Hydrogen vs. Ethanol Cars

Very very bad idea. If those tanks should explode do you have any idea where it would go? UP! Because H2 is lighter then air it would explode up and away versus the way gasline spreads down and out from the car. They should be in the read end and NOT under the passengers. Yes there will be more risk of explosion BUT the likelihood of the passengers getting away in one piece if a breach should happen is increased significantly.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by sardion2000]

Perhaps we're just dealing with opinions and preferences as far as fire safety goes.

For myself I'd rather have a pressure tank in a well protected area where it probably wouldn't be damaged than have a tank at the rear of the car where it's easily ruptured in a low speed wreck.

The Pinto conflagrations probably come to mind for many, but other cars with the fuel tanks behind the rear axle, but further forward than the somewhat exposed Pinto tank can be ruptured easily in a typical rear-ender.

Along with the upward flame of gasoline, remember that it flows outward and you'll be in a bigger pool of fire with it than you would be with a - probably - specifically directioned fire like you'd have with a hydrogen tank.


Aside from all this, I've often wondered why Detroit et al doesn't have "fuel cell" containers for the gasoline tanks of vehicles.

Said fuel cell not the energy producing cell that most ATS'rs talk about, rather a fuel cell like race cars have.
Race cars have fires, sometimes spectacular ones, but not as spectacular as they could be if racing fuel cells were not mandated by racing organizations like NASCAR and NHRA to name a couple of well respected ones.

All the racing fuel cells are, are fuel tanks with fuel resistant open cell foam within so that if the fuel tank ruptures the release of highly flammable fuels is considerably less than it would be if the fuel tank were simply a hollow container.

Fuel level gauge senders are not a problem either.
There are capacitance senders to monitor fuel levels.

Although I will say the life of a capcitance sender is considerably shorter than the commonly accepted float on a wire sender that operates a rheostat inside the tank.
The latter style sender - as long as the float doesn't sink - will operate just fine for many, many years.
I've seen some of these still operating in cars that are in excess of 60 years old.

About five years is it for the aftermarket senders available to racers and hot rodders.

That's the "auto-eject" feature, to get you away from the burning vehicle. Make the roof out of rice paper and you're good to go.

This is a good thread. I'll have to read it ten times to fully grasp it all, and for that you have my thanks.


[edit on 28-10-2005 by saint4God]

Fire or flame spreading is not the issue with H2. If that tank gets dinged, its gonna go. Don't even worry about where the fire goes or where the flame spreads, it's going to explode. Even if it doesnt fully rupture, if the main valve gets hit, that tank is gonna fire out the side of your car like a feaking missile. Gasoline tanks don't explode on impact unless you're watching a bad action movie. The enclosed tank keeps enough pressure on the fuel to keep it from transitioning to a vapor, which is what will explode. Watch the race cars, even they never explode...they burn. You can get out of a fire. You can't get away from an explosion. Propane tanks are indeed out there on the road, but they operate under much lower pressure, and propane has a molecular weight 20X H2's, so you can store a lot more in the same space. Even if the H2 tank were not a saftey concern, it's still impractical to store the lightest element on earth on a mobile platform. Even in liquid form you're looking at a good sized tank. Now there is a lot of research ongoing out there to figure out a better way of storing H2 in some kind of matrix that avoids the need for cryogenic liquifaction or pressurization, but unless something like that comes along I'm still wary about arming every idiot in the country with a carbomb.

They can be designed to fail gracefully so to speak. I'm still trying to find the video to the Honda explosion tests where they impacted the gas tanks from various angles and the techniques they used left the crew cab relatively untouched as the initial explosion was directed out it's weakest point as it was designed to it went straight up after about a foot from the pressure.

With new Nanocomposites currently being researched this problem can be eliminated alltogether.

With that said I still don't think H2 will achieve mass appeal due to "image" problems and to economics as I believe there will be better options down the road, I believe that Biofuel Hybrids are the stepping stone to a fully electric vehicle.

Excellent thread.

I think the future of automobiles will be with electricity. Through the next 10 years, hybrid cars will gain more popularity as their fuel efficiency increases. Gasoline cars have been heavily researched for over a hundred years, compared to less than 10 for hybrids. And eventually we will see 100% electric cars.

Hydrogen and Biofuels both have their advantages and disadvantages, but I do not see them being a major player in the near future. Hopefully we will see less and less huge SUV's on the road in the future.

Who knows how gas prices will affect the speed at which these new technologies are developed.

reply to post by saint4God

---

They can now get hydrogen from ethanol. No more high-pressure fuel tanks.
check out these links:
tinyurl.com...
tinyurl.com...