Hydrogen fires are non-explosive. it burns in a steady stream, if say, a tank gets punctured. On the other hand, gasoline spreads and has a far greater proclivity to explode...
The problem is storing hydrogen... Methanol, which has the same problems as gasoline, can also be used in fuel cells and has a higher possible storage density at normal pressures...
I guess you've never actually worked with Hydrogen. Hydrogen blows up in a very big way in the right conditions, one of the standard tests for if your leaking it is explosive (assuming you can catch the off gas), and has the added hazard of burning near colourless. The upside is it reacts very fast so you don't tend to get explosive mixtures.
Just for slight amusement at a major petrochemical manufacturer they actually had a hydrogen fire and decided to hose down the reactor to control the temperature to protect nearby equipment (shutting these things down costs a lot if you're wondering so they try to avoid it). Pretty standard except they had a very high temperature reactor inside and very cold outer wall. End result was the whole thing buckled because of the different temps. One of the funniest things I've ever seen. The whole reactor just tipped sideways.
I guess you've never actually worked with Hydrogen. Hydrogen blows up in a very big way in the right conditions, one of the standard tests for if your leaking it is explosive (assuming you can catch the off gas), and has the added hazard of burning near colourless. The upside is it reacts very fast so you don't tend to get explosive mixtures.
Just for slight amusement at a major petrochemical manufacturer they actually had a hydrogen fire and decided to hose down the reactor to control the temperature to protect nearby equipment (shutting these things down costs a lot if you're wondering so they try to avoid it). Pretty standard except they had a very high temperature reactor inside and very cold outer wall. End result was the whole thing buckled because of the different temps. One of the funniest things I've ever seen. The whole reactor just tipped sideways.
back in chemistry; they'd never let us play w/ hydrogen; but from the demos, its a lot more heat, and i wont restate what i've said in a previous response about hydrogen... but has anyone thought a natural gas???
Actually I didn't say. I said it is uncommon but first thing you consider when HAZOPing a hydrogen tank is the potential for a fireball on a rupture and when Hydrogen goes it goes very very big and very suddenly. The benefit in Hydrogen is if there's a leak it dissipates reasonably quickly (4 - 5 times the speed of most fuels) and second it requires around 4 times higher conc of hydrogen than most hydrocarbons to ignite.
The downsides are it is very costly to contain, particularly if you want a reasonable amount, and it also happens to have one of the largest explosive regions of just about anything (4 - 75%v/v if you're wondering. By contrast the worst hydrocarbons tend to be ~1 - 15%, although that varies). Add to that it's rapid diffusion can be a curse. It can range out further than most fuels to find an ignition source.
Kind of stupid to say Hydrogen can't explode. That's how people and large chemical plants end up blown up
I have actually never heard of a hydrogen explosion...
Didn't you ever to that experiment in chemistry where you electrolyze water and capture the hydrogen in a test tube? You ignite the H2 and it goes POP!!!!
It was small but it WAS an explosion.
Hydrogen is also a pain to contain since the molecules are so small they tend to "get away" easily. Tubing and pipe fittings have to be designed to higher tolerances to avoid leakage.
Back on message:
But hydrogen ain't gonna help with the oil shortage. It should help make our air cleaner, but it isn't an energy source. It is an energy conduit or container if you wish. It helps us transfer energy from one place to another. The natural gas supply is finite and if we start making hydrogen from methane that will still make pollution and will cause a shortage of natural gas used for other industries like plastics. Same problem with using natural gas in conventional internal combustions engines. There isn't enough to go around and then it runs out.
(my point was that you need something besides hydrogen to get an explosion... this is not the case with gasoline which contains a fair amount of oxygen already)
In any event, no chemical energy source should be looked at as a source but rather as a conduit as welshdog suggests... We really only have three sources of energy on this planet... nuclear, solar (broadly defined), and geothermal....
Comments
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Hydrogen fires are non-explosive. it burns in a steady stream, if say, a tank gets punctured. On the other hand, gasoline spreads and has a far greater proclivity to explode...
