A jet flame is not what catastrophic failure of a high pressure hydrogen tank looks like. It would be an explosive blast and large fireball, as shown in this study.
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
USA Today says fuel cell vehicles are "Electrics Done Right"
- Thread starter Atebit
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles
A jet flame is not what catastrophic failure of a high pressure hydrogen tank looks like. It would be an explosive blast and large fireball, as shown in this study.
There are only two or three Hyundai dealerships in California that are authorized to sell the fuel cell vehicle because of their proximity to the hydrogen station. After the first delivery, I have heard nothing about it. I wonder how many cars have they delivered? Leafs, Volts, and Teslas are everywhere in Southern California. Fuel cells are just a lot of talk.
I wonder, too, if there's a bunch of influence peddling going on by those who would profit from producing and deploying hydrogen nationwide. Even though there are some hydrogen facilities out there now, if the majority of U.S. vehicles were to magically evolve into fool cell vehicles, we're basically talking a new, untapped energy segment.
caddieo
Member
Nothing new. Past put-downs of EV's have been critical of the CO2 footprint of electricity production while ignoring the CO2 footprint of gas and oil refining.
There is no such thing as HFCV price parity. You can only lease them, you can only get them in limited locations, and they are produced in limited numbers, which means that the pricing bears no relation to reality.
"Adequately powerful"? So's the Prius. Adequate for me, but it were adequate for 99% of the market it'd be the top selling car in the USA.
Last edited:
adiggs
Well-Known Member
This reality has caused me to begin answering the inevitable charging time question something like this:
"there's really 2 answers to the question you're asking. The question you think you're asking is that it would take about 5 hours assuming that I've driven my Roadster down to roughly empty, and am charging in my garage, and I'm waiting on the charge to complete before driving again. The real answer for me is about 10 seconds: about 5 seconds in the evening to plug in when I get home, and about 5 seconds in the morning to unplug when I leave. The actual amount of time to charge in between is far less than the time the car is parked - for my typical daily driving, it's usually less than an hour, but I don't drive much".
That seems to make sense for some people - it's still a paradigm shift that people don't relate to yet
This reality has caused me to begin answering the inevitable charging time question something like this:
"there's really 2 answers to the question you're asking. The question you think you're asking is that it would take about 5 hours assuming that I've driven my Roadster down to roughly empty, and am charging in my garage, and I'm waiting on the charge to complete before driving again. The real answer for me is about 10 seconds: about 5 seconds in the evening to plug in when I get home, and about 5 seconds in the morning to unplug when I leave. The actual amount of time to charge in between is far less than the time the car is parked - for my typical daily driving, it's usually less than an hour, but I don't drive much".
That seems to make sense for some people - it's still a paradigm shift that people don't relate to yet
It's swings^H^H^H^H^H^HInterstates and roundabouts.
CliffG
Member
Somehow, I think there are just too many humans wandering around; this means there are many different points of view/sets of values, and there's always going to be someone to buy FCVs (and ICEs, etc.). Please remember: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." (And, depending on what State you're in, Darwinism didn't win...)
Seems like more appropriate quote in this case is "There's a sucker born every minute" :biggrin:
CliffG
Member
I almost used that (actually typed it in), but a quick google search pointed out that PTBarnum didn't actually say it. :frown: (it doesn't matter who said it, really, but I associated it with Barnum in my mind)
Last edited:
GabrielB
MS-P85, Vette GS-Conv ;(
I see and understand your point, and the graph of gas volatility is very clear - for an open space. Also, the article cited refers to a "safe" accident "at up to 52mph". We have all seen accidents at 90+mph, or accidents between heavy trucks and small cars. And if the hydrogen is in a confined space like an accident inside a tunnel, or a home's garage with hot water heater tank pilot lite, the story is rather different. Also, what happens if a hydrogen tank is in the garage of a house fire? How long can the carbon fiber tank withstand the heat of an engulfed burning home?
I SCUBA dive with a 3,000psi tank of air, and I have seen the damage that a air tank failure can cause. Though wrapped in spun carbon fiber and very strong, a 10,000psi tank failure of hydrogen is something thing I would prefer not to be exposed to.
The article also mentioned the Hindenburg accident, and pointed to the evidence suggesting that there was no explosion, but only a rapidly expanding fire that also consumed the treated fabric. Well, the Hindenburg was not under much pressure (5-8psi?), however the Space Shuttle Challenger's fuel tanks were. (True they were not anywhere near 10,000psi and it was liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.) There will be more investigations and testing (some by accident unfortunately), and those results will lead to safer designs, but I ask; if you had to chose between pouring one gallon of gasoline on your closed garage floor, OR rapidly releasing one gallon of 10,000psi hydrogen into your closed garage, and then you were asked to light a match before you started running; which one would you choose? The graph in your hydrogen safety article indicates gasoline is by far much safer in this case.
