What if Toyota’s Hydrogen engine succeeds?

After reading all the questions above, I would like to add one. Who pays for the death when a car generates a hydrogen leak? The vehicle manufacturers? The fuel station? The hydrogen generator? I would like that determined first, then see where the investment goes. So, I park my hydrogen car in the garage, it develops a leak, the hydrogen fills my house while I sleep, the refrigerator relay kicks on and BOOM!! Gasoline doesn’t really have that level of a problem.

 

Those with the deepest pockets. Have you not learned how are legal system works?

 

Eureka! You've invented perpetual motion! The world is saved!

(Having no free hydrogen available on this planet is the reason why hydrogen is going nowhere.)

 

Please explain this in greater detail so those hell bent on the saving the planet might understand.

 

Hydrogen is one of the hardest elements to contain and store.

Here is a litany of the problems related to automotive applications:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage-challenges​

 

I am not sure, but I see these challenges still being an issue. They work on these because what they know, in my opinion, is that NO ONE will be able to afford hydrogen fuel cells and the full systems integration for a personal vehicle. So, when we go to a society where no one will own a vehicle, the government will have an open checkbook tax money to pay the cost of a single vehicle and we can schedule the vehicles. I think this is why they are investing time and money. I’m not going P&R here but I think this is the only way to afford this kind of cost and legality structure in the end.

 

Around 2014 I believe.

 

Some random comments.

Hydrogen is just a poor fuel, low energy density, hard and dangerous to store in large quantities. I could see green hydrogen being used close to the generation plant, ie with CO2 captured from a fossil fuel power station for methanation to produce synthetic natural gas. Not exactly carbon neutral, but increases the energy production per unit of carbon emitted, this I think is where we should look as the scale is so large that we can’t stop using high density fuels like coal, oil and gas until a substitute (carbon recycling in some form or another) is available.

Ammonia is being touted as the form for safe and stable transport of hydrogen, but I am not sold on this, something doesn’t add up. Generation of hydrogen from anything other than water and renewable energy is fiddling the books in the context of saving the planet.

Hydrogen is a powerful reductant and a key element in hydrocarbons which have excellent energy density as a fuel, so synthetic hydrocarbons with CO2 recycling makes sense, just need the technology to catch up.

 

Same situation as when a gas tank ruptures and it goes boom? Did you read about what happened to that lady in Vegas and the Football player?

hydrogen dissipates before it can act like a habachi.

 

I think hydrogen will lose out to pure electric. Just a guess

I can definitely see H2 for industrial and airplanes.

 

I think you have no idea how large, and how heavy, hydrogen storage system are -- but "future-future-hopey-changey"! I know, let's use Dilithium crystals!

 

https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/posts/147861904/

 

Did you even read my post? I said I think pure electrical will WIN.

So thank you?

As far as kaboom, I can name you many folks that have perished from a gas tank fire in the car.

Can you name me just one, (Just one) person that died from a hydrogen tank explosion from a car?

....

 

Can you name me just one, (JUST ONE), person that was confirmed to be abducted by aliens? Just not enough of a sample pool to draw a conclusion.

Similar to I don't need to know that the saw will cut my fingers off, I just know at some point, if my hand contacts a rotating saw blade, that my hand will be cut off. I have enough circumstantial evidence to say that it is a reality.

Do you know how many labs have blown up and injured people due to a hydrogen leak?

 

Your challenge would make sense if I was the one claiming UFO abductions or that if I put my hands to a saw, it would be the saw that breaks.

I'm not the one claiming that hydrogen tanks in cars are more dangerous than gasoline ones; you are.

Pardon me for asking for evidence (not circumstantial, by the way.)

 

I'm personally for whatever is cheap. As I say, one of my favorite words is "Free."

My neighbor got a geothermal installed. I think they'll make back their money in about 10 years. After that, they'll save $$$.

I understand, some (most?) folks don't think that far out. What can I say, I admire Americans like Warren Buffet that have time horizons longer than just say 2 years.

 

There is a lot of drunkenness for Elon, but to his credit, he is the richest man in history. I mean, unless you're also one of those that say he's a farce?

 

I was just getting the pot stirred up for debate!! But, I was putting to the contention that their are approximately 1 hydrogen to 100,000,000 gasoline vehicles in the world and therefore your point is incorrect. The analogy was correct. We have zero data to back up your claim, just as much as there is zero evidence that someone being confirmed to be abducted by aliens. Both are preposterous and that was the point.

I do have data on gasoline vehicles causing death just as much as I have evidence of Hydrogen explosions in laboratories. Also, to claim that the saturation point (i.e. dissipation) of the hydrogen would make a hydrogen explosion moot, is also preposterous since where is your data to show the design of the vehicle versus the leak point versus the lower limit of explosion of the hydrogen in that area? Put that together with a crash, and the statement seems even more preposterous. Both designs have flaws, but a pressurized tank of hydrogen large enough for lengthy travel creates quite a bit of explosive force.

 

Your claim: Automotive hydrogen tanks are more dangerous than gasoline ones.

I'm a simple man, asking a simple question.

I have not seen a single piece of evidence that proves this claim, but I'm open-minded, hence - I simply ask for it. If you provide it, not only will I retract, but will agree with you.

If you can't provide it, that's on me?

Strange way to debate.