woodieallen
Established Member
Never, ever forget that lucid thought is the rhetoric of so many. You have highlighted the deficit in their 'argument'.
Petrol Stations
- Thread starter Vulcan
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
woodieallen
Established Member
Watch Idiocracy. It's where we are heading, I reckon
Heading ?
We've been there for a while methinks.
It's now a matter of to what depth we descend.
Agent_zed
Established Member
Not unless you painted your car with aluminium compounds like the hindenburg, which basically created rocket fuel, and even then it was more incendiary than explosive.That would go like a bomb!
According to this https://www.world-energy.org/article/3409.html Hydrogen fuel is as safe, if not safer, than petrol. We've just got used to carrying 50ltrs of highly flammable liquid around with us as long as it's called petrol.
Agent_zed
Established Member
Sadly it does happen in the real world but mostly because of greed or ignorance. CFCS, HCFCs, Acid rain from coal fired power stations, fertilizer run off, carrying 10x the weight of a bar of soap because liquid soap is 'better', production of thousands of tons of pumpkins each year for people to cut a funny face in and leave to rot on their doorstep, the whole petrochemical industry that apparently knew of the climate change issue for decades etc etc.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
It's not a "deficit" in the argument it is well known and acknowledged - except by those who having been keeping up!
An enormous problem but not insoluble in theory at least - 200 years ago we all lived close to net zero.
I haven't checked with Mr Trump but I imagine if you wash in petrol it kills corona virus
Is there a viable alternative to Hydrogen for replacing fossil fuels in aircraft ?
I appreciate you can argue about battery versus fuel cell for cars, but for other applications hydrogen is much more suitable.
Even if we look at cars, it seems
to me that the technology is already well proven. Only real obstacles are the production of the Hydrogen itself, and the rare materials used in the fuel cell.
The first can be overcome by the use of green energy, from solar or wind etc.
As to the second, well the battery advocates are always telling us how some new technology will emerge to make batteries much better. Why should that not equally be the case for fuel cells. Little incentive to do this up to now because of limited demand, but that could well change. Also the amounts of rare materials in a fuel cell are far less than those in EV batteries.
As for distribution I have to take issue with the lady on that. Quite a few petrol stations sell LPG. A holding tank, pipework and a pump, all relatively simple. Only difference is the much higher pressure involved, that makes little difference to the bones of actually installing it.
Still in my opinion much easier, and far less disruptive, to install Hydrogen pumps on existing forecourts than to be digging up virtually every road in the country to install charging points. Not to mention the environmental impact or carbon footprint involved in the mining of the source materials, and production of the tens of thousands of miles of cable required, the charging points themselves and their subsequent maintenance.
I appreciate you can argue about battery versus fuel cell for cars, but for other applications hydrogen is much more suitable.
Even if we look at cars, it seems
to me that the technology is already well proven. Only real obstacles are the production of the Hydrogen itself, and the rare materials used in the fuel cell.
The first can be overcome by the use of green energy, from solar or wind etc.
As to the second, well the battery advocates are always telling us how some new technology will emerge to make batteries much better. Why should that not equally be the case for fuel cells. Little incentive to do this up to now because of limited demand, but that could well change. Also the amounts of rare materials in a fuel cell are far less than those in EV batteries.
As for distribution I have to take issue with the lady on that. Quite a few petrol stations sell LPG. A holding tank, pipework and a pump, all relatively simple. Only difference is the much higher pressure involved, that makes little difference to the bones of actually installing it.
Still in my opinion much easier, and far less disruptive, to install Hydrogen pumps on existing forecourts than to be digging up virtually every road in the country to install charging points. Not to mention the environmental impact or carbon footprint involved in the mining of the source materials, and production of the tens of thousands of miles of cable required, the charging points themselves and their subsequent maintenance.
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
I worked for 30 years in the process control industry, selling control systems to oil & gas, electricity generation, chemicals, water treatment etc. The one thing new plant commissioning engineers ran a mile from was a new hydrogen plant.
The fundamental problem with hydrogen is that it is the smallest molecule in the periodic table. This means it is difficult to contain it within storage systems made of elements with larger molecules. Given this propensity for leakage, and the fact that it has a low energy density compared with other fuels like gasoline or LPG (so it needs to be stored at high pressure to make it economically viable), means there are fundamental problems with its manufacture, transportation and storage.
ChatGPT says it better than I can:
What are the problems with storing hydrogen?
Storing hydrogen presents several challenges due to its unique properties:
The fundamental problem with hydrogen is that it is the smallest molecule in the periodic table. This means it is difficult to contain it within storage systems made of elements with larger molecules. Given this propensity for leakage, and the fact that it has a low energy density compared with other fuels like gasoline or LPG (so it needs to be stored at high pressure to make it economically viable), means there are fundamental problems with its manufacture, transportation and storage.
ChatGPT says it better than I can:
What are the problems with storing hydrogen?
