Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Combined Gasoline/Hydrogen Fuel Station Opens

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the energy-milestones dept.

Technology 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?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pah (5, Insightful)

hypergreatthing (254983) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789828)

Like a tank of gasoline isn't anymore explosive than hydrogen?

Re:Pah (5, Insightful)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789864)

People are used to gasoline though. They have been programmed to not worry about it. Hydrogen on the other hand is not something your average person has much knowledge of. So, being unknown, it's deathly scary.

re: pah (1)

ed.han (444783) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789891)

that is of course an excellent point. i suspect that when most people think of hydrogen and don't immediately think, "ah yes, the first item on the periodic table", they do tend to think hidenburg, as michael evidently did. :>

ed

Re: pah (3, Insightful)

marcus (1916) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789943)

Aside from the suggestion that Michael can think, all are on the right track here.

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 (3, Insightful)

nolife (233813) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790093)

Same with nuclear power. Imagine the public outcry if someone planned to build a nuclear power plant in Honolulu or any where on the island of Oahu. Take a trip to the naval base and you can see probably 10 of them tied right next to the pier. The Puget sound area in Washington is even better. They have the multiple reactor compartments and various leftovers from defueled submarines scattered thorough out the shipyard in Bremerton. The submarine base about 15 miles north is home to multiple nuclear submarines and across the sound is Whidbey island.
I guess since these reactors are "portable", no one minds ;)

Re:Pah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10789879)

Not really. A tank full of liquid gasoline is pretty stable.

The key word is "full".

Re:Pah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10790038)

so is hydrogen, in the absence of oxygen...

Re:Pah (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789900)

It's not anywhere near as explosive as hydrogen at STP. You not only have to get it vaporized, but you have to have it vaporized and mixed with oxygen at just the right ratios. And even still, an optimal gasoline/air mix isn't nearly as explosive as an optimal gasoline hydrogen mix.

Not only is hydrogen more readily combustible in air, but it's already in gasseous form *and* under high pressure.

Re:Pah (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789930)

er, "as an optimal hydrogen/air mix". Sorry, I was typing too quickly.

I shloud porfraed mroe craefully.

Re:Pah (4, Insightful)

codeguy007 (179016) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790070)

1) Hydrogen isn't explosive, it's combustable.
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 (1)

Tellalian (451548) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790041)

While all fuels are inherently dangerous, hydrogen is notably safer in several [hydrogennow.org] ways [rmi.org] , such as it's tendency to dissipate skywards when leaked and the fact that it's nontoxic.

Actually gasoline is less explosive... (1)

sczimme (603413) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790083)


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 tank is sealed/capped).

fp! (-1, Offtopic)

Akatosh (80189) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789830)

fp!

first (2, Funny)

exspecto (513607) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789831)

molecule on the atomic table

Re:first (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10789870)

it's an atom not a molecule, you fucking dick-flayer

Re:first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10789924)

hehe, i corrected myself. the frenzy to get first post can seriously inhibit critical thinking skills. flaying a dick sounds like fun though.

Re:first (1)

exspecto (513607) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789877)

...i mean element

Hindenburg (5, Informative)

krog (25663) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789834)

The Hindenburg didn't go down because it was filled with hydrogen; it burned because its skin was basically made of thermite. The hydrogen didn't explode.

Re:Hindenburg (1)

azav (469988) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789901)

It's skin was basically made of thermite?

WHAT?

I find that rather hard to believe.

How about the aluminium internal frame?

Re:Hindenburg (5, Informative)

krog (25663) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789953)

Proponents of the "flammable fabric" theory contend that the extremely flammable iron oxide and aluminium impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate coating could have caught fire from atmospheric static, resulting in a leak through which flammable hydrogen gas could escape. After the disaster the Zeppelin company's engineers determined this skin material, used only on the Hindenburg, was more flammable than the skin used on previous craft. Cellulose acetate butyrate is of course flammable but iron oxide increases the flammability of aluminium powder. In fact iron oxide and aluminium can be used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite.

from http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/h/h i/hindenburg_disaster.html [brainyencyclopedia.com]

Re:Hindenburg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10789904)

There is no such thing as thermite. It's called Thermit or thermit.

Re:Hindenburg (1, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789922)

Actually, the hydrogren DID explode. It just wasn't the ignition or the cause of the continuing fires. If you watch the video, you can see it start to catch fire, followed by a massive blowout. The blowout was most likely the hydrogen. As the Hindenburg sank, however, it continued to burn furiously. Since there was no hydrogen left, it couldn't be the hydrogen that's continued burning. Rather the SKIN of the ship (which also shouldn't burn) was on fire. That was most likely caused by the sealant.

