GRA
Posts: 9273
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:28 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:


All those tankers simply caught on fire. They're only dangerous to the immediate vicinity. That's why firefighters can deal with them.

Things under high-compression though are EXPLOSIVE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQrVXEPQrM

Besides, we're trying to move to safer fuels, not "just as bad".

Oil and gas will explode too - it doesn't have to be under pressure, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

Here's a recent list:
OIL TRAIN EXPLOSIONS: A TIMELINE IN PICTURES
Ten explosions in two years, and no end in sight.
http://www.sightline.org/2015/05/06/oil-train-explosions-a-timeline-in-pictures/

We're trying to move to whatever fuel is sustainable and has the least impact on the environment while being acceptable to the general public, not which is safest. My feet and bicycle powered by the food I eat are safer than any battery as a source of energy, but that doesn't mean that the public will accept them over another, more dangerous but much more capable energy source which requires no physical effort on their part. More than a century ago a BEV enthusiast was making the same argument about the safety advantages of batteries over fossil-fueled ICEs, claiming that most people wouldn't accept sitting over a string of continuous explosions. As we know he was wrong; most people were perfectly willing to do just that, as it allowed their cars to be much more useful to them.

If maximum safety were the main priority of our choice of transportation, we simply wouldn't be driving cars at all, And we certainly wouldn't let humans, especially teens, drive them: https://vimeo.com/aaapublicaffairs/review/122313614/989d09b15b After all, the equivalent of four jetliners full of passengers die every week in car crashes in the U.S. alone, with the National Safety Council estimate for last year exceeding 40,000 (NHTSA hasn't released the official figures yet); annual injuries run about 2.5 million, and those are just the ones that involve emergency room trauma care. In the U.S. you have a 1 in 112 chance of the cause of your death being a traffic crash.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:45 pm

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
All those tankers simply caught on fire. They're only dangerous to the immediate vicinity. That's why firefighters can deal with them.

Things under high-compression though are EXPLOSIVE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQrVXEPQrM

Besides, we're trying to move to safer fuels, not "just as bad".

Oil and gas will explode too - it doesn't have to be under pressure, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

Here's a recent list:
OIL TRAIN EXPLOSIONS: A TIMELINE IN PICTURES
Ten explosions in two years, and no end in sight.
http://www.sightline.org/2015/05/06/oil-train-explosions-a-timeline-in-pictures/

We're trying to move to whatever fuel is sustainable and has the least impact on the environment while being acceptable to the general public, not which is safest. My feet and bicycle powered by the food I eat are safer than any battery as a source of energy, but that doesn't mean that the public will accept them over another, more dangerous but much more capable energy source which requires no physical effort on their part. More than a century ago a BEV enthusiast was making the same argument about the safety advantages of batteries over fossil-fueled ICEs, claiming that most people wouldn't accept sitting over a string of continuous explosions. As we know he was wrong; most people were perfectly willing to do just that, as it allowed their cars to be much more useful to them.

If maximum safety were the main priority of our choice of transportation, we simply wouldn't be driving cars at all, And we certainly wouldn't let humans, especially teens, drive them: https://vimeo.com/aaapublicaffairs/review/122313614/989d09b15b After all, the equivalent of four jetliners full of passengers die every week in car crashes in the U.S. alone, with the National Safety Council estimate for last year exceeding 40,000 (NHTSA hasn't released the official figures yet); annual injuries run about 2.5 million, and those are just the ones that involve emergency room trauma care. In the U.S. you have a 1 in 112 chance of the cause of your death being a traffic crash.


"Oil and gas will explode too" - you're being deliberately obtuse about the difference in magnitude between a gasoline vapor explosion (liquid gasoline only burns), and contents under 3500psi. review my video link. Note that the people that were blown away were almost 3 city blocks AWAY from the burning CNG tanker. Yet we use CNG to cook our food and bottle it with our camping gear. The fuel isn't the problem, it's the high pressure of the containment vessel.

