Combined Gasoline/Hydrogen Fuel Station Opens 551
98neon writes "This story from Yahoo! News tells of a Shell hydrogen refilling station that has opened in Washington D.C. Six minivans will be the only vehicles refuelling anytime soon. Apparently some of the neighbors are concerned about having a large tank of hydrogen near their homes. Oh come on, what is there to worry about?"
Hindenburg (Score:5, Informative)
Hydrogen Power. (Score:5, Informative)
Hindenburg reference (Score:5, Informative)
From the wiki link
Re:Hindenburg (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hydrogen Power. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hindenburg (Score:5, Informative)
from http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/h/
6 minutes on slashdot..... (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the last GOOD copy that I found in the history-- Hindenberg disaster [wikipedia.org], not that the majority of you don't know what it is anyways.
Re:Hindenburg (Score:3, Informative)
If the blimp had exploded no one would have survived.
Scientific Illiteracy (Score:1, Informative)
Given the choice, this Anonymous Coward would surely choose to be standing in proximity to a hydrogen explosion than a similar quantity of gasoline.
Re:Oh so scary (Score:5, Informative)
The additive MTBE is a classic example of gasoline additive gone bad. It is designed to oxygenate gasoline and make it burn cleaner to improve air quality. Unfortunately its been classified as a carcinogen and its started showing up in ground water and drinking water across the country (drinking water for 15 million in one study I saw). In very small quantities it makes water undrinkable due to its nasty turpentine odor and taste and of course it may cause cancer. It was a key reason the Bush administration's energy bill lost because it was going to exempt the oil companies from liability for the clean up and apparently in New England in particular there is a massive cleanup problem, so moderate Republican senators from New England voted against it over MTBE liability alone. Of course I think Congress mandated it in the first place, to improve air quality, so they are equally to blame.
"What is there to worry about?" (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't the hydrogen that started that fire, and it's nowhere near as dangerous as the article summary is implying it is.
Of course, this is Slashdot. Learning from history isn't nearly as much fun as repeating its mistakes.
Re:Hydrogen Power. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, most hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels at this point, and that's likely to be the main method in the future when the Bush Administration's proposed energy plan is put in place (which now seems assured). There are other hydrogen production methods on the horizon that may eventually replace both methods, but they likely won't be scalable for decades. (I'm referring to using nanotubes and/or bioengineering here.)
Either way, whether the fuel is hydrogen, or gas/diesel, a fuel for vehicles will always be less efficient than electricity coming from a modern power plant. The _point_ however, is to have a fuel _for vehicles_. Until battery technology becomes vastly better than what we have now, that's what we're left with.
Also, the advantage of hydrogen over gas/diesel that you're leaving out is that either way, with the less efficient fuel of hydrogen or gas/diesel, with hydrogen, at least, the exhaust of a hydrogen fuel cell (as opposed to burning hydrogen in an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) is _water vapour_. That changes the equation somewhat.
The big problem? Efficiency. Hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen ICEs aren't anywhere near as efficient as gas/diesel engines at this point. When you read articles on these things (I do, and I sometimes write about them for an energy industry publication), you'll often see things like "will eventually be up to x% more efficient than". Lots of phrases like "is hoped to be," and "could be" are generally used. _Noone_ has yet produced a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE that produces both the same amount of power, or has the same range, as an equivalent gas or diesel engine. Mazda's hydrogen-burning (not fuel cell) version of their Renesis rotary engine produces about half the power of its gasoline version. Ugh. I've yet to get any real information on the exhaust of a hydrogen ICE; writers always seem to assume it's the same exhaust as a fuel cell (which is just water vapour), but I've gotten some vague information recently that leads me to believe otherwise. Noone's talking, though, even when I ask. It seems obvious to me that the Hydrogen Economy being pushed by Bush is a smokescreen to sell more fossil fuels, while trying to look good to the greens.
