ft3r0e_ov5va&sig2=myc4sxg2u0iflafx04ul6a.

[wtmusic]

27. Oops. Try this:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Fpublictn%2F2002%2FHZM0202.pdf&ei=eh9hSP6aEpGqsAOuxbHOAw&usg=AFQjCNG1v6QyYhfq9A5uE7Ft3r0e_Ov5vA&sig2=MYC4sxG2u0IflaFX04Ul6A

[Greyskye]

31. Thank you for posting that NTSB accident report

As it confirms everything that I have been saying throughout this thread. :thumbsup:

Summary: A semi truck hauling cylinders of compressed hydrogen gas was in a major multi-vehicle accident. Hydrogen gas was released, and ignited. There was no explosion. The other vehicle involved was destroyed by the resultant gasoline fire.

About 2:15 p.m., central daylight time, on May 1, 2001, a northbound tractor, in
combination with a semitrailer that had horizontally mounted cylinders filled with
compressed hydrogen, which is a flammable gas, struck a northbound pickup truck that
had veered in front of the tractor-semitrailer on U.S. Highway 75, 2 miles south of
Ramona, Oklahoma. According to witnesses, the tractor-semitrailer then went out of
control and overturned while continuing along the highway. It went off the road to the east
and traveled 300 more feet before it stopped. During the process, some of the cylinders,
valves, piping, and fittings at the rear of the semitrailer were damaged and released
hydrogen. The hydrogen ignited and burned the rear of the semitrailer. In the meantime,
the pickup truck had also run off the road. The pickup truck's fuel line ruptured, resulting
in the truck being destroyed by fire.

The valves at the rear of the tanker truck were what sustained damage in the accident, where the hydrogen leak occurred, and where the fire was. See page #10, figures 4a and 4b.

Here are the recommendations of this report, IN FULL:

To the Research and Special Programs Administration:
Modify 49 Code of Federal Regulations 173.301 to clearly require that
valves, piping, and fittings for cylinders that are horizontally mounted and
used to transport hazardous materials are protected from multidirectional
forces that are likely to occur during accidents, including rollovers.
(H-02-23)

Require that cylinders that transport hazardous materials and are
horizontally mounted on a semitrailer be protected from impact with the
roadway or terrain to reduce the likelihood of their being fractured and
ejected during a rollover accident. (H-02-24)

Revise the information about hydrogen in the North American Emergency
Response Guidebook so that it specifically identifies the unique chemical
and flammability properties of hydrogen. (H-02-25)

The NTSB evidently disagrees with you on the dangers that hydrogen containment pose.

And the safety precautions that you quoted the first responders taking sound perfectly reasonable to me. Always assume the worst possible outcome when peoples lives are at stake in a situation like this.

Again, thank you for proving my points for me. I couldn't have done a better job myself. :thumbsup:

[wtmusic]

33. Whatever.

You're getting a little hysterical/irrational now, so I will sign off while noting that nowhere have you addressed a structural failure at the extreme pressures being used by the Equinox, except to regurgitate the manufacturer's marketing lit sans data.

Hopefully when someone is stupid enough to blow themselves up in one there won't be anyone else within 300 ft.

:hi:

[Greyskye]

34. I'm the one being 'hysterical/irrational'?

You ask for data which I provide. You then ignore it.

You post an NTSB report which supports all of my assertions. You ignore it.

You post a picture of the Challenger blowing up as 'proof' of the dangers of a hydrogen fueled vehicle. When shown the multitude of differences between that and a hydrogen car, you ignore it. etc.

And I'm the 'hysterical/irrational' one?

[Greyskye]

32. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Quote:

I don't see the value of a another biased source like HydrogenCarsNow providing an example of a hydrogen truck not exploding, especially with astute observations like, "If hydrogen catches fire it also burns upwards." (does gasoline burn downwards?)

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Gasoline is a liquid. Liquids pool on the ground. This provides a fuel point source for a fire - which can spread out horizontally along the ground, potentially igniting anything nearby. Hydrogen does not pool on the ground, it rises. If the gas does ignite, it does so in a much more controlled fashion, as illustrated by the photo sequence I provided earlier. This is not rocket science here.

[Greyskye]

35. I guess the U.S. Government is in bed with the hydrogen lobby as well

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/hydrogen_storage.html
Carbon fiber-reinforced 5000-psi and 10,000-psi compressed hydrogen gas tanks are under development by Quantum Technologies and others. Such tanks are already in use in prototype hydrogen-powered vehicles. The inner liner of the tank is a high molecular weight polymer that serves as a hydrogen gas permeation barrier. A carbon fiber-epoxy resin composite shell is placed over the liner and constitutes the gas pressure load-bearing component of the tank. Finally, an outer shell is placed on the tank for impact and damage resistance. The pressure regulator for the 10,000-psi tank is located in the interior of the tank. There is also an in-tank gas temperature sensor to monitor the tank temperature during the gas filling process when heating of the tank occurs.

The driving range of fuel cell vehicles with compressed hydrogen tanks depends, of course, on vehicle type, design and the amount and pressure of stored hydrogen. By increasing the amount and pressure of hydrogen, a greater driving range can be achieved but at the expense of cost and valuable space within the vehicle. Volumetric capacity, high pressure and cost are thus key challenges for compressed hydrogen tanks. Refueling times, compression energy penalties and heat management requirements during compression also need to be considered as the mass and pressure of on-board hydrogen are increased.

Issues with compressed hydrogen gas tanks revolve around high pressure, weight, volume, conformability and cost. The cost of high-pressure compressed gas tanks is essentially dictated by the cost of the carbon fiber that must be used for light-weight structural reinforcement. Efforts are underway to identify lower-cost carbon fiber that can meet the required high pressure and safety specifications for hydrogen gas tanks. However, lower-cost carbon fibers must still be capable of meeting tank thickness constraints in order to help meet volumetric capacity targets. Thus lowering cost without compromising weight and volume is a key challenge.

