Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Here is an example:

https://electrek.co/2019/06/11/hydrogen-station-explodes-toy...

Hydrogen needs to be treated with the proper respect at all times when it isn't safely bound to something else. It really doesn't take much to set it off. That the Hindenburg ever got off the ground is what is impressive about it, the amount of care that went into ensuring that a static charge could never reach the reservoir must have been massive.

Hydrogen plants have exploded in the past as well. Given aircrafts' tendency to build up static charges and to be hit by lightning I would not bet on that particular technology to work out.

The Hindenburg was - and that a pretty weird thing to write - about as good as it gets for an accident like that. Only about 1/3rd of the people on board died and it happened during a time when the aircraft was already fairly low (during the last stage of mooring). Had this happened at altitude likely all hands would have been lost.




The article ends by pointing out the author has no data on whether hydrogen cars are more dangerous than others. Nobody would argue hydrogen can't be dangerous. The question is, is it more dangerous than jet fuel?


Jet fuel is closer to diesel than to gasoline the activation energy for jet fuel is much higher than for hydrogen, its molecules are larger so it can be contained safer and with less chance of leaks. So the answer is yes, it very likely is much more dangerous than jet fuel.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: