It's the huge difference in reaction speed that makes all the difference. Even in their gaseous/vaporized forms, conventional (fossil) fuels react comparatively slowly compared to hydrogen, like a sweet retriever puppy compared to a trained dog of war.
It's exactly this difference that makes them relatively safe to use and even still relatively controllable once something goes wrong. With hydrogen, you simply won't get that change. It will be all over in a blink. A very hot and bright one, I might add.
Feel free to believe whatever you want, you have every right. But I'm rather sure that your optimism regarding hydrogen is more rooted in ignorance than in knowledge.
> Feel free to believe whatever you want, you have every right. But I'm rather sure that your optimism regarding hydrogen is more rooted in ignorance than in knowledge.
You have made some great points about hydrogen. But personal insults like that don't help you get your message across.
Yeah, I'm actually more familiar with hydrogen than you think. I'm aware of the problems with reaction speed. One advantage hydrogen has is that it escapes very rapidly from its container and goes pretty much straight up due to how light it is.
I'm actually not as much of an optimist on hydrogen as you seem to think. I think it is unlikely to be used in aviation in any real sense, for a variety of reasons, some having to do with safety, others with performance. However, I think it is worth investigating, and I do not think the problems around it are insurmountable from an engineering perspective.
Thought then I'm sincerely even more surprised you would say that any fuel tank on fire is a (relatively) equal problem.
As for hydrogen rapidly escaping and going straight up because of its low density, those properties I would only consider positive in scenarios where the hydrogen isn't reacting (being on fire, to be more precise). When on fire, quite the opposite. Buildup of heat on the ground might still be less of a problem than with heavier fuels (which indeed is a very real problem with those), but not much advantage of that once everything within a certain radius is reduced to the size of matchsticks by a powerful explosion.
But if you claim to be (some sort of) an expert, I'll believe you. I certainly am not, that much I admit.
I only based my opinion on what I've been told by chemists that I personally trust. They told me rather invariably that the engineering challenges for storing/operating hydrogen are such a bitch, that they are ultimately only a good for when you want something closely resembling a bomb, without actually being one (or just hoping it won't explode before it served its purpose). Like e.g. rocket engines.
I didn't say it would be an equal problem, I said that you will have similar problems if an airplane fuel tank catches fire. The problems you're raising are definitely real problems, I just think they can be designed around.
The engineering problems obviously aren't large enough to prevent something like the Tu-155 from using liquid hydrogen. Whether it can ultimately made as safe as conventional aircraft, I don't know. Maybe not. Either way, I don't think the economics are favorable for hydrogen.
It's exactly this difference that makes them relatively safe to use and even still relatively controllable once something goes wrong. With hydrogen, you simply won't get that change. It will be all over in a blink. A very hot and bright one, I might add.
Feel free to believe whatever you want, you have every right. But I'm rather sure that your optimism regarding hydrogen is more rooted in ignorance than in knowledge.