On 30/09/2017 18:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/09/17 11:10, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 30/09/2017 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/09/17 09:02, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Steve H
wrote:

Hydrogen seems sensible - you can make it on site (yes, you need a big
electric cable - but so does a forecourt of charging stations) -
you can
fill a lightweight kevlar / carbon tank in minutes and get 500
miles of
driving with only water / steam as the tailpipe emmissions.

What, liquid hydrogen? How many litres is that for 500 miles?

Dont even go there. Hydrogen is enormously bulky and bloody
dangerous. Colorless, odorless, leaks out of any pipe that isn't
perfect - teh explosin at fukushinma was from far less than a car
tank of hydrogen..

Â*Â*Unlike, say, methane or LPG ?

Yes. They are a lot safer.

Anything that detonates at car tank level is a big bang.

But methane and LPG are a bit less likely to, and no nearly as laeky as
hydrogen

Hydrogen is indeed one of the worst gases - hence only it and acetylene
being in their own group for explosion risk purposes in industrial
installations.

Unlike petrol it does have the saving grace of dissipating rapidly
upwards and away instead of forming a liquid pool and a persistent
surrounding vapour cloud.

All in all, highly explosive, needing little energy to ignite it, but
rapidly dissipated after release.

SteveW