On 30/09/2017 18:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , MrCheerful
wrote:

On 30/09/2017 12:41, Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-30, Peter Hill wrote:
On 30-Sep-17 10:00 AM, MrCheerful wrote:

[24 lines snipped]

Would specialised staff be required to keep the filling process safe?
Good site for a terrorist attack too.
I would hazard a guess that hydrogen stations would not be permitted
anywhere near housing.Â* I have only seen one and that was well in the
countryside.

More FUD.

Well, quite. Skipping over the fact that "Mr. Cheerful" is an idiot
troll,
when criticising the safety of hydrogen fuelled vehicles, his ilk seem
to conveniently forget just how dangerous petrol is, and we deal with
that adequately.

Petrol IS very dangerous, but it is a known danger, I am merely
summarising a couple of ideas that occurred to me, hydrogen in the
domestic market is not a known danger, and given its amazing powers to
burn really well, I for one would want a lot of likely problems to be
thoroughly sorted before (if ever) it becomes mainstream.

One plus for hydrogen is that when it burns, the flame is not so
dangerous to be near (an explosion requires a mixture). This is because
the flame is not luminous, unlike a hydrocarbon flame which is, and
which therefore radiates a lot of heat sideways. You wouldn't have
wanted to be near one of those Buncefield tanks.

However, no one has yet indicated in what form teh hydrogen is in the
car. Liquid (seems unlikely), but if as compressed gas, at what
pressure?



The fact that it leaks through steel is an indication of the care
required in its usage.

The filling pressure seems to be listed as 35 or 70mpa (10,000 psi)
(that is dangerous in and of itself, no matter what the content is.)

The filling stations are extremely expensive to set up too.