Storing hydrogen presents several challenges due to its unique properties:
- Low Energy Density: Hydrogen has a very low energy density by volume compared to traditional fuels like gasoline or natural gas. This means large volumes of hydrogen are needed to store significant amounts of energy.
- Storage Methods: There are several methods for storing hydrogen, each with its own challenges:
- High-pressure Tanks: Hydrogen can be stored in high-pressure tanks, typically at pressures of 350-700 bar. However, this requires strong and lightweight materials to withstand the pressure, which can be costly and challenging to manufacture.
- Cryogenic Storage: Hydrogen can be stored as a liquid at very low temperatures (below -253°C). This requires energy-intensive refrigeration and specialized tanks to maintain the low temperatures, which adds to the cost and complexity.
- Solid-state Storage: Storing hydrogen within materials like metal hydrides or carbon-based materials is another approach. However, achieving sufficient storage capacity and release rates remains a challenge.
- Safety: Hydrogen is highly flammable and can form explosive mixtures with air over a wide range of concentrations (4-75% hydrogen by volume). Ensuring safe storage requires rigorous safety measures, such as proper ventilation, leak detection systems, and explosion-proof infrastructure.
- Material Compatibility: Hydrogen can cause embrittlement in metals, potentially leading to mechanical failures over time. This requires materials that are resistant to hydrogen embrittlement or the use of protective coatings.
- Leakage: Hydrogen molecules are very small, which can lead to leakage through seals and fittings that might not be an issue with larger molecules. Minimizing leakage rates is crucial to prevent loss and ensure safety.
- Infrastructure Compatibility: Existing infrastructure, such as pipelines and storage facilities, is primarily designed for natural gas and might not be suitable for hydrogen without modifications. Retrofitting or building new infrastructure adds to the cost and complexity of hydrogen storage.
Agent_zed
Established Member
It's always interesting when we look at something new in isolation. If we compare it to the current offerings is it that much different?
Sure hydrogen is low energy density compared to other traditional fuels. But it is lighter than batteries, which are fast becoming a 'normal' energy source (although obv the stored energy is coming from somewhere else).
Storage, yes there are problems but is storage of petrol/diesel any better? Having thousands of small petrol/diesel storage tanks in petrol stations, farmyards, building yards and in peoples cars, lead to leakage and ground contamination and local air pollution. I wouldn't grow vegetables anywhere near a petrol station. Walk past a petrol station and they stink of fuel from people spilling it and I would assume some ventilation of the tanks (although don't know for sure). Grid electric has huge losses so is it any better than the losses from hydrogen leaking from storage?
Safety - petrol is highly flammable and hangs around in the air much longer than hydrogen. Petrol and diesel also burns to create smoke which can be inhaled.
By chance there is a story this morning about 10miles of road being contaminated with diesel from a leaking fuel tank https://metro.co.uk/2024/07/09/a24-...e-near-m25-21190335/?ico=top-stories_home_top. A problem you wouldn't have with hydrogen.
Methane is also highly flammable and numerous houses have blown up from gas leakage. It is also 20x more greenhouse potential than CO2. Hydrogen is pretty much null in terms of greenhouse potential although I did read a bit about it reacting with other compounds which would otherwise degrade methane so I do need to look into that further to be sure it is overall better.
Is hydrogen the future? I think it will be part of it. We also seem to focus on one solution fitting all situations but it seems to me that diversity is the best way forward. Solar, wind, nuclear, biogas, hydrogen etc will form a more robust and reliable system in years to come.
All significant issues, but dealt with in the vehicles themselves, so can equally be dealt with elsewhere.
At least in designing plant for a petrol station forecourt weight is not a consideration, nor does the installation have to be particularly compact. Relatively easy to make tanks for that pressure if weight is not a consideration, as it is to coat them appropriately to avoid embrittlement.
For the likes of the aircraft industry the manufacture of light tanks with sufficient strength is a headache, not so if installing a tank on a forecourt.
I think the greatest challenge would be to design forecourt equipment that was safe, and relatively low maintenance. Perhaps the greatest challenge would be to make it proof against the potential stupidity of some end users.
I would suggest that if we were to embrace the technology then these problems can be overcome, afterall there are already many hydrogen facilities in existence it's not new technology.
As far as I can see they don't blow up regularly.
What problems have been experienced with those hydrogen fuelling facilities that already exist? I haven't seen any reported.
At least in designing plant for a petrol station forecourt weight is not a consideration, nor does the installation have to be particularly compact. Relatively easy to make tanks for that pressure if weight is not a consideration, as it is to coat them appropriately to avoid embrittlement.
For the likes of the aircraft industry the manufacture of light tanks with sufficient strength is a headache, not so if installing a tank on a forecourt.
I think the greatest challenge would be to design forecourt equipment that was safe, and relatively low maintenance. Perhaps the greatest challenge would be to make it proof against the potential stupidity of some end users.
I would suggest that if we were to embrace the technology then these problems can be overcome, afterall there are already many hydrogen facilities in existence it's not new technology.
