| You didn't make the points here, you made them elsewhere. > Burning hydrogen moves upward the same as non-burning hydrogen. Gas in contact with flame does not magically become non-buoyant. Correct, it burns. Like it did in the Hindenburg. I have no idea what your point is. > We are not, in fact, discussing "hydrogen cars", so whatever "sealed environment" you picture in them is wholly irrelevant. This is a counter-argument for your previous points that leaks are irrelevant. My point is simple: No, they're not. You're trying to side-step this point by saying "well, I'm not talking about that" when you did right here: > H2 under pressure moves outward, and in a containment breach tends to, instead, increase the H2 fraction above the 75% that can sustain a flame until most of the gas has escaped and leapt skyward. Which is complete nonsense if you look into what's around a containment system. Which is my point -- containment is never not in a confined environment. You talk about some positive airflow system, sure, that's fine. What if the failure affects that? Well now you have to consider the risks all over again. > involved no exploding hydrogen This is a pedantic nitpick. In day to day usage, people say explosion to mean "rapid, uncontrolled fire". That does not negate my point -- that was one of the largest hydrogen fires in history. You sound like you have tunnel vision on the advantages of hydrogen for industrial uses. There's a reason we don't use it. It's dangerous, and engineering solutions to mitigate the danger are prone to failure. If you want more: https://www.airships.net/hydrogen-airship-accidents/ |
The world uses literally millions of tons of hydrogen every year, industrially. That the only event of any note that you can get any traction with was over 80 years ago should give you a clue. Noisy scaremongering does not improve anybody's life. Give it a rest.