• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Hydrogen storage is very expensive and difficult, which makes personal storage difficult. Industrial storage is easier, but still… sketchy. Just look at how many times a year Texas City has an explosion at their gas plant network.

    There are better ways to store energy. Hydrogen is just cheap to acquire, which makes it an attractive substance for the existing industry.

    • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Most of what I have read are discussing this possibility is industrial storage, for industrial scale fuel use. Then they usually come in with asides if the car industry, or whom ever, ever creates a good fuel cell. Though I know there are a lot of BS articles about hydrogen fuel cells powering everything, especially cars. Largely pushed by the oil, and auto, industries.

      I looked up Texas City explosions, there aren’t actually a whole lot. Though they do have one devastating one (1947), and one really bad one (2005). Most of them seem to have less to do with the stores of hydrogen, and more to do with mishandling of other aspects of the fuel refinement, and fertilizer, manufacture/storage. Large scale hydrogen storage is not as dangerous as it would seem. When punctures in LH tanks happen, even though they are now mixing with oxygen, it proves to be very difficult to actually get it to light. With most attempts to create a hydrogen leak explosion showing it lights briefly, before the pressure of the expanding gas puts it back out, because it actually displaces all the oxygen. The biggest dangers actually seem to be burns from the extreme temperature of it, and suffocation as leaks rapidly fill areas, displacing all the oxygen. Most of the storage explosions of hydrogen are due to how rapidly it expands, which, when improperly stored, can cause a run away pressure build up, and pressure explosion, rather than an ignition one. Though there are exceptions, such as the Muskingum River power plant explosion. Though we still don’t know what managed to ignite the hydrogen leaking from the truck. This means hydrogen isn’t any more dangerous than the storage of other fuels, and materials, that can explode. It is more dangerous to store large amounts of grain.

      https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2017/03/17/so-just-how-dangerous-is-hydrogen-fuel/

      https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/hydrogen-vehicle-danger1.htm

      https://www.nrdc.org/bio/christian-tae/hydrogen-safety-lets-clear-air

      https://courses.grainger.illinois.edu/npre470/sp2019/web/readings/Hydrogen safety issues.pdf

        • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Oh, I wasn’t saying those two were the only ones. Just that over nearly a century of them being a big producer of refined fuel, and synthetic fertilizer, there really haven’t been enough explosions to warrant the “times per year” comment. This is also only one, out of many, places like this, and none of them, at least that there is public record for, have a whole lot of bad things happening. Unfortunately, the occasional leak of toxic chemicals, explosions due to mishandling of fuels, etc. is something that can’t be avoided if the modern world is to continue working. This is why regulatory bodies, and enforcement of safety, and procedural, laws are important. In the big picture though, hydrogen isn’t particularly dangerous.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            nearly a century of them being a big producer of refined fuel, and synthetic fertilizer, there really haven’t been enough explosions to warrant the “times per year” comment.

            Idk what the “minimum number of catastrophic accidents” would qualify. But more minor accidents in Texas City are routine. You just found the two historic ones.

            Like saying you Googled Biggest Hurricanes In Texas and only came back with Harvey and The Great Galveston Hurricane, so why is everyone complaining? That’s just two in a century.

            • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I am not just talking about catastrophic incidents, in that I mean to say the ones that killed people, and devastated the facility it was in. I looked up data with the BSEE, FERC, and PHMSA. There are little leaks of hydrogen that are considered the most minor hazard a several times a year yes. But the amount of incidents when it goes from potential, to actual, are not frequent enough to be rated in times per year. I was considering situations like where it just lit then went out, or created an environment that could suffocate someone, etc. Beyond that, most of these hazards are not from hydrogen, but other materials.

              What it boils down to, is that hydrogen is no more dangerous than other chemicals, we commonly use, that can be explosive.