As far as I can see they don't blow up regularly.
What problems have been experienced with those hydrogen fuelling facilities that already exist? I haven't seen any reported.
Before anyone mentions the case of Wiesbaden, mentioned in the video, if you research you will find there is more to it than meets the eye.
Across Germany the trend would appear to be in quite the opposite direction, with operators expanding their fleets of hydrogen powered buses rather than getting rid of them.
On the face of it a classic case of the presenter cherry picking information to suit their argument, even though it is quite unrepresentative.
Makes you wonder what other parts of her presentation are similarly disingenuous.
Across Germany the trend would appear to be in quite the opposite direction, with operators expanding their fleets of hydrogen powered buses rather than getting rid of them.
On the face of it a classic case of the presenter cherry picking information to suit their argument, even though it is quite unrepresentative.
Makes you wonder what other parts of her presentation are similarly disingenuous.
Go by boat instead, at least it will keep floating with flat batteries unlike a plane that would be under the influence of gravity.
Airships maybe, helium rather than hydrogen.
I quite like the idea of helium filled airships. Everyone is in too much of a hurry these days 
But for long haul I think the idea is to develop engines to run directly on hydrogen gas, rather than fuel cells or batteries.
But for long haul I think the idea is to develop engines to run directly on hydrogen gas, rather than fuel cells or batteries.
Agent_zed
Established Member
There are more and investment and experiments with wind power in large ships again https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66543643
don't know how well it faired but seems like a good idea considering we explored most of the world with sailing ships.
I like the idea of airships. Can't use Helium though as already in short supply and is needed for MRI scanners. It's the only element light enough to escape earth atmosphere. Hydrogen is fine, the problem with the hindenburg was the coating on the outside made with aluminium and basically created rocket fuel when ignited.
The other side of this is increasing efficiency of vehicles. I've probably said it too many times but we need to change how we think of cars. They are currently getting bigger and bigger and more powerful. Most people drive a 1ton+ car to carry just themselves (<100kg in most cases). Do we really need a 300bhp car to get to work or nip to tesco? It's not quite there yet but things like the renault twizzy is going in the right direction. Small, light, cheap to run, easy to park.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Hindenburg, despite footage showing a massive fireball 200ft above ground, resulted in the death of 35, and the survival of 61 on board.
I believe (although may be wrong) (a) the ship floated to the ground rather than plummeted, and (b) the main accommodation was below the gas bags, and hydrogen being much lighter than air tended to burn upwards.
During the early stages of development, the capacity of technology to reliably contain several 1000 PSI of hydrogen pressure was rather lower than petrol at ambient pressure and temperature.
A little like the old VHS-Betamax contest - even though the latter may have been a technically superior system, it lost in the first round and never got to the second.
Years ago (I think it was Horizon) on the Beeb in pre colour tv days showed what happens if you rear end a petrol based engine compared to that of a hydrogen one. The petrol tank if it ruptured could spew contents all over the vehicle. Which it did on more than a few occasions - the most infamous being a Ford compact which had the fuel tank ideally placed (as designed) to rupture if car was rear ended. The driver of one received massive burns; Ford was sued and he received massive damages - and Ford was forced to redesign and protect the fuel tank arrangement.
The hydrogen "tank" in the test/demo was in the trunk/boot. The veihicle was deliberately hit/rear ended so as to rupture it. Slow motion video showed the gas burning up and away from the car entirley; nothing spewed over the vehicle at all. There was almost negligable burning of the car and what there was - scortch marks... - confined to actual trunk/boot damaged area. The actual passenger compartment was completely undamaged.
Hydrogen burns from the bottom of the gas cloud upwards, as the gas rises naturally being lighter than air.
Hindenburg disaster cleraly showed that too.
There are safe and well tested storage systems which can be used in vehicles. It's the cost of producing the gas and implementing readily available filling statitions that prevents it from replacing gasoline/petrol; plus behind the scenes pressures from the big oil barons who see it as threat to their monopoly and profits...
The hydrogen "tank" in the test/demo was in the trunk/boot. The veihicle was deliberately hit/rear ended so as to rupture it. Slow motion video showed the gas burning up and away from the car entirley; nothing spewed over the vehicle at all. There was almost negligable burning of the car and what there was - scortch marks... - confined to actual trunk/boot damaged area. The actual passenger compartment was completely undamaged.
Hydrogen burns from the bottom of the gas cloud upwards, as the gas rises naturally being lighter than air.
Hindenburg disaster cleraly showed that too.
There are safe and well tested storage systems which can be used in vehicles. It's the cost of producing the gas and implementing readily available filling statitions that prevents it from replacing gasoline/petrol; plus behind the scenes pressures from the big oil barons who see it as threat to their monopoly and profits...
While evidence shows that the Hindenburg's aft hydrogen cells did explode, the initial fire was not a hydrogen fire but was the fabric burning (accelerated by the type of dope used) which provided the catalyst for the hydrogen-fuelled conflaguration ...
Similar threads