If you compress steam up to 3,500 psi (I haven't found anyone who's done it to 2000psi, let alone 3,500!!), you'd get an equally destructive explosion.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333

User avatar
TonyWilliams
Posts: 10083
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Location: San Diego
Contact: Website

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:25 am

It’s amazing how folks can stick their heads in the sand concerning high pressure.

Flammable gases under 10,000 psi pressure is just insane in tunnels, urban centers, crowded areas, basement parking garages, etc.

Comparing that to gasoline or diesel fires is a bit nutty, too. We aren’t going to transition to gasoline or diesel transport... it will be electric.

GRA
Posts: 9273
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:49 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:If maximum safety were the main priority of our choice of transportation, we simply wouldn't be driving cars at all, And we certainly wouldn't let humans, especially teens, drive them: https://vimeo.com/aaapublicaffairs/review/122313614/989d09b15b After all, the equivalent of four jetliners full of passengers die every week in car crashes in the U.S. alone, with the National Safety Council estimate for last year exceeding 40,000 (NHTSA hasn't released the official figures yet); annual injuries run about 2.5 million, and those are just the ones that involve emergency room trauma care. In the U.S. you have a 1 in 112 chance of the cause of your death being a traffic crash.


"Oil and gas will explode too" - you're being deliberately obtuse about the difference in magnitude between a gasoline vapor explosion (liquid gasoline only burns), and contents under 3500psi. review my video link. Note that the people that were blown away were almost 3 city blocks AWAY from the burning CNG tanker. Yet we use CNG to cook our food and bottle it with our camping gear. The fuel isn't the problem, it's the high pressure of the containment vessel.

If you compress steam up to 3,500 psi (I haven't found anyone who's done it to 2000psi, let alone 3,500!!), you'd get an equally destructive explosion.

Uh huh, and how often does this happen? Humans notice and worry about risks that are rare but spectacular, like these or aircraft crashes, but it's the risks that are massive but diffuse that cause the vast majority of the casualties. The following is a quote from "Door to Door: The Maddening, Mysterious World of Transportation," by Edward Humes, 2016:

Oddly, the most immediately devastating consequence of the modern car -- the devastation it leaves in its wake -- seems to generate the least public outcry and attention. . . .

The typical car wreck is becoming all but invisible to everyone but those who are killed or maimed and those whose job it is to clean it up. Many are aware at some level that troubling numbers of people are injured and die in cars, but most remain unfazed by this knowledge.

The contrast couldn't be greater with public perception of airliner crashes, which always generate a high-visibility tsunami of fear, headlines,
and spare-no-expense investigations. As counter-intuitive as it may seem when comparing passenger-laden airliners with the crash of one car carrying one person, this disparity in attention cannot be justified by the numbers. Quite the contrary: in the fourteen years following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there were eight crashes of on American soil of passenger planes operated by regional, national or international carriers. The death toll in those crashes totaled 442. That averages out to fewer than three fatalities a month.

The death toll on America's streets and highways during that same period since 9/11 was more than 400,000 men, women and children. The traffic death toll in 2915 exceeded 3,000 a month."

If you're really concerned about preventable risk to humans, then you should concentrate on areas that are much more hazardous. For starters, until we get fully autonomous vehicles that, unlike humans, will never suffer an accident attributable to the Four Ds (Drunk, drugged, drowsy or distracted), we can require all cars to be outfitted with breathalyzers that will prevent drunks (and hopefully at least some druggies) from starting them. Second, we can ban infotainment systems in all cars (including radios), and ban all cell phone use (including hands-free) by drivers while massively increasing the fines and penalties for it, as they are a major cause of distracted drivers*1. Third, we can set a maximum speed limit of 20 or 25 mph on all streets and roads where pedestrians are allowed, as the likelihood of death increases rapidly above those speeds for any pedestrian/cyclist struck by a car*2, and the risk of injury to those inside it likewise. Fourth, we can install seat belt/weight monitoring that will prevent the car from moving without everyone in it being buckled up. Fifth, we can install dividers on all non-urban roads, which will prevent the head-on collisions due to crossing the centerline that are a major cause of serious injury and death. Sixth, we can install driver-monitoring cameras and other senors in all cars, linked to drowsiness/erratic driving software that will prevent any continuation of the trip.