The problem is storing hydrogen... Methanol, which has the same problems as gasoline, can also be used in fuel cells and has a higher possible storage density at normal pressures...
I guess you've never actually worked with Hydrogen. Hydrogen blows up in a very big way in the right conditions, one of the standard tests for if your leaking it is explosive (assuming you can catch the off gas), and has the added hazard of burning near colourless. The upside is it reacts very fast so you don't tend to get explosive mixtures.
Just for slight amusement at a major petrochemical manufacturer they actually had a hydrogen fire and decided to hose down the reactor to control the temperature to protect nearby equipment (shutting these things down costs a lot if you're wondering so they try to avoid it). Pretty standard except they had a very high temperature reactor inside and very cold outer wall. End result was the whole thing buckled because of the different temps. One of the funniest things I've ever seen. The whole reactor just tipped sideways.
Originally posted by Telomar
I guess you've never actually worked with Hydrogen. Hydrogen blows up in a very big way in the right conditions, one of the standard tests for if your leaking it is explosive (assuming you can catch the off gas), and has the added hazard of burning near colourless. The upside is it reacts very fast so you don't tend to get explosive mixtures.
Just for slight amusement at a major petrochemical manufacturer they actually had a hydrogen fire and decided to hose down the reactor to control the temperature to protect nearby equipment (shutting these things down costs a lot if you're wondering so they try to avoid it). Pretty standard except they had a very high temperature reactor inside and very cold outer wall. End result was the whole thing buckled because of the different temps. One of the funniest things I've ever seen. The whole reactor just tipped sideways.
You don't get explosive mixtures as you say. . .
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You don't get explosive mixtures as you say. . .
Actually I didn't say. I said it is uncommon but first thing you consider when HAZOPing a hydrogen tank is the potential for a fireball on a rupture and when Hydrogen goes it goes very very big and very suddenly. The benefit in Hydrogen is if there's a leak it dissipates reasonably quickly (4 - 5 times the speed of most fuels) and second it requires around 4 times higher conc of hydrogen than most hydrocarbons to ignite.
The downsides are it is very costly to contain, particularly if you want a reasonable amount, and it also happens to have one of the largest explosive regions of just about anything (4 - 75%v/v if you're wondering. By contrast the worst hydrocarbons tend to be ~1 - 15%, although that varies). Add to that it's rapid diffusion can be a curse. It can range out further than most fuels to find an ignition source.
Kind of stupid to say Hydrogen can't explode. That's how people and large chemical plants end up blown up
I have actually never heard of a hydrogen explosion...
have a look
http://www.safety.uwa.edu.au/hazard_...ogen_explosion
I dont know, perhaps you know something that technically doesn't make it an 'explosion' but some other technical term?
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
the hindenberg didn't explode...
I have actually never heard of a hydrogen explosion...
Didn't you ever to that experiment in chemistry where you electrolyze water and capture the hydrogen in a test tube? You ignite the H2 and it goes POP!!!!
It was small but it WAS an explosion.
Hydrogen is also a pain to contain since the molecules are so small they tend to "get away" easily. Tubing and pipe fittings have to be designed to higher tolerances to avoid leakage.
Back on message:
But hydrogen ain't gonna help with the oil shortage. It should help make our air cleaner, but it isn't an energy source. It is an energy conduit or container if you wish. It helps us transfer energy from one place to another. The natural gas supply is finite and if we start making hydrogen from methane that will still make pollution and will cause a shortage of natural gas used for other industries like plastics. Same problem with using natural gas in conventional internal combustions engines. There isn't enough to go around and then it runs out.
(my point was that you need something besides hydrogen to get an explosion... this is not the case with gasoline which contains a fair amount of oxygen already)
In any event, no chemical energy source should be looked at as a source but rather as a conduit as welshdog suggests... We really only have three sources of energy on this planet... nuclear, solar (broadly defined), and geothermal....
Pick your beast...
Originally posted by burningwheel
also saudi oil isn't the best quality anymore, iraq's oil is the best
And it tastes like sweet sweet candy.