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10789998)

The hydrogen burned, it did not explode.

Re:Hindenburg (2, Informative)

codeguy007 (179016) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790101)

I've seen the video. A flair out is not an explosion. What you saw was the burning of rapidly escaping hydrogen. Not an explosion.

If the blimp had exploded no one would have survived.

Re:Hindenburg (2, Insightful)

Metzli (184903) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789958)

Very true, the skin was the main culprit. Check this link [about.com] for info.

Re:Hindenburg (1)

narl (802378) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790088)

And the most important thing to remember about the Hindenburg:

Despite a highly flammable skin around highly flammable hydrogen, and despite exploding mid-air, more than half the people on board survived:
"Of the ninety-seven aboard, thirty-six died, including thirteen "civilian" (paying) passengers, the first passengers of this kind killed in a dirigible accident. " [pilotfriend.com]

Compare the survival rate with your average airline accident...

Mod the Shell station.... (5, Funny)

JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789837)

... wait for it ...
-1 Flamebait

--

Oh so scary (5, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789853)

I'm sure having a volatile, quickly burning, quickly dissipating gas is lots more dangerous than a huge tank of a volatile, slow burning, slowly dissipating petrochemcial.

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 (3, Insightful)

mikeee (137160) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789988)

Heck, the most serious danger of either isn't fire; it's that the underground gasoline tanks will leak and contaminate local water supplies.

What about... (4, Funny)

LegendOfLink (574790) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789854)

Getting a Mr. Fusion to power a vehicle? I mean, they did it back in 1985!

And that was with a DeLorean.

Re:What about... (1)

kc0re (739168) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789991)

and it traveled through time... on a serious note I can only hope that this catches on a lot more than it has at this point. Reducing America's dependancy (the world's dependancy) on fossil fuels is a great thing to strive for. I can only hope that other countries follow suit and make this world a better place to live. (Cheese Factor 9.8)

Re:What about... (2, Insightful)

pi42 (190576) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790013)

Actually, I believe the Mr. Fusion only powered the time circuits.

The fuel to move the vehicle was still regular gasoline.

Re:What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10790017)

you idiot. Mr. Fusion only powered the flux capacitor.

Re:What about... (1)

Nemesis099 (60955) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790019)

Are you kidding do you know how much trash the US alone would consume with those things. We would then have to make more disposable products just to keep up.

For those that can't tell I am joking

Re:What about... (1)

websaber (578887) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790027)

Hollywood != reality. And they don't control reality either for proof see the last election!

first/second/third/15th post! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10789856)

this is downright uninformed.

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! (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790052)

Why did this get modded informative? It's not true. The skin was soaked in many chemicals, which certainly contributed, but there is absolutely no way the relatively tiny volume of the skin could have produced such massive flames. The majority of the fire from the Hindenburg *was* from the hydrogen. The skin just acted as a fire starter.

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 fair, it was flecked with aluminum to increase its reflectivity, which is used in some SRBs.

Lastly, hydrogen in a pressurized tank is a *lot* more explosive than that in the hindenburg was. Namely, because there wasn't nearly the "incentive" for the hydrogen in the hindenburg to mix with air. Hydrogen leaking from a ruptured, pressurized tank, however, will mix very quickly.

silly (1)

alecks (473298) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789858)

nevermind the large tanks of gasoline on every other corner...

Opium addicts of the world unite! (0, Offtopic)

uberjoe (726765) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789860)

Finally a place where I can get my H legally.

Even better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10790012)

H2 has to be better than H!

Hydrogen the next nuclear? (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789863)

When nuclear energy first came on to the scene, many people were afraid that contamination could happen from one person to another. Anyone who'd handled nuclear materials or was exposed to such materials, was treat as a lepor.

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. :-)

Re:Hydrogen the next nuclear? (1)

heptapod (243146) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790039)

And you can blame Slashdot [slashdot.org] for being as bad as other journalists mentioned in this story [slashdot.org] for troll comments in the blurb like "Oh come on, what is there to worry about? [wikipedia.org] " I'm sure other, respectable [cnn.com] media [nytimes.com] outlets [foxnews.com] will jump on the chicken little bandwagon and maintain the status quo.

Seriously, what is there to worry about? (3, Insightful)

qi3ber (144534) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789865)

I mean, they've already got a giant tank of explosive gasoline near their house, can a little hydrogen really be that much worse?

Boom! (1)

Lurker McLurker (730170) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789866)

Apparently some of the neighbors are concerned about having a large tank of hydrogen near their homes

Do they think gasoline can't explode?