I also read in the OP's article on "Hyundai Tucson" about the Hydrogen Manufactures processing and distribution system. In addition to starting the process with hydrocarbon fuel, the process requires adding heat, separating, compressing, and then cryogenically compressing even more. all these processes have risk, consume a large amount of added energy (electricity for compressing, the energy used for making cryogenic liquid nitrogen for the final cryogenic compression stage). THEN it says the finished product compares favorably to other automotive energy systems. I would venture to guess that the electricity used to generate and deliver Hydrogen to the tank of a HFCV would be more than enough to charge and propel a BEV the same or greater distance.
I think this is why when anyone asks Elon about HFCV he chuckles and bursts out laughing.
GabrielB
MS-P85, Vette GS-Conv ;(
Wow, I wasted too many words. I could of just shown one or two pictures from the Hydrogen SUV study above. Thanks CalDreamin.
My issue is not just the tank, but the hoses, valves, and fittings. Even if the hydrogen is very light, it can have a flamethrower effect for quite some time. We can't predict exactly how the car will get crunched in an accident.
GabrielB
MS-P85, Vette GS-Conv ;(
Although I believe the proposition of HFCV's is fatalistic, I do have to give credit to one point mentioned in the "Hydrogen Safety" report posted by araxara:
Paraphrased: To prevent the excess or massive escape of hydrogen gas via fittings or tubing damaged in an accident, the tank is designed with a solenoid valve within the tank itself. Any incident would cause this valve to shut to its normally closed position.
Of course this also means that no hydrogen could be released at all - well, not until it was really really good and hot...
Paraphrased: To prevent the excess or massive escape of hydrogen gas via fittings or tubing damaged in an accident, the tank is designed with a solenoid valve within the tank itself. Any incident would cause this valve to shut to its normally closed position.
Of course this also means that no hydrogen could be released at all - well, not until it was really really good and hot...
I always enjoy watching this:
BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion) Demonstration - How it Happens Training Video - YouTube
BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion) Demonstration - How it Happens Training Video - YouTube
I'm not as concerned about fuel explosions as I think automobile safety is more about kinetic energy than it is about chemical energy.
To me the painful thing is the 50 MPGe quote. MPGe is a measure of how efficiently your car uses its onboard fuel, which is a metric that pretty much nobody cares about. People care about the cost of fuel, and for the HFCV Tucson, I guess fuel is free. That's great, but at $500/month, the car isn't exactly cheap. People also care about pollution, and for that, people should be told that HFCV Tucson's polution per mile is about the same as a 30 mpg vehicle. If you want lower pollution, you can get a 48 mpg Prius instead. It's cheaper, it's easier to fill up, and its acceleration is equally "adequate". (I'm not sure how they define "adequate", but I think their dictionary is different from mine.)
Hybrids and plug-in hybrids have lots of advantages over HFCVs. What advantages do HFCVs have over hybrids?
If they got rid of that useless MPGe metric, the public might start to realize the pointlessness of HFCVs.
To me the painful thing is the 50 MPGe quote. MPGe is a measure of how efficiently your car uses its onboard fuel, which is a metric that pretty much nobody cares about. People care about the cost of fuel, and for the HFCV Tucson, I guess fuel is free. That's great, but at $500/month, the car isn't exactly cheap. People also care about pollution, and for that, people should be told that HFCV Tucson's polution per mile is about the same as a 30 mpg vehicle. If you want lower pollution, you can get a 48 mpg Prius instead. It's cheaper, it's easier to fill up, and its acceleration is equally "adequate". (I'm not sure how they define "adequate", but I think their dictionary is different from mine.)
Hybrids and plug-in hybrids have lots of advantages over HFCVs. What advantages do HFCVs have over hybrids?
If they got rid of that useless MPGe metric, the public might start to realize the pointlessness of HFCVs.
There are two ways to get to some sense of price parity, you can look at it from a consumers point of view, and figure out what car you could lease for three years for that price, and compare, or you could look from a manufacturing standpoint, and look at the cost to produce the thing.
Either way, if you look at a comparably priced car, the FCV will lose, because the comparably priced cars are going to be luxury or performance vehicles, if not outright supercars.
AC1K
Member
if by done right they mean the most inefficient way of getting power to the wheels then...... sure?
Similar threads