Now, how likely is it that any of these unquestionably effective ways to massively reduce the risk of traffic injuries and deaths is likely to be acceptable to the public, which they're willing to pay for?


*1
Understanding the distracted brain

WHY DRIVING WHILE USING HANDS-FREE CELL PHONES IS RISKY BEHAVIOR
http://www.nsc.org/DistractedDrivingDocuments/Cognitive-Distraction-White-Paper.pdf

*2
Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4e12/7450856ddb9011a604e74d7cc2a5e7e681e4.pdf
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:03 pm

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:If maximum safety were the main priority of our choice of transportation, we simply wouldn't be driving cars at all, And we certainly wouldn't let humans, especially teens, drive them: https://vimeo.com/aaapublicaffairs/review/122313614/989d09b15b After all, the equivalent of four jetliners full of passengers die every week in car crashes in the U.S. alone, with the National Safety Council estimate for last year exceeding 40,000 (NHTSA hasn't released the official figures yet); annual injuries run about 2.5 million, and those are just the ones that involve emergency room trauma care. In the U.S. you have a 1 in 112 chance of the cause of your death being a traffic crash.


"Oil and gas will explode too" - you're being deliberately obtuse about the difference in magnitude between a gasoline vapor explosion (liquid gasoline only burns), and contents under 3500psi. review my video link. Note that the people that were blown away were almost 3 city blocks AWAY from the burning CNG tanker. Yet we use CNG to cook our food and bottle it with our camping gear. The fuel isn't the problem, it's the high pressure of the containment vessel.

If you compress steam up to 3,500 psi (I haven't found anyone who's done it to 2000psi, let alone 3,500!!), you'd get an equally destructive explosion.

Uh huh, and how often does this happen? Humans notice and worry about risks that are rare but spectacular, like these or aircraft crashes, but it's the risks that are massive but diffuse that cause the vast majority of the casualties. The following is a quote from "Door to Door: The Maddening, Mysterious World of Transportation," by Edward Humes, 2016:

Oddly, the most immediately devastating consequence of the modern car -- the devastation it leaves in its wake -- seems to generate the least public outcry and attention. . . .

The typical car wreck is becoming all but invisible to everyone but those who are killed or maimed and those whose job it is to clean it up. Many are aware at some level that troubling numbers of people are injured and die in cars, but most remain unfazed by this knowledge.

The contrast couldn't be greater with public perception of airliner crashes, which always generate a high-visibility tsunami of fear, headlines,
and spare-no-expense investigations. As counter-intuitive as it may seem when comparing passenger-laden airliners with the crash of one car carrying one person, this disparity in attention cannot be justified by the numbers. Quite the contrary: in the fourteen years following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there were eight crashes of on American soil of passenger planes operated by regional, national or international carriers. The death toll in those crashes totaled 442. That averages out to fewer than three fatalities a month.

The death toll on America's streets and highways during that same period since 9/11 was more than 400,000 men, women and children. The traffic death toll in 2915 exceeded 3,000 a month."

If you're really concerned about preventable risk to humans, then you should concentrate on areas that are much more hazardous. For starters, until we get fully autonomous vehicles that unlike humans will never suffer an accident attributable to the Four Ds (Drunk, drugged, drowsy or distracted), we can require all cars to be outfitted with breathalyzers that will prevent drunks from starting them. Second, we can ban infotainment systems in all cars (including radios), and massively increase the fines and penalties for cell phone use, as they are a major cause of distracted drivers. Third, we can set a maximum speed limit of 20 or 25 mph, as the likelihood of death increases rapidly above those speeds for any pedestrian struck by a car, and the risk of injury to those inside it likewise. Fourth, we can install seat belt/weight monitoring that will prevent the car from moving without everyone in it being buckled up. Fifth, we can install dividers on all non-urban roads, which will prevent the head-on collisions due to crossing the centerline that are a major cause of serious injury and death. Sixth, we can install driver-monitoring cameras and other senors in all cars, linked to drowsiness/erratic driving software that will prevent any continuation of the trip.