Hydrogen Power. (4, Informative)

musingmelpomene (703985) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789881)

Hydrogen isn't an "energy source," it's a (somewhat inefficient) way of storing energy. You can't just "get" hydrogen with no electrical expenditure to begin with. It must be produced by getting it from water at considerable energetic expense. So that electricity comes from power plants - in the US, that means mostly coal and oil. So congratulations to the "green" consumers choosing their hydrogen - I mean coal - powered cars!

Re:Hydrogen Power. (2, Informative)

thpr (786837) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789932)

Actually, hydrogen is most commonly produced from steam reforming methane. Something like CH4 + 2-H20 = CO2 + 4-H2, if my ancient chemistry classes are serving me.

Re:Hydrogen Power. (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789965)

Hydrogen isn't an "energy source," it's a (somewhat inefficient) way of storing energy.

The technical term is "fuel". :-)

One step at a time (1)

hey (83763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790035)

Step one: Hydrogen buring cars don't polute. Next step: make the hydrogen in a green way. Or is it better to just do nothing.

Re:Hydrogen Power. (5, Insightful)

Billy the Mountain (225541) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790072)

Hydrogen isn't an "energy source," it's a (somewhat inefficient) way of storing energy.

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. (1)

Shinglor (714132) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790082)

Just because it took energy to produce doesn't mean that the final product is not an energy source.

Re:Hydrogen Power. (3, Insightful)

Suidae (162977) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790106)

So congratulations to the "green" consumers choosing their hydrogen - I mean coal - powered cars!

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. (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790118)

IIRC, electricity isn't required. You can get hydrogen from several hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon conversion to hydrogen is probably cleaner than burning it.

A green explosion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10789887)

At least when it explodes there won't be any polution. If you're going to have a disaster make it evironmentally friendly!

Hindenburg comparison isn't fair (1)

thpr (786837) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789888)

Using the Hindenburg as a comparison isn't fair. Recent studies have shown that the paint used is a near chemical relative to rocket fuel. Hydrogen is no longer blamed for the accident. See this video [hydrogenus.com] for more information. (requires realplayer)

Agreed… (1)

Izago909 (637084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789889)

Who would want to live next to a gasoline station when this [google.com] happens all too often? Hydrogen is much less volatile than one would think.

NY-Times (1)

jm92956n (758515) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789890)

Also covered by the NY Times here [nytimes.com] .

Hydrogen (-1, Offtopic)

jangobongo (812593) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789897)

The Hindenberg was the first thing to come to my mind, too. How could they put this 50 yards away from a school?

Still they have the pumps available even though the _affordable_ cars won't be available for another 5-6 years or more...

Re:Hydrogen (5, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790000)

How could they put this 50 yards away from a school?

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?

Wha? wha? what? (3, Insightful)

fizban (58094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789899)

Apparently some of the neighbors are concerned about having a large tank of hydrogen near their homes.

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? (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789927)

Tell me about it. Umm... yeah, we should ban microwaves too. Since it CAN explodes with aluminum foil.

About Time... (1)

StarWreck (695075) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789909)

Its about time they got those pesky carbons out of the way so we can get straight to the hydrogen.

Hindenburg reference (4, Informative)

FiReaNGeL (312636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789916)

If the poster took the time to read his wiki link, he would have realized that the Hinderburg didn't not explode because of the hydrogen, but because of a new highly flammable fabric used for the skin of the zeppelin.

From the wiki link :
"Most current analysis of the accident assumes that the static spark theory is correct. There is still a debate, however, as to whether the fabric itself or the hydrogen used for bouyancy was the fuel for the initial fire.


Proponents (http://www.dwv-info.de/pm/hindbg/hbe.htm) of the "flammable fabric" theory point out that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminium-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate. Cellulose acetate butyrate is known to be flammable and iron oxide is well-known to react with aluminium powder. In fact, iron oxide and aluminium are sometimes used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite. (However, the oft-cited claim that the ship was "coated in rocket fuel" is a significant overstatement.) While the coating components were potentially reactive, they were separated by a layer of material that should have prevented the reaction from starting.

After the disaster, the Zeppelin company's engineers determined this skin material, used only on the Hindenburg, was more flammable than the skin used on previous craft and changed the composition for future designs. Nonetheless, the Hindenburg had flown for over a year (and through several lightning storms) with no reports of adverse chemical reactions, much less fires on the fabric.

The proponents of the "flammable fabric" theory also point to fact that the naturally odorless hydrogen gas in the Hindenburg was 'odorised' with garlic so that any leaks could be detected, and that there were no reports of garlic odors during the flight or prior to the fire."
I'm tired of seeing this example used by "hydrogen is dangerous" folks...

