Don't feed the trolls!

↓↑report

I wouldn't really call Gorr a troll. He's just... different.

↓↑report

He's special.

↓↑report

It looks like the money is coming from fees collected by the ports themselves:

"...there is a $35 fee on every container coming into or leaving the port.

These funds are being used to replace 16,800 trucks working around the ports. As of January 2010 all trucks 2003 or older will be banned unless they are retrofitted. In January 2012 trucks that don’t meet the 2007 emissions requirements will be banned.

The clean truck programs pay up to 80-percent of the costs of new trucks that are replacing older trucks. Net purchase cost of the Tyrano is approximately $10,000 to $30,000 after port program and California and Federal tax credits.

Operating costs for the Tyrano are 35-percent less than diesel trucks and 50-percent less that LNG trucks."

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-vehicles/vision-industries-tyrano-plug-in-fuel-cell-big-rig-truck/

Of course, the savings over in operating costs would also provide a good incentive to switch.

↓↑report

Do you mean they should carry compressed natural gas instead?

One of the issues I've been wondering about is tunnels.

Many tunnels ban propane tanks. I suspect that natural gas and hydrogen tanks would be banned also.

↓↑report

I never even thought about that before. That could be nasty. 100kg of hydrogen detonating in a tunnel, with the reflections from the sides reinforcing the combustion shocks? That'll rapidly go from deflagration to detonation.

Let's see... 0.09 kilograms per cubic meter and a stoichiometric mixture of 29.5% by volume, so that'd be ~3,766 cubic meters of explosive gas. Assuming a tunnel cross section of 25 square meters, that'd mean the mixture would exist down 500 feet of tunnel (!)

Dear God... that'd be like being inside a Light Gas Gun. :P

↓↑report

Dave, a methanol reformer would be a better option.

↓↑report

"Let's see... 0.09 kilograms per cubic meter"

Unless it ignites, of course, at which point the temperature rise of the combustion products (water vapor) and the ambient air could take up many times that volume, and do so in a fraction of a second (how fast is the flame front for hydrogen?).

It would be like a car cannon.... a cannon firing cars out either end.

↓↑report

Erm, I really bungled my units there!:

That's 33kg of hydrogen, not 100. But the calculations were also in meters, not feet. The two errors roughly cancel out, so the length of the explosive gas mixture would still be about 500 feet.

A car cannon indeed!

↓↑report

Yeah, I was thinking more methanol or some other standard temperature liquid fuel.

↓↑report

Yes, heaven forbid we call a highly pressurized explosive gas dangerous. Here's what one percent or so as much hydrogen gas as is in that vehicle explodes like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMB2VR0087w

Here's what a car containing a small fraction as much fuel, with natural gas (lower pressure, less explosive, in the same kind of tanks) looks like after a car fire:

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7555

Here's NASA's guidelines for handling hydrogen:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3932096/NASA-Glenn-Research-Center-Glenn-Safety-Manual-Chapter-Hydrogen-NASA

Here's the OSHA guidelines:

www DOT osha DOT gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9749

You might as well just recommend we build and drive Ford Nucleons.

Quit denigrating people who point out the problems in your dream fuel as trolls. That's real desperation there. Sorry if it hurts your feelings for me to point this out, but it doesn't matter how many demo units they built, as long as the laws of physics remain what they are, hydrogen will not work as a mass-market transportation fuel. It is too dangerous, grossly inefficient, has essentially no infrastructure, its infrastructure costs (and will continue to cost, due to its handling properties) way too much, costs (and will continue to cost, due to its inefficiency) way too much to produce, and despite half a century of heavy research and billions upon billions of government funding, and thousands of units built, PEMFCs are way, way too expensive and too short lived.

It is dead technology walking, being milked for those last few drops of government grants. Again, sorry if this hurts your feelings so much that you feel the need to insist that nobody can bring it up.

↓↑report

Who do you work for letstakeawalk?

hydrogendiscoveries.com? fuelcellpartnership.org?

Your posts are just like another industry lobbyist that used to frequent this blog.

↓↑report

I don't work for anything related to the automotive or energy industries. I'm actually a historian by training and trade. My primary interest is the development of automated machinery and industrial processes, but pretty much anything engineering related rings my bell.

I assume you're referring to Mr. Blencoe, who I understand thinks this blog is overwhelmingly anti-hydrogen biased. I do see his point, considering the number of posters who make comments of a purely negative nature. The amount of time you people spend trying to spread FUD about a budding technology is astounding. You all fail to acknowledge any progress, while posting under articles that actively contradict your positions. H2 and fuel cell tech is moving forward and being implemented all around you, regardless of how scared and you all seem to be of it.

↓↑report

@letstakeawalk
While you do have a point about people here coming to snap anti-hydrogen judgments, I think misunderstand the nature of a debate. You have no right to complain about people posting an anti-hydrogen opinion. There are many legitimate concerns with hydrogen and someone voicing one is just as welcome as someone voicing a well reasoned pro-hydrogen opinion. There is nothin un-civil about pointing the danger of high preasure hydrogen. The only time you have a legitimate complaint is when some one posts false factual claims, ignores logic, refuses to listen to the other people here or resorts to personal attacks. From time to time people let their emotions get the best of them and break these rules. While some of the anti-hydrogen posters have certainly broken these rules, the worst offence I have seen since Blencoe left was you when you instructed a fellow poster not to listen to the arguments of those who would try to convince him he was wrong:

"The doubters will try to explain that thousands of engineers working around the globe really have no clue. Don't listen to them. " -letstakeawalk (9/23/2009)

If we don't listen to those we disagree with there is no way we can correct our mistakes.

@paulwesterberg
While letstakeawalk is stubborn in his support of hydrogen he has gone nowhere near the level of Blencoe's complete disregard for reality. Questioning if he works for a hydrogen company is one thing (I'd say even that goes too far), but likening him to Blencoe is an insult no one here deserves.

↓↑report

Sean

Fair enough. I'm going to try to ignore meme constant harping on the explosive nature of hydrogen. Explosion and flammability concerns are intrinsic of all power sources, gasoline, CNG, battery, hydrogen. It's a moot point, as each of those sources has specific dangers relating to their use. There's no way referring to a potential explosion inside a tunnel as a "car cannon" can be considered anything other than inflammatory rhetoric, meant to scare people. Posting pictures of cars blown up resulting from arson, rather than any sort of real-world accident, is also reprehensible.

I would also ask that when people make a specific claim, that they provide supporting evidence.

↓↑report