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?"
Pah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: pah (Score:3, Insightful)
The same fear of the unkown or simple misinformation applies to nuclear topics as well.
Most don't know that cosmic rays pass through them every second, yet soil their pants when "nuc-anything" is mentioned.
Re: pah (Score:2, Funny)
Re: pah (Score:3, Funny)
bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't try to lump together unrelated topics to push your personal political agenda.
A key step in the generation of nuclear power has never successfully been demonstrated to be solvable, let alone economically solvable: waste disposal. People like you apparently like to pretend nuclear waste just can be made to disappear somehow, but right now, it is stored at a large cost to the tax payer, under constant guard and sup
Hydrogen won't achieve popularity... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have much better hopes for E85 fuel [cleanairchoice.org], which combines 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Any existing car can be modified to run on E85 in addition to regular gasoline, meaning that people don't need to throw away their existing vehicles and buy a new hydrogen car. Since they can still run on gasoline, you don't need to worry about looking for a specific kind of fuel station... buy E85 if it's available and regular gasoline if it isn't.
E85 is also substantially more environmentally friendly than gasoline:
E85 can be produced from surplus feed corn which is otherwise thrown out every year. Our nation has the capacity to manufacture it in quantity, whereas hydrogen is currently difficult to produce and expensive, and the easiest chemical processes by which to produce it result in toxic chemicals (such as reacting metal with hydroxides). Furthermore, everything in our current gasoline infractructure, from tanker trunks, storage tanks, gas pumps, and vehicles, can be used with E85, whereas hydrogen would require that we retool our entire infrastructure.
E85 would also open the doors to a new class of pure ethanol vehicles, including, as I said earlier, ones which use reformers to extract hydrogen from ethanol and run it through fuel cells, virtually eliminating pollution and the inefficiency of internal combustion engines. E85 would move our source of energy from terrorist controlled oil to domestically produced corn and other starchy crops. E85 would allow us to utilize surplus starchy crops rather than just throwing them away, eliminating waste.
All in all, I don't see what the buzz about hydrogen is all about. It would require an impractical infrastructural transition which is unlikely to happen until we've thoroughly exhausted our oil supplies. E85 lets us keep our whole existing infrastructure while still solving most of the problems attributed to oil.
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
Re:Pah (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only is hydrogen more readily combustible in air, but it's already in gasseous form *and* under high pressure.
Re:Pah (Score:2)
I shloud porfraed mroe craefully.
Re:Pah (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Hydrogen is the lightest substance so if a leak occurs it dispates quickly. You will not get build up like you will with gas vapor, propane or natural gas which is heavier than air.
Re:Pah (Score:5, Interesting)
2) Tell that to people who work in oil refineries. At one refinery my father used to work at, before he got there, to track down hydrogen leaks in the equipment, they would wave a broomstick along the sides of the pipes (hydrogen burns with a clear flame). Where the broomstick suddenly got cut in half, that was their hydrogen leak.
Hydrogen has this nasty habit of igniting easily when suddenly released from pressure. It gets well mixed instantly, and is already in a completely gasseous form (instead of small droplets for gasoline's optimal combustion). It takes a lot of work to get gasoline to explode (if you don't believe it, watch the mythbusters' episode where they try to recreate the "cell phone gas explosion" myth, and end up having trouble trying to get the gas ignited even with a spark gap). Hydrogen? Not so at all.
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
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"
Re:Pah (Score:5, Interesting)
where is the uproar over propane??
A quick google for comparative explosive propane hydrogen yields:this html conversion of original pdf [66.102.7.104]:
In contrast, leaking gasoline or diesel spreads laterally and evaporates slowly resulting in a widespread, lingering fire hazard. Propane gas is denser than air so it accumulates in low spots and disperses slowly, resulting in a protracted fire or explosion hazard. Heavy vapors can also form vapor clouds or plumes that travel as they are pushed by breezes. Methane gas is lighter than air, but not nearly as buoyant as hydrogen, so it disperses rapidly, but not as rapidly as hy- drogen.