I see the "Hydrogen Economy" for vehicles as a stepping stone to an electric vehicle era. Unfortunately for us, hydrogen vehicles won't be practical for awhile yet (10 years, or more, due to both technology and _infrastructure_), so until then, I'm a big proponent of biodiesel, where appropriate. Combine that with the lower-sulfur diesel that's mandated by 2006 or 2007, and you'll be reducing emissions enormously. Now we just need some automaker other than VW to make decent diesel engines for passenger vehicles. Pretty rare, still, and many of VW's best engines aren't even available in the US, apparently due to the crappy qualify of diesel sold here. I'd love to have a Jetta with the Passat's 2.0L TDI engine. Too bad the Jetta is about to become boring with the new body style coming next year. *sigh*
Re:Informative Wiki (Score:1, Informative)
What the fuck is with it with some of the people who read
Childish fucks.
People who desire to be bullies, were it not for any decent physical, intellectual and conversational abilities. No one in real life could possibly take bullying with these people seriously, so they need out on easy web targets to prove their power.
Mother fucking childish fucks.
Re:first/second/third/15th post! (Score:3, Informative)
Look for example, at a launching shuttle. Ignore the big flame from the boosters, and look at the fainter flame from around the SSMEs. You'll notice that it's not only visible, but that it contains both the faint blue and brigher red/orange, especially downstream after the mach triangle.
http://www.epower-propulsion.com/epower/gallery
Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman? (Score:1, Informative)
Why not just cut out the middle man and go direct to electric power? (...) Electric energy could go directly from a Nuclear/Solar/Wind plant into a battery/capacitor bank
Hint: Batteries are grossly inefficient beasts.
It takes shitloads of energy to produce one, they have an extremely short lifespan and need to be processed at the end, since they're full of heavy metals and cautic chemicals.
During this short lifespan, they have a pathetic power/weight ratio and an effeciency (1.6 joule in = 1 joule out)
but I just don't understand why so little research on batteries - They're an inherently inefficient design. Get over it. Lots of effort required with meagre returns here...
and electric motor technology - It's a pretty mature technology now. The real problem is the electric suppy, here!
Re:Pah (Score:3, Informative)
In regards to 2, from my days in chem labs, hydrogen burned with a pale blue flame, not a "clear" flame, whatever that is. The use of dowel rods and broom handles to find leaks in high preasure lines has nothing to do with flames. It has to do with the fact that a pin hole leak in a very high preasure line cuts the soft wood. They used them to detect steam leaks at the coal fired power plant where my father worked.
Re:Pah (Score:3, Informative)
Assuredly there are numerous valves designed to shut things down if any rapid pressure changes are encountered
Re:Pah (Score:3, Informative)
"Hydrogen burns"
1. Of course hydrogen burns. That's a given. The fact is also, however, that it burns in very non-stochaistic ratios with air, and detonates far more readily (due to greater shocks, partially due to its higher heat of combusion).
"It is used to perform explosions in rockets"
2. If by "explosions", you mean the technical term "detonation", no, it doesn't. Rockets are deflagrations.
"scramjets, etc, through the mixing of pure hydrogen with pure oxygen"
3. False. Scramjets use ordinary air burned with hydrogen.
"By your own statements, the Hindenberg would have caused a crater the size of Texas"
4. Where on Earth are you getting this from? You only would have a large explosion from the Hindenberg if it were not a pure hydrogen envelope, but were either an already mixed hydrogen/air explosion, or a very high pressure hydrogen envelope escaping rapidly through a small leak (encouraging rapid mixing). Neither of these were the case.
Re:Pah (Score:3, Informative)
One Mole of H2 has much less exothermic energy than one Mole of methane or any other hydrocarbon compound. OBTW that big fire ball of the Hindenberg was caused by Aluminum pigment in the Paint. Aluminum powder is used in making thermite, and thermite is used to burn through just about anything. I'd worry more about the pressure bottle physicaly bursting sharpnel ect. more than what's in the bottle.