Now, how likely is it that any of these unquestionably effective ways to massively reduce the risk of traffic injuries and deaths is likely to be acceptable to the public, which they're willing to pay for?


You're conflating risk assessment with risk mitigation. Airlines are relatively safe, because they undergo a very EXTENSIVE maintenance and pilot training program. If automobiles and drivers are screened just as thoroughly, I assure you that automotive accident and death rates would drop significantly. Conversely, if you permit Joe Schmoo to fly their piper cub or helium balloon chair in the same airspace as commercial airliners, you'll see accident rates go way up. There's a reason why there's such a thing as restricted airspace.

You can't just take "general" statistics and apply it to everything. Here's the counter stat to air safety - Amateur pilots had an accident rate that was 43 times higher than commercial pilots (on a per 100,000 flight-hours basis): https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opin ... lanes.html

Let me repeat with CNG. At low pressures (under 300psi) it's in our backyard as cooking fuel or part of the Treasure Island pyro show - completely SAFE. At 3,500 psi, it's a potential bomb, and accidents involving CNG buses are treated as such.

H2 is compressed up to 10,000psi. That number needs to be taken VERY seriously. Heck, even Toyota forbids the use of their tanks after a limited age, regardless of the condition of the tanks!
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333

GRA
Posts: 9273
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:25 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
"Oil and gas will explode too" - you're being deliberately obtuse about the difference in magnitude between a gasoline vapor explosion (liquid gasoline only burns), and contents under 3500psi. review my video link. Note that the people that were blown away were almost 3 city blocks AWAY from the burning CNG tanker. Yet we use CNG to cook our food and bottle it with our camping gear. The fuel isn't the problem, it's the high pressure of the containment vessel.

If you compress steam up to 3,500 psi (I haven't found anyone who's done it to 2000psi, let alone 3,500!!), you'd get an equally destructive explosion.

Uh huh, and how often does this happen? Humans notice and worry about risks that are rare but spectacular, like these or aircraft crashes, but it's the risks that are massive but diffuse that cause the vast majority of the casualties. The following is a quote from "Door to Door: The Maddening, Mysterious World of Transportation," by Edward Humes, 2016:

Oddly, the most immediately devastating consequence of the modern car -- the devastation it leaves in its wake -- seems to generate the least public outcry and attention. . . .

The typical car wreck is becoming all but invisible to everyone but those who are killed or maimed and those whose job it is to clean it up. Many are aware at some level that troubling numbers of people are injured and die in cars, but most remain unfazed by this knowledge.

The contrast couldn't be greater with public perception of airliner crashes, which always generate a high-visibility tsunami of fear, headlines,
and spare-no-expense investigations. As counter-intuitive as it may seem when comparing passenger-laden airliners with the crash of one car carrying one person, this disparity in attention cannot be justified by the numbers. Quite the contrary: in the fourteen years following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there were eight crashes of on American soil of passenger planes operated by regional, national or international carriers. The death toll in those crashes totaled 442. That averages out to fewer than three fatalities a month.

The death toll on America's streets and highways during that same period since 9/11 was more than 400,000 men, women and children. The traffic death toll in 2915 exceeded 3,000 a month."

