So, that James Bond hydrogen villain isn't all that realistic, huh?
This year's big James Bond flick, Quantum of Solace, had a distinct hydrogen theme through and through. Starting with the redesigned Ford Ka that was emblazoned with hydrogen stickers - even though Ford doesn't actually, and as far as we know isn't planning to, make hydrogen versions of any of its production machines. The hydrogen party didn't end there, though. Later in the movie, the bad guy's entire lair was fueled on hydrogen gas, and the entire building ended up incinerating itself in a Hindenburg-style disaster at the very end. Of course, Mr. Bond and his stunning co-star, ably played by Olga Kurylenko, managed to escape the raging inferno in time. Dramatic? Yes, absolutely. Realistic? Unfortunately not.
Keith Ross, a professor at Salford University who's studying hydrogen's role as a petroleum replacement, finds this climactic finale a bit disturbing. He says, "I was perturbed to watch the James Bond film's climax. It was unrealistic and may perpetuate the fear that hydrogen should be avoided. Although potentially explosive in a confined space, the fuel can be handled quite safely. If released into the open air, hydrogen would only burn with a blue flame – a fact obviously of no interest to a film-maker! Like the famous photographs of the Hindenburg disaster, the scene's images could well stick in the public's consciousness." A quantum-sized concern or much ado about nothing?
[Source: Ecorazzi]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Derek 6:06PM (12/24/2008)
Lots of previous Bond films have included exploding gasoline. Doesn't seem to have hurt perception of gasoline any.
Reply
Tom 8:53PM (12/24/2008)
The problem with that is that gasoline does explode that way and everyone knows it. Hydrogen doesn't explode that way and very few people know it. The Hindenberg fire was fueled by the dopant on the canvas, not the hydrogen.
I was pissed about that last climactic scene in the Bond film too for the same reason. It went beyond ridiculous with the continuous explosions and fire.
Reply
sydbot 12:20AM (12/25/2008)
The smallest possible sized concern?
Reply
Der Alte 1:20AM (12/25/2008)
Yes, we should not let fears about exploding hydrogen distract us from the facts.
Hydrogen is a bad idea because it makes no economic or practical sense as a transportation fuel.....or mode of transporting energy as hydrogen is more of a conduit than an energy source.
There are far greater myths to debunk about hydrogen other than its combustibility.
Reply
Chris M 3:19AM (12/25/2008)
Yes, hydrogen burns with an almost invisible flame, but it does produce a lot of heat and easily ignites other flammables with highly visible flames. The Hindenberg fire was quite visible due to the other things that burned, and a hydrogen fueled villains lair would also have a colorful fire, too.
This isn't the first time an alternative fuel was used by a Bond villain. In "The man with the Golden Gun" the villain's lair was solar powered, with the power stored cryogenically. Improbable, yes, but Bond films are always a bit excessive and over-the-top.
Reply
Diffrunt 10:09AM (12/25/2008)
Nice to learn that someone smarter than me had such similar thoughts. Explosion overkill ruined the movie .
Reply
zane 10:49AM (12/25/2008)
What ??
Hydrogen is our savour It will not only be cheaper but greener
all that is left when it burns is steam !
so it burns 100% clean!
And thats got to be great news for the planet, its got me beat why we are not embracing it right now ?
And it has more explosive energy than petroleum.
Reply
gorr 4:34PM (12/25/2008)
Hydrogen should constitute a new whorshiping object for all moving living humains. It should appear in violent explosing media as film or website in heat and living colors with sounds too.
They should replace gold, diamonds, exxon stocks, coca-cola cans with a quantity of hydrogen water production machines that you use on-site without cost and no pollution. Stock cars, dragsters, lowered honda civics, airplanes, camping stoves, cigaret lighters, cadillacs, mercuries, chevrolet, camrys, eco-fuelers, should adopt hydrogen because of it's hard and free capacities to explode. Hydrogen should not be produced, distributed and stored then sold, this is the way to provoke false economics jobs that end in a deep recession like gasoline do right now. No, hydrogen should be produced on demand like the d.dingel car in philipine or the hydrogen of hypower fuel from canada or the xogen electrolyser in u.s.a and then used almost at the same time so no stupid cost involve like the fcx clarity from honda or the sequel from gm. Hydrogen should be tuned in ice as the specs of H"A"W from japan that obtain 50% more power from a certain engine size with a mist of water add in the intake manifold.
Reply
bob bigglesworth 2:02AM (12/26/2008)
First off, the movie was horrible, and thats two for two for the new Bond.
As far as hydrogen is concerned, its a hoax, everyone knows this, perpetuated by oil-pro-lobbyists to distract the public from electric technology (GM EV-1 conspiracy). As an autobloggreen reader I am sure you pro hydrogen folks can't deny the fact that hydrogen's popularity didn't come in to the spotlight ironically while the electric revolution was beginning and essentially just gutted funding that could have otherwise been used to further electric motor technology, and battery technology (if the oil companies hadn't bought all that up too).
Electrical grid/pipeline/infrastructure ALREADY EXISTS (unlike hydrogen), and would just need to be upgraded (via green production methods hopefully).
All this explosion BS is just that...however the general public is driven by suggestion in the media, etc, so....electricity wins again...no explosion...just an electric shock...hehe...
The only other method of fuel that I would be pro is ethanol...the politics would have to be figured out (huge taxes the US puts on ethanol from brazil) and or the technology like the ethanol from trash projects...The reason I say this is because we already have a huge country thats using it and has been for years with success.....so thats a model...where is the hydrogen model????
Reply
Stan Wellaway 1:29PM (12/26/2008)
H.. is for Hydrogen.
H.. is for Hype.
Coincidence?
Anyway, half the folk who try an internet seach for hydrogen are going to find themselves reading about the destructive power of the hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen is not short of negative connotations.
Reply
Damian 5:51PM (12/27/2008)
A James Bond film with something unrealistic? Oh dear gosh how could this be!? They are always so true to life!
I understand and appreciate being scared of the general public developing incorrect assumptions about Hydrogen as a widely accepted form of propulsion. However, when the argument is surrounding a movie that has always been known for it's flamboyance (i.e. invisible cars that can drive upside down on ice) the conversation becomes pretty mute. There are plenty of other valid ones to be having. :)
Reply