MOd pARenT dOWn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10790121)

No seriously, this dipshit is karma whoring for those who won't RTFA or the link. You've contributed nothing to the commentary or discussion of the submission.

Enjoy your 250 megs at fireang3l@hotmail.com [mailto] .

From the article (3, Interesting)

frankthechicken (607647) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789923)

1. Step One - Stand-alone projects with restricted access (like depots for hydrogen-fueled buses)

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 (1)

SpiffyMarc (590301) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790045)

Tax breaks for hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles would be a nice step in the right direction.

Imagine writing a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle off on your taxes. That would do it for me.

Blah. (2, Funny)

rackhamh (217889) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789928)

Let me know when they start stocking helium... heeheeheeheehee!

Wikipedia (0)

miikrr (799637) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789929)

Don't you just love how anyone can edit any wikipedia article? You don't even need an account to be a jackass!

Gasoline (2, Interesting)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789940)

Does anyone know if Hydrogen is more volatile that Gasoline vapor [wikipedia.org] ? I wouldn't think that Hydrogen would be any more volatile than that. The article says that the Hydrogen tanks are underground, like most gasoline or diesel tanks, and are under 24/7 monitoring, also like gasoline or diesel tanks. I'm sure the have the required amount of insurance as well. Are peoples' fears justified?

/. could mod down the GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789949)

Now it looks like Wikipedia needs something similar. Nice going, assholes.

Re:/. could mod down the GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Arkahn (14759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790021)

I was going to post something similar, but you beat me too it.

Why abuse something like Wikipedia? Only an asshole would.

Re:/. could mod down the GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10790085)

Wikipedia supports censorship of certian controversial articles. Thats reason enough.

How apropos. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10789951)

How appropriate. A ridiculous Hindenburg reference just two articles above "Journalists Distort Science with Balance". Thanks, Michael; I'd attribute this to intentional irony, were it not for the rest of your incompetence.

Informative Wiki (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789960)

I love the informative Wikipedia link to the Hindenburg disaster [wikipedia.org] . As always, leave it to Wikipedia to inform!

Re:Informative Wiki (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790069)

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but that link has given me some odd contents. The first time I clicked I got the Wikipedia sidebar and the "Hindenburg disaster" caption, and then the first paragraph it showed was from this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Nigger_Ass ociatio n_of_America

I closed the browser, started again, clicked the link and got the correct page. I clicked refresh and THEN I started getting pages with the Wiki sidebar and correct caption, but the body looked like a pda version of Google.

Wikipedia sure is acting strange today.

HydrogenAI factory in Becancour (Quebec) exploded. (1)

DeeJayTwo (537743) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789964)

A gazeous hydrogen factory just exploded tonight in Becancour (between Quebec and Montreal). Right on time for this topic ;) This is in french: http://lcn.canoe.com/lcn/infos/regional/archives/2 004/11/20041111-130058.html

Hydrogen Generation (1)

ARRRLovin (807926) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789966)

*Waits for the halt to this energy "source" because none of the NIMBYs want a nuke plant nearby*

No one burned to death... (1)

Guysdrinkingbeer (207045) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789967)

I have read and seen on a show on the Discovery channel that no one burned to death. All the death except for the poor guy on the ground died because they jumped. If you look at the footage of the crash you can clearly see the skin is burning, not the hydrogen. The skin of the airship was coated with powered aluminum and iron oxide, which close to solid rocket fuel. The discovery channel demonstrated this by making an exact duplicate of the shin and the coating. When the test piece was touch to a small spark, POOF, up in flames.

Just my two cents.

Re:No one burned to death... (2, Insightful)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790043)

I saw that show also. In the video you can see the ship burning while still staying in the air. If the hydrogen is what initially burned then it would have dropped like a rock. The hydrogen didn't burn until some time after the fire started.

wikipedia vandalized (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10789973)

it's off topic but the wikipedia page was vandalized.
Was it one of you?

sigh (0, Redundant)

el_guapo (123495) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789977)

"Apparently some of the neighbors are concerned about having a large tank of hydrogen near their homes."
not very well thought out concern, anyone? and they don't give a 2nd thought to that huge tank of combustile gasoline at regular gas stations?
also, h2 has a nice habit of dissipating once released from storage, whilst gasoline has this nasty habit of pooling...

It's D. fucking C. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10789978)

I bet the naturally-occuring death rate goes down after the explosion.

Won't this suck out our atmosphere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10789981)

The reaction is 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O, turning our precious air into vulgar water.

Slashdot abuses Wikipedia! (1)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789992)

Ok, who's the troll who defaced the wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] by replacing it with some stupid shit? This place has hit a new low.

