In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article . com, Don
Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:

One of the things that gets me on the "hydrogen bandwagon" is the
claim that they need to get research money to develop cheaper fuel
cells. But if we DID have a good source of hydrogen, we don't need
fuel cell cars.

I disagree. A fuel cell liberates hydrogen on demand; the alternative to
using
fuel cells in a hydrogen-powered vehicle is to carry a tankful of
hydrogen --
thus turning every car on the road into a rolling bomb.

How does it "liberate hydrogen on demand"? The hydrogen/fuel-cell car I saw
at the New York Auto Show a couple of years ago had regular gas tanks full
of hydrogen. There has been talk of using methane or even liquid fuels to
supply the hydrogen, but efficiency and maintenance problems are said to go
to pot when you do. Not having any experience with it I wouldn't know for
sure.

My understanding of the process is that a hydrogen fuel cell uses a chemical
catalyst to release hydrogen gas from hydrogen-containing compounds -- it's
not a tank of gaseous hydrogen.

*Any* breach of that
tank (in a collision, for example), combined with *any* source of
ignition,
will result in a devastating explosion. (Does the name "Hindenberg" ring a
bell?)

Hydrogen has a wide range of explosive mixtures with oxygen, but it also
goes straight up when it's released.

If it did that instantly, there might not be a problem...

Some experts I've read on the subject
say it's slightly less likely to cause a disaster than a tank full of
gasoline. Do you have some data based on experience?

I'm not claiming to know the answers to these questions, but I'd like to
know what they are.

I'm not an expert. But I have some understanding of the chemistry involved --
and I've seen the film of the Hindenberg.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.