Re:Pah (Score:2)
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
Re:Pah (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pah (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, even if the flame is almost completely invisible in daylight, any flamejet that is big enough to be a serious concern is probably going to cause the air the start to incandece. Second, companies are perfectly capable of adding adulterants to make the flame any color they want. For instance, the reason you can smell natural gas leak is beca
Right but (Score:4, Insightful)
My question, however, is how do you detect a leak? Do they add bad-smelling chemicals to the hydrogen (like, say, hygrogen sulfide)? It seems that this is somewhat important when you are dealing with hazardous gasses.
Also, I should mention that we do have a much more dangerous pressurized gas-- propane-- available at a variety of locations. Propane is also heavier than air, but it is also a gas and pressurized.
Re:Right but (Score:5, Insightful)
Gasoline explosions in non-controlled circumstances are incredibly difficult to occur. Hydrogen explosions are not, by any stretch. That's the only thing that matters.
What about propane? I think it is likely to be much more dangerous than hydrogen. You have more potential energy/L and you have something which is heavier than air.
That's not a realistic scenario. Hydrogen explosions occur at the time of leak. Why do people keep invisioning some floating cloud of hydrogen?
Right-- they can't occur much after the leak because the hydrogen will dissipate *upwards* and away from possible sources of ignition. Gasolene on the other hand, has been known to explode in poorly maintained gas stations (I am recalling on in Africa). Not common but has been known to occur.
Probably neither Hydrogen nor Gasolene is likely to be anywhere near as dangerous as Propane.
Propane is a near-perfect explosive gas for disasters-- it is explosive, heavier-than-air (which means that in the case of a leak, it will dissipate but collect in low-lying areas, ditches, etc). A propane leak could allow a *much* larger amount of gas to accumulate for an explosion in most circumstances and lead to *much* more damage than hydrogen because of its weight.
Look, for example, at the Hindenburg. When it caught fire, where did the hydrogen go? Up and away from the craft. Remember that 2/3 of the people on board the Hindinburg survived, and falling was a much bigger cause of injury and death than burns were.
I have known of several other cases of gas explosions (most due to human error such as using it to clean electric motors in the vacinity of where they would be used again) which have occured near where I have lived at the time. I have also played extensively with small quantities of hydrogen (and set off a few explosions). I have found that in general, hydrogen is far more difficult to get to explode than may people think precisely because it dissipates upward.
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 co
Re:Pah (Score:3, Informative)
Assuredly there are numerous valves designed to shut things down if any rapid pressure changes are encountered
Actually gasoline is less explosive... (Score:2)
Like a tank of gasoline isn't anymore explosive than hydrogen?
Liquid gasoline/petrol is indeed less explosive than hydrogen: the gasoline must evaporate before it becomes explosive. Liquid gasoline will burn but IIRC only the gasoline vapors will explode. In most cases hydrogen is already gaseous and thus more ready to explode/burn.
Because of this a partially-empty gasoline tank is more dangerous than a completely full tank: the full tank has no air space to support evaporation (assuming the ta
Re:Pah (Score:2)
Like a tank of gasoline isn't anymore explosive than hydrogen?
Tell me about it. Just the other day, we had a major explosion at a propane plant [canada.com] just outside of Toronto. Scary stuff.
Re:Pah (Score:3, Informative)
One Mole of H2 has much less exothermic energy than one Mole of methane or any o
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!
Hindenburg (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hindenburg (Score:2)
WHAT?
I find that rather hard to believe.
How about the aluminium internal frame?
Re:Hindenburg (Score:5, Informative)
from http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/h/
Re:Hindenburg (Score:3, Informative)
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:Hindenburg (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hindenburg (Score:3, Informative)
If the blimp had exploded no one would have survived.
Re:Hindenburg (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hindenburg (Score:2)
Compare the survival rate with your average airline accident...
The beautiful thing about the internet is that you can easily compare the Hindenberg's survival rate with the average airline accident survial rate. I found the following when I searched "airline accident survial rate' using Vivisimo.com:
http://airsafe.com/airline.htmMod the Shell station.... (Score:5, Funny)
-1 Flamebait
--
Oh so scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Something tells me that it'd be a lot easier to prevent a fire with hydrogen than with gasoline (seeing as how hydrogen doesn't stick around once released.)
Re:Oh so scary (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oh so scary (Score:2)
This could even be cost-effective, because a regular airplane must burn a lot of fuel to lift it's fuel. A plant that generates hydrogen from natural gas will not have this waste.