Two approaches are being pursued to increase the gravimetric and volumetric storage capacities of compressed gas tanks from their current levels. The first approach involves cryo-compressed tanks. This is based on the fact that, at fixed pressure and volume, gas tank volumetric capacity increases as the tank temperature decreases. Thus, by cooling a tank from room temperature to liquid nitrogen temperature (77°K), its volumetric capacity will increase by a factor of four, although system volumetric capacity will be less than this due to the increased volume required for the cooling system.

The second approach involves the development of conformable tanks. Present liquid gasoline tanks in vehicles are highly conformable in order to take maximum advantage of available vehicle space. Concepts for conformable tank structures are based on the location of structural supporting walls. Internal cellular-type load bearing structures may also be a possibility for greater degrees of conformability.

Compressed hydrogen tanks <5000 psi (~35 MPa) and 10,000 psi (~70 MPa)> have been certified worldwide according to ISO 11439 (Europe), NGV-2 (U.S.), and Reijikijun Betten (Iceland) standards and approved by TUV (Germany) and The High-Pressure Gas Safety Institute of Japan (KHK). Tanks have been demonstrated in several prototype fuel cell vehicles and are commercially available. Composite, 10,000-psi tanks have demonstrated a 2.35 safety factor (23,500 psi burst pressure) as required by the European Integrated Hydrogen Project specifications. Learn more about high-pressure hydrogen tank testing.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/hydrogen_storage_testing.html
For example, during testing tanks are subjected to more than twice the maximum pressure they experience under normal service conditions to ensure they do not fail. At the end of life they are tested to approximately twice their working pressure, according to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Journal 2579. In addition, hydrogen filling stations have numerous redundant overpressure protection systems so that it is not possible to over-pressurize a vehicle fuel system. Worldwide, it has been estimated that millions of high-pressure composite tanks are in use in various commercial and industrial applications, and the overall safety record of these tanks has been excellent.
Testing

To further ensure safety, these tanks undergo cycling tests in which they are pressurized and depressurized many more times than they would be during their lifetime on a vehicle. For example, advanced carbon-composite tanks have been cycled more than 500,000 times to maximum operating pressure without leaking, whereas a tank on a vehicle filled once a week for 20 years undergoes slightly more than 1,000 cycles. Tanks are exposed to pressures above normal to simulate fault management. The tanks are also dropped 6 feet when empty, shot with a rifle, burned, and exposed to acids, salts, and other road hazards to validate that they are safe even under severe or unusual conditions.
Safety

In the unlikely case that an advanced composite tank leaks, it can be removed from service without incident. It is highly unlikely that these tanks will fail in a way that will directly endanger the occupants of a hydrogen-fueled vehicle. These tanks have remained intact in collisions and in vehicle fires, and, when tested after such events, have passed various pressure tests. (See Table 2). In case of vehicle fires or events in which fire from another vehicle may engulf the tank, the tank's pressure relief device is activated when the temperature of the tank exceeds a set point (typically 102°C/ ~216°F). When the pressure relief device is activated, the hydrogen gas in the tank is released in a safe manner. This safety procedure is validated through performance tests conducted in accordance with an existing standard (NGV2-2000).

But sure, go on believing your hysterical hyperbolic fantasies based on YouTube videos made by rednecks with death wishes. :eyes:

[Zachstar]

17. Piss off with your Challenger images! You need help!

Only a sick person in my view would use challenger in anything other than memorial. The images are these for us to remember (Like 9/11) Not to win a fucking argument!

GET HELP! Professional HELP!

[wtmusic]

18. You're right, I do need help.

There are weepy, sentimental posters here who drive me up a wall.

Any suggestions? :shrug:

[Zachstar]

21. Leave

[shagsak]

29. lol

[NNadir]

23. This is OT, but the guys with the propane tanks are real assholes.

They're lucky they didn't qualify for Darwin Awards.

[wtmusic]

28. The cast of "Deliverance" exploring flammable substances

but all in the name of science :D

[NNadir]

30. For the record though, I have endorsed a type of fluid fuel that is a gas at atmospheric

pressure and temperature. This is not quite the same as endorsing the car culture, but if we must have cars and trucks, it's better than any other alternative. Here just one of many diaries I've written on the topic.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/16/171510/858

DME is not really comparable to hydrogen, since it's critical temperature is higher than the normal boiling point of water, and thus it is accessible in liquid form at moderate pressures.

It can be made by hydrogenation of carbon dioxide, and thus is available wherever hydrogen is available.

It has none of the viscosity problems of hydrogen, and, compared to propane, with which it is very similar, it has an extremely short atmospheric half-life, on the order of a few days.

I would like to see the entry of DME as a diesel fuel begin with trains.

China and Japan are working quite actively on the scale up of this fuel, regrettably using coal as a source material.

[hunter]

36. Ordinary gas cylinders are quite scary enough.

"People were running around everywhere. And then the first explosion came.

"It was like somebody pushes you or hits you in the face very hard with a warm pillow.

"The gas cylinders were really big – as big as a person. They started to explode and fly through the air – it was like the head came off the tops of the cylinders and they flew through the air like rockets."

"People in the front line they were too close. It started to explode and they just ran.

"It was like a war movie.

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2007/nov/16/truck-driver-dies-gas-bottle-explosion/?print

Not even 700 bar... almost anything can happen at those higher pressures, and flimsy sheet metal is not going to hold it back.

:scared:

If by some kind engineering magic that's not a problem, a lot of energy would be wasted producing, transporting, and compressing hydrogen for these kinds of vehicles.

[Greyskye]

37. Please see post #35 (n/t)