They're actually more common than you think already. Ever been to someone's house that has a home oxygen concentrator? Thayt's an electrolysis cell at work, but in that case they are extracting the oxygen rather than the hydrogen. I think (but I'm not sure on this one) that the H2 is oxidized with atmospheric o2 and fed back into the water resivior on those. I've yet to hear of one exploding. I think the fire hazard of hydrogen is fastly overstated. Lots of things we do already use or produce hydrogen and fairly rarely do you hear of hoses and cars exploding because of it.
To clarify, stored hydrogen will not explode if contained in a fully compliant storage cell. Even when used in automobiles, in the event of a collision, the vaporized hydrogen liquid only seeps out and burns immediately when it makes contact with the air, burning upwards in an infrared flame--the exact same way gas is burned on your barbecue. Conversely and ironically, gasoline is significantly more dangerous in the event of a collision because it explodes more aggressively and continues to burn thereafter as it pours out--a property of petroleum.
Yes, but as I was pointing out...when electrolysing water to form hydrogen there is significant risk of explosion i.e. if we used H2 for all our cars there would be hydrogen production plants exploding on a regular basis. Untill we can get that sorted, we have issues. That has nothing to do with storage.
They produce tons and tons of hydrogen every day as a product of the pertoleum industry and it almost never explodes. In fact, hydrogen is used as a welding gas, and has been used safely in industrial settings for years without undue safety risks. As Amon pointed out, gaseous fuels are significantly safer than liquid fuels in all stages of the fuel lifecycle. THis is especially true of hydrogen because if it leaks, it diffuses almost instantly into the atmosphere and whateve is left floats harmlessly away. Gasoline on the other hand is dangerous because it pools and sits there, emitting vapors which are heavier than air and will run downstream until they find a source of ignition and flash back. We had a very nasty gasoline pipeline explosion here a few years ago that burned out about half a mile of creek just outside doentown. Had this been a hydroden leak it would have been a total non-issue. There are a number of technical issues with hydrogen yet to be resolved, safety is not one of them
Cthippo I'm sorry to say you've missed my point. Again. The problem is not with hydrogen being explosive, in fact that's rather beneficial when we want to use it for combustion engines. The problem is with electrolysis plants which would produce hydrogen on a large scale from water, with huge ammounts of electricity, having explosions.
I also don't think that pure hydrogen would be a good fuel source. You'd have to either constantly fill your car, or have a compressed tank, and if we learned anything from the Hindenburg, hydrogen = bad, and compressed = worse. I believe they are working on substances which can pack a lot of H2, yet remain stable until it's needed. I think AH3 was considered once.
well, LPG is compressed and put in the back of cars as an alternative to petrol (in Australia at least, not sure about UK) and it's as safe as petrol. Pretty much if it's going to blow, it's going to blow. whatever you use, there will be instances where an explosion will occur. it's unavoidable, this stuff is explosive after all. Hydrogen has a stigma from the Hindenburg, but we're trying to harness it's explosive nature here, not fly a blimp.
problems with hydrogen as a fuel: distribution network. all fuel distribution is designed around a heavy, dense liquid. it becomes harder to store a lighter than air gas at many sites and distribute it properly. it would required a total revamp of all gas stations and fuel distribution systems. maintaining hydrogen in a liquid form everywhere uses way more energy than it's worth (point to maintain hydrogen as a liquid is -253° C or so, comparatively, liquid O2 requires -223°C). basically keeping it as a liquid requires a ton of energy, either to put it under pressure, or to maintain the cold. it is possible, but not very practical at the moment. reliance on OPEC sucks, but since they control a large portion of the world's oil supply, we're stuck. also, so hydrocarbons are the building blocks of almost every plastic, i'd estimate that without them, we wouldn't have 90% of the things we do now, and nobody here can say they don't use a product containing oil, or an oil derivative. every computer has plastics in it... and you can't convince or try telling me otherwise
I don't even need to say anything to give away my bias. EDIT: This should do: Alternative fuel - Wikipedia H.B.
I'm not missing your pojnt, I'm disagreeing with it. I'm not sure how you came to the belief that large scale hydrogen production is more dangerous than oter fuel production processes, but it's just not the case. Modern indusrty works on a daily basis with thousands of flammiable, toxic chemicals, many of them much more dangerous than hydrogen, and does so safely. Ever visited an oil refinery? Theyre they work with flammable liquids at tempratures in excess of their auto-ignition tempratures. In other words, one bit of air and you have an explosion and fire. Despite this, it's not like we have refineries exploding every day. We, as a society, have been working with hydrogen for over a century now and understand it and it's safety hazards as well as any other industrial chemical. As for the Hindenburg, everyone remembers the explosion, but tends to forget how many trips the Hindenburg and Graf Zepplin and other rigid airships made, including the GZs around the world voyage before the accident. In addition, the most recent research on the accident places the blame not on the fuel, but on the fabric the outside of the hull was coated with To wit: I spent some time on google looking for accident reports from hydrogen plants, but was unable to find any. I'm sure they have happened, but don't seem to be anything like as common as oil refinery accidents. Hydrogen safety Myths and misconceptions about hydrogen
Correct. The Hindenburg's highly volatile fire was perpetuated by the unsafe use of a paint combination consisting of iron and aluminum, called thermite. The "unknowing" use of thermite in the paint was purported to have given reflective, protective metallic properties similar to that of car paint, but applied to fabric--ironically, in its use to protect the gas from igniting, it vigorously fueled the ensuing fire. Actual hydrogen burns in a reddish hue (more in the infrared spectrum, really), not the gigantic fireball that was the Hindenburg. IIRC, the hydrogen used in the Hindenburg was treated with some form of iron and sulphuric acid.
I think that's how they produced hydrogen in those days H2SO4 + Fe -> FeSO4 +H2 or somthing like that. Chemical definition of a metal is an element that reacts with acid to produce hydrogen (I think)
Substance with high electrical conductivity, luster, and malleability, which readily loses electrons to form positive ions (cations). Metals are otherwise defined according to their position on the Periodic Table, including groupings as alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, transition metals, and rare earth metals.