What about... (Score:5, Funny)
And that was with a DeLorean.
Re:What about... (Score:2, Insightful)
The fuel to move the vehicle was still regular gasoline.
Re:What about... (Score:2)
Where does you fuel come from? (Score:2, Interesting)
first/second/third/15th post! (Score:2, Insightful)
The hindenburg only went up because of it's coating of paint that was pretty much rocket fuel, not because of the hydrogen itself.
Someone mod it down.
Re:first/second/third/15th post! (Score:2)
Secondly, the skin wasn't coated in "rocket fuel" persay, unless you've ever heard of a rocket that runs on cellulose acetate or cellulose nitrate. Although, to be fai
Re:first/second/third/15th post! (Score:2, Interesting)
Only the skin could have produced that visible flame.
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
Hydrogen the next nuclear? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we have people worried about Hydrogen (which floats UP while it explodes) instead of the far more energy dense gasoline that will continue burning everything after it explodes. Ah, progress.
Seriously, what is there to worry about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Boom! (Score:2)
Do they think gasoline can't explode?
Hydrogen Power. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hydrogen Power. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hydrogen Power. (Score:2)
The technical term is "fuel".
One step at a time (Score:2)
Re:Hydrogen Power. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gasoline isn't an "energy source" either, it's an extremely inefficient way of storing what was ultimately energy from the sun. That's why we call fossil fuels non-renewable.
Hydrogen IS an efficient way of storing energy derived from solar, nuclear, wind, hydro or other sources. It's efficient because it can be moved around using existing natural gas infrastructures.
BTM
Re:Hydrogen Power. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hydrogen Power. (Score:3, Insightful)
If
Re:Hydrogen Power. (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely. At least coal (which is far more abundant and cheaper than oil) can be burned to produce power in large power stations which are easier to keep efficent and clean (clean relative to the smog-plants we currently put in cars, it can still be pretty dirty stuff).
Now, would a commercial system end up being cleaner and more efficent than what we've already got? Good question. I know of only one way to find out for sure.
Re:Hydrogen Power. (Score:2)
Re:Hydrogen Power. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but that can change, and electricity can be produced from alternatives, giving hydrogen fuel from "green" electricity.
Try doing something similar with oil-based fuel. Not as easy.
Not Me Man (Score:4, Funny)
Approx figures for "green hydrogen" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Approx figures for "green hydrogen" (Score:3, Insightful)
Studies show that living fast and dirty is cheaper overall. Living to be 80 or 90 will cost much much more than burning out in your 20's. Consequently, the wisest course of action is for people to think only about their immediate pleasure and have no concern for the future. The cost of foresight is just too damn high.
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:Hydrogen Power. (Score:2)
Actually, most of the federal research is going into stripping h2 from hydrocarbons. In particular, from oil. Surprise.
But the good news is that if we move to H2, then H2 can come from a number of sources, many of which generate electricity. That includes not just coal, but nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, etc.
In fact, with the ups and down of energy demand, this will allow the nucs and hydro power to generate fuel during the night or during fall/spring.
Re:Hydrogen Power. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are real reasons to move from gasoline to hydrogen even if we make hydrogen using conventional fuels. Its a better storage medium. Then coal can be phased out by nuclear and other energy mediums.
Its a step in the right direction. The key is to make it cos
Hindenburg comparison isn't fair (Score:2)
Agreed… (Score:2)
NY-Times (Score:2)
Wha? wha? what? (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to what, a large tank of GASOLINE near their homes? Or maybe that large tank of heating oil sitting right outside their home? Or perhaps the direct natural gas feed right INTO their home?
Christ, some people are stupid.