If you're really concerned about preventable risk to humans, then you should concentrate on areas that are much more hazardous. For starters, until we get fully autonomous vehicles that unlike humans will never suffer an accident attributable to the Four Ds (Drunk, drugged, drowsy or distracted), we can require all cars to be outfitted with breathalyzers that will prevent drunks from starting them. Second, we can ban infotainment systems in all cars (including radios), and massively increase the fines and penalties for cell phone use, as they are a major cause of distracted drivers. Third, we can set a maximum speed limit of 20 or 25 mph, as the likelihood of death increases rapidly above those speeds for any pedestrian struck by a car, and the risk of injury to those inside it likewise. Fourth, we can install seat belt/weight monitoring that will prevent the car from moving without everyone in it being buckled up. Fifth, we can install dividers on all non-urban roads, which will prevent the head-on collisions due to crossing the centerline that are a major cause of serious injury and death. Sixth, we can install driver-monitoring cameras and other senors in all cars, linked to drowsiness/erratic driving software that will prevent any continuation of the trip.

Now, how likely is it that any of these unquestionably effective ways to massively reduce the risk of traffic injuries and deaths is likely to be acceptable to the public, which they're willing to pay for?

You're conflating risk assessment with risk mitigation.
No, I'm talking about both risk and mitigation. Poorly trained, drunk/drunk/tired/distracted humans driving heavy vehicles at speed while violating traffic laws are the risk. The above suggestions are ways to mitigate much of that risk.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Airlines are relatively safe, because they undergo a very EXTENSIVE maintenance and pilot training program. If automobiles and drivers are screened just as thoroughly, I assure you that automotive accident and death rates would drop significantly. Conversely, if you permit Joe Schmoo to fly their piper cub or helium balloon chair in the same airspace as commercial airliners, you'll see accident rates go way up. There's a reason why there's such a thing as restricted airspace.

You can't just take "general" statistics and apply it to everything. Here's the counter stat to air safety - Amateur pilots had an accident rate that was 43 times higher than commercial pilots (on a per 100,000 flight-hours basis): https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opin ... lanes.html
Sure, Genav is much less safe than commuter airlines, which are much less safe than major airlines, for the reasons you state. But airliners continue to crash, even with highly-trained pilots and extensive maintenance requirements, yet I don't see you recommending that we simply stop flying because of the risk.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Let me repeat with CNG. At low pressures (under 300psi) it's in our backyard as cooking fuel or part of the Treasure Island pyro show - completely SAFE. At 3,500 psi, it's a potential bomb, and accidents involving CNG buses are treated as such.
Completely safe, huh? So, how about 400 PSI? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion

Obviously, we should immediately stop using NG in pipelines, because it can explode and cause casualties.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:H2 is compressed up to 10,000psi. That number needs to be taken VERY seriously. Heck, even Toyota forbids the use of their tanks after a limited age, regardless of the condition of the tanks!
I imagine the main reason is because there's as yet not enough data on CFP tanks to certify them for longer. My scuba tanks are certified to 3,500 PSI and 2,640 PSI (the latter is for tanks that are nominally 2,400 PSI, but a 10% overfill is allowed as long as they pass an extra expansion test), and both have to be pressure tested every five years and visually inspected every year. However, they're steel, and we've got over 100 years of experience with them in that kind of service, with gradually increasing pressures and test intervals as experience was gained and metallurgy and test methods improved. Here's some reasonably current info for Type 4 composite tanks:
DOE Tank Safety Workshop
Hydrogen Tank Safety Testing
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f10/hydrogentank_testing_ostw.pdf

No one has suggested that tanks under high pressures are as safe as containers that are under low or no pressure. The question is what is the level of risk compared to other options, and how does the risk balance against the advantages and disadvantages of those options.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:11 pm

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:You're conflating risk assessment with risk mitigation.
No, I'm talking about both risk and mitigation.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Airlines are relatively safe, because they undergo a very EXTENSIVE maintenance and pilot training program. If automobiles and drivers are screened just as thoroughly, I assure you that automotive accident and death rates would drop significantly. Conversely, if you permit Joe Schmoo to fly their piper cub or helium balloon chair in the same airspace as commercial airliners, you'll see accident rates go way up. There's a reason why there's such a thing as restricted airspace.

