That particular model? No, I was not aware of it. But that production hydrogen cars exist, yes I did.
However, proof of their existence isn't proof of their safety. I have no doubt that they are (mostly) safe, even in almost every imaginable accident. However, it's the (unforeseen) edge cases that worry me. Not because of how often they might happen, but because of how bad the consequences could be when things go wrong.
It's a real bummer when whole a housing block gets wiped of the map, because one eccentric/rich guy just had to do something "for the environment" (#sarcasm).
From what I read, this car has storage capacity of 5 kg of pressurized hydrogen. I've seen similar storage tanks, and I have been amazed about how resistant they are to puncturing and tearing forces. Unlikely that any direct impact collusion would destroy one of these. But then there is always some corner case that it wasn't designed for. I certainly would not like to be even remotely around it, when 5 kg of pressurized hydrogen goes up in flames.
As hopefully every engineer knows, catastrophic failure is almost always a cascade of smaller compounding failures. Disrupt that chain-reaction and a catastrophe is usually averted.
However, with hydrogen the opportunity/window for that is often extremely short, with extreme consequences as a result. Not quite what you might call an optimal combination of factors.
Technically we could drive cars on nuclear reactors.
One of the things that really worries me about the concept of mass market hydrogen cars. I'm talking in the millions of units. Ordinary consumers do all sorts of slightly dangerous, ignorant things with their vehicles. Including neglecting maintenance.
I am not sure I want to see the average untrained person handling a precision refueling apparatus that connects to a tank at 250 to 700 bar pressure. It's a lot more complicated and technical of an interconnect to refuel compared to just sticking a petrol station nozzle into a tank and pumping.
I don't think a system that requires a professional refueler staff person at every hydrogen fueling station is a good idea either.
That is what worries me too. Not so much the current state of affairs, in which maybe several thousand to tens of thousands units driving around. But as the production scale goes up, so do the chances of hitting those unforeseen (or willfully accepted as "cheaper" to mitigate with financial compensations, because that is how the industry functions) corner cases where things will go wrong.
Substantially more than 5kg of hydrogen went up in flames with the Hindenburg, but I don’t think anything was wiped off the map there.
Do you have any reference to the actual danger of stored hydrogen?
However, proof of their existence isn't proof of their safety. I have no doubt that they are (mostly) safe, even in almost every imaginable accident. However, it's the (unforeseen) edge cases that worry me. Not because of how often they might happen, but because of how bad the consequences could be when things go wrong.
It's a real bummer when whole a housing block gets wiped of the map, because one eccentric/rich guy just had to do something "for the environment" (#sarcasm).
From what I read, this car has storage capacity of 5 kg of pressurized hydrogen. I've seen similar storage tanks, and I have been amazed about how resistant they are to puncturing and tearing forces. Unlikely that any direct impact collusion would destroy one of these. But then there is always some corner case that it wasn't designed for. I certainly would not like to be even remotely around it, when 5 kg of pressurized hydrogen goes up in flames.
As hopefully every engineer knows, catastrophic failure is almost always a cascade of smaller compounding failures. Disrupt that chain-reaction and a catastrophe is usually averted.
However, with hydrogen the opportunity/window for that is often extremely short, with extreme consequences as a result. Not quite what you might call an optimal combination of factors.
Technically we could drive cars on nuclear reactors.