Re:Hindenburg (Score:3, Informative)
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
There is (Score:3, Informative)
The way you "protect" against Propane (or any hydrocarbon) is the same as you protect against Hydrogen. Yes, there are minor differences but both substances are in Group B according to the hazardous locations setforth by the National Electric Code. (fyi, this is Class 1, Div 1 stuff that we all know if you have ever stepped foot in a plant of anykind).
A good reference for this is a book published by Magnetrol International [magnetrol.com] called "Understanding Hazardous Locations". It details everything you ever wanted to know about hazardous/explosive materials and how we deal with them.
Re:Hindenburg reference (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pah (Score:2, Informative)
2. Hydrogen does not stop burning with a blue flame just because it is outdoors, or daytime. It has the same combustion characteristics no matter when or where. I agree that it is harder to see a flame in bright daylight than in the dark, but that applies to any flame, and still doesn't change the color of the flame.
Hydrogen burns. It burns readily and hot, I admit, but it is no more dangerous than handling natural gas or LPG (Liquified Petrolium Gas). Look up the Piper Alpha disaster. LPG has a LOT of energy. Gasoline has a much higher energy density than compressed hydrogen, and is a little harder to ignite, but hydrogen fires go straight up, where gasoline fires spread as the fuel seeks the lowest point. That is why you see the retaining dikes around the big above ground storage tanks. This is to keep the fuel confined in case of a spill or fire.
Re:Pah (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells
The 2 main sources are oil and natural gas (which is itself a form of oil, just with short chains). Only 4% is made from water electrolysis - and since most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels....
So, once again, let me repeat:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
Re:Right but (Score:3, Informative)
1) It was airborn and easily vented in huge quantities should the whole fragile structure of the balloon rupture (similar to how it did). People did survive, but when the balloon ruptured, it opened gaps larger than would happen in surface-based tanks. It was unlikely the balloon was under as much pressure as surface tanks would be either.
2) The outer layer of the zeplin was extremely poorly designed, to the point that (if my info is correct), it was a latent form of Thermite, a highly flamable substance.
Put those two together and that aircraft was a disaster waiting to happen. Besides, as I recall, it was something like static discharge or lightning that touched off the explosion, and even then it wasn't really an explosion but more of a fast intense burn, starting on the skin of the balloon and using what hydrogen didn't escape to further fuel the fire.
Both those conditions make the comparison between the Hindenburg and a hydrogen fuel station a far reach for similarity.
TWENTY HYDROGEN MYTHS (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, having pressurized hydrogen in your car is _NOT_ what the latest technology advancements are about. It's about hydrogen cells [about.com]. And nanotechnology provides a way of storing hydrogen in solid media [fuelcellsworks.com] under low pressures.
For more info, check out nanoapex news [nanoapex.com] and search the topic "nanoenergy".
(Note to editors:
Do NOT, under ANY circumstances, moderate this post as 'insightful'!)
Re:Right but (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder if it's as idiot proof as gasoline [big-boys.com], though...
H2 is safer than Gasoline (Score:1, Informative)
Silly rabbit, H2 is safer than Gas.
http://www.ocees.com/mainpages/Hydrogen.html [ocees.com]
Re:Hydrogen won't achieve popularity... (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. According to this Minnesota Business Journal article [bizjournals.com]:
"the total economic impact of the Minnesota ethanol industry was estimated at $588 million in 2002. In comparison, the state's ethanol subsidy for the year was $33.7 million that means the economic impact was 17 times the subsidy payment."
And remember, you're talking about ethanol as opposed to gasoline, which we get from terrorist nations, which costs over twice as much as E85 fuels (E85 sells for $0.90/gallon) and pollutes substantially more.
Wrong. Even in 1988 energy generated by the ethanol exceeded energy inputs by 16% [mcgill.ca]. Nowadays that number is closer to 34% [journeytoforever.org], according to a USDA study.