Re:Wha? wha? what? (Score:2)
Hindenburg reference (Score:5, Informative)
From the wiki link
Re:Hindenburg reference (Score:2)
So it's still a theory, one of three plausible ones that I could see at the wikipedia article. Also from the wikipedia article:
Others (http://spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/zf/LZ129fire. h tm) suggest that present-day proponents of hydrogen as a transportation fuel have forwarded a revisionist "flammable fabric" analysis of the fire in order
Re:Hindenburg reference (Score:3, Informative)
What I find interesting is that most people seem to overlook the fact that most of the passengers and crew survived: "Of the 97 people on board, 13 passengers and 22 crew-members were killed. One member of the ground crew also died, bringing the death toll to 36". That compares very favourably to modern air disasters. Yet most people would only be able to name a few modern air disasters (e.g. flight TWA 800, Lockerby, Concorde, an
From the article (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Step Two - Second generation sites, with public access, but separate from existing gasoline stations (e.g. the facility Shell opened in Iceland in April, 2003 which supplies hydrogen made from water to three city buses)
3. Step Three - Fully integrated fuel stations (traditional fuels and hydrogen)
4. Step Four - Within the next five years, mini-network "Lighthouse Projects" (semi-commercial, public-private partnerships involving multiple energy companies, governments, and fleets of 100 or more vehicles)
5. Step 5 - 2010-2020 connecting the mini-networks with corridors and filling in the white spaces
So does this mean that Shell believes hydrogen will begin to reach the mass market by 2020?
If so I kind of think they're being a bit optimisitc in their estimates. I just cannot see a public push towards the new energy, without government intervention (i.e. higher fuel taxes etc.) which I feel would be highly unpopular.
Re:From the article (Score:2)
Imagine writing a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle off on your taxes. That would do it for me.
Blah. (Score:2, Funny)
Gasoline (Score:3, Interesting)
Informative Wiki (Score:2)
Hydrogen Generation (Score:2)
Slashdot abuses Wikipedia! (Score:2)
So would this help? (Score:4, Funny)
2. Remove all the O2 from the DC area (mostly likely already in progress based on things we've seen coming from congress and the house...they are breathing something, but I doubt it's just air)
Folks are more afraid of hydrogen (Score:3, Interesting)
The average Joe has never heard of a "gasoline bomb" but she/he has certain heard of a "hydrogen bomb"
ps: This also applies to the irrational fear of "nuclear power plants" and the comfort with the far-more-deadly "coal power plants"
--
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.
Nice WikipediA link.... (Score:2)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
hey fu slashdot"
Good job.
Hindenburg had survivors (Score:3, Interesting)
"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.
Chain Reaction (Score:2)
Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman? (Score:2)
Why not just cut out the middle man and go direct to electric power? It seems like you're adding in so many steps (each with its own losses in energy due to inefficiencies in energy transformation) that are completely unnecessary. Electric energy could go directly from a Nuclear/Solar/Wind plant into a battery/capacitor bank, and then out the battery into the electric motor. Wit
Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman? (Score:3, Insightful)
Go get a hydrogen bottle refilled. How long did that take you? How much energy is now stored in that bottle?
Go recharge a battery. How long did that take you? How much energy is stored in that battery?
I can't plug a battery into a charger, go inside, get a coffee, pay for the recharge, and take off and go any significant amount of distance. I can with gas, and I can with hydrogen, LNG, or any other alternative fuel.
Re:Why Hydrogen? Why not cut out the middleman? (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I understand, there are new sulfur-based batteries that can be recharged nearly as fast as you ca
kaboom (Score:2, Funny)
It has to start somewhere (Score:3, Insightful)
D.C. was probably picked because we're very politically visible here, and if Shell really wants to make a serious push into alternative energy, it makes sense to put a filling station where government lawmakers can see the technology at work. If it works one place, it'll slowly trickle out into other metro areas, and eventually the rural regions. But it has to work here first.
As far as safety goes, I think there are more pressing issues in D.C. than one lousy hydrogen tank.
Everything is dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say that a Hydrogen tank is no more likely to explode than gas one. Leaking might be a little more likely, but it is just......hydrogen......
Hindenburg? (Score:4, Insightful)
"It was skinned in cotton, doped with iron oxide and cellulose acetate butyrate impregnated with aluminium powder."
Yes kids, the hindenburg was coated in THERMITE.
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:Hydrogen (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably with a backhoe, a dump truck, a steamroller....
Seriously though, are you implying that it's bad to have this near a school without giving any credible reasoning. Why don't you compare and contrast for us the merits of the hydrogen fuel station 50 yards away from the school with what's likely the natural gas line and furnace that likely runs driectly to and resides inside the school?
Re:No one burned to death... (Score:3, Insightful)