Re:Slashdot abuses Wikipedia! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10790109)

Low, yes, but there's nothing new about it. This sort of crap happens whenever a Wikipedia article is linked to on Slashdot.

Help It's a hydrogen bomb! (1)

samberdoo (812366) | more than 9 years ago | (#10789999)

The same ignorant folks who still believe Sadaam ordered the 9/11 attacks probably will confuse hydrogen fuel with a fusion bomb.

Ballard's factory blew up because of hydrogen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10790002)

The challenger explosion and Hindenburg are examples of how dangerous hydrogen is. Just wait until that filling station goes up in a fireball!

What you're all forgetting (0, Troll)

briancnorton (586947) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790007)

These people live in the murder capital of the world and they're worried about the most abundant substance in the universe. Sound's like DC to me.

So would this help? (4, Funny)

FerretFrottage (714136) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790010)

1. Put the tank(s) in a giant vacuum (just be careful when entering and leaving and NO marshmellows allowed within 100m of the tanks)

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)

I get the hindenberg reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10790023)

These must be VW minivans.

Folks are more afraid of hydrogen (2, Interesting)

JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790031)

MANY people have noted that the potential in a tank (or set of tanks) of gasoline is much worse than the potential in a tank of hydrogen. You're missing the point.

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"

--

Why hydrogen makes sense (1)

xutopia (469129) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790032)

Yes hydrogen has to be produced, yes it isn't the most efficient. However it does pack more energy than a conventional battery. I think this fact alone should be mentionned as to why hydrogen is of interest.

Sure right now the hydrogen is most likely produced by some polluting ways. Eventually though we'll have a complete framework that doesn't depend on burning anything to get hydrogen/electricity.

6 minutes on slashdot..... (2, Informative)

zippity8 (446412) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790036)

Looks like we've got a few bored people in the past few minutes making use of the ability to modify a wiki entry.

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.

Shell is smart (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790049)

The first to innovate the fuel market with the next generation fuel and become the donimant producer WILL be king. If they get in first and pump enough cash into it, it WILL pay off.

Remove Wikipedia link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10790058)

What's up with the stupid link to Wikipedia that says
The Gay Nigger Association of America, or GNAA, is a self-aggrandizing troll organization which primarily targets Internet communities in an effort to disrupt their normal activities. Members have flooded weblogs, produced shock sites, prank-called technical support phone lines, as well as flooded, mass-invited, and trolled IRC and Soulseek channels. GNAA members are generally perceived as nuisances by the communities they attack, who frequently respond with technological and social anti-trolling measures (such as comment moderation) to limit future disruption caused by trolling.

Nice WikipediA link.... (1)

Andorion (526481) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790065)

"Hindenburg disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
hey fu slashdot"

Good job.

Hindenburg had survivors (2, Interesting)

amorsen (7485) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790077)

Only 35 out of 97 people aboard died. Most crashes involving heavier-than-air aircraft kill everyone aboard.

Would this stop fires at pumping stations (1)

Nemesis099 (60955) | more than 9 years ago | (#10790104)

First off I'm not sure if it is true or not that you can cause a fire at a gas station by getting in and out of your car and then touching the gas pump first.

If that is true I have to ask would having hydrogen pumped into a car instead of gas stop this or would it make it worse? Would it explode but then blow itself out?

I think these are some questions that need to be answered if the first asumption is true.

Scientific Illiteracy (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10790111)

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see evidence of scientific illiteracy at slashdot, the site ain't what it used to be. Reminds me of the idiotic chain email letter going around comparing butter to the evils of margarine. "Margarine is only one hydrogen atom away from plastic!!"

Given the choice, this Anonymous Coward would surely choose to be standing in proximity to a hydrogen explosion than a similar quantity of gasoline.

hydrogen somewhat benificial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10790117)

The main downer with hydrogen is that you have to use fuel to create it. So, use coal, gas etc to make hydrogen. There might be some energy savings from using an electric motor. But overall there is a net enrgy loss. It really depends on how efficiently the hydrogen is made. If the hydrogen is made super efficiently without energy loss then it might be a winner.

The benifit I see is getting the fossil fuel out of the car. So, we have an intermediate fuel called hydrogen. When the oil runs out then create hydrogen from some other means like coal etc. Thus, when oil runs out the car infrastructure is not lost. When Saudi Arabia runs out you wont be forced to buy a new car.

Maybe the realistic scenerio is the gasoline fuel cell. The key to this one is the car would use an electric motor. A combustion engine only harneses about 20% of the power. An electric motor might be triple as efficient. So, cars might save a bit of energy. The downside being, again, you have fossil fuel in the automotive infratructure.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?