You can't just take "general" statistics and apply it to everything. Here's the counter stat to air safety - Amateur pilots had an accident rate that was 43 times higher than commercial pilots (on a per 100,000 flight-hours basis): https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opin ... lanes.html
Sure, Genav is much less safe than commuter airlines, which are much less safe than major airlines, for the reasons you state. But airliners continue to crash, even with highly-trained pilots and extensive maintenance requirements, yet I don't see you recommending that we simply stop flying because of the risk.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Let me repeat with CNG. At low pressures (under 300psi) it's in our backyard as cooking fuel or part of the Treasure Island pyro show - completely SAFE. At 3,500 psi, it's a potential bomb, and accidents involving CNG buses are treated as such.
Completely safe, huh? So, how about 400 PSI? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion

Obviously, we should immediately stop using NG in pipelines, because it can explode and cause casualties.


YES, we SHOULD! That was a 30" pipe at 400psi. A SIGNIFICANT amount of fuel was present for that fire. Can you imagine how much WORSE that explosion would've been had it been at 1000psi?! I would advocate everyone switching to induction cooktops and heat pump HVAC's (as I've done), but that's not something that everyone can do. I get that. As it is now, NG pipelines is the most cost-effective existing solution. We'll move away from it, when the alternative is cheap enough. However, that doesn't mean I'm advocating for us to move to coal either, which is cheaper still.

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:H2 is compressed up to 10,000psi. That number needs to be taken VERY seriously. Heck, even Toyota forbids the use of their tanks after a limited age, regardless of the condition of the tanks!
I imagine the main reason is because there's as yet not enough data on CFP tanks to certify them for longer. My scuba tanks are certified to 3,500 PSI and 2,640 PSI (the latter is for tanks that are nominally 2,400 PSI, but a 10% overfill is allowed as long as they pass an extra expansion test), and both have to be pressure tested every five years and visually inspected every year. However, they're steel, and we've got over 100 years of experience with them in that kind of service, with gradually increasing pressures and test intervals as experience was gained and metallurgy and test methods improved. Here's some reasonably current info for Type 4 composite tanks:
COMPOSITE TANK TESTING,CERTIFICATION, AND FIELD PERFORMANCE
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f11/ihfpv_wong.pdf

No one has suggested that tanks under high pressures are as safe as containers that are under low or no pressure. The question is what is the level of risk compared to other options, and how does the risk balance against the advantages and disadvantages of those options.


That's exactly what you're advocating when you claim that compressed H2's risks aren't being appropriately balanced against their benefits. From your position, either their benefits are so great that their risks are balanced against it, or that their risks are small enough to justify the small benefits gained. I'm from the camp that sees insufficient benefit for the risks that it poses.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333

smkettner
Posts: 7190
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:39 pm

Even a propane cylinder is not recommended to store in an enclosed garage.
Not the same and yet same issue.
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV
I-Pace on order for end of 2018 delivery

GRA
Posts: 9273
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:32 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:You're conflating risk assessment with risk mitigation.
No, I'm talking about both risk and mitigation.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Let me repeat with CNG. At low pressures (under 300psi) it's in our backyard as cooking fuel or part of the Treasure Island pyro show - completely SAFE. At 3,500 psi, it's a potential bomb, and accidents involving CNG buses are treated as such.
Completely safe, huh? So, how about 400 PSI? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion

Obviously, we should immediately stop using NG in pipelines, because it can explode and cause casualties.

YES, we SHOULD! That was a 30" pipe at 400psi. A SIGNIFICANT amount of fuel was present for that fire. Can you imagine how much WORSE that explosion would've been had it been at 1000psi?! I would advocate everyone switching to induction cooktops and heat pump HVAC's (as I've done), but that's not something that everyone can do. I get that. As it is now, NG pipelines is the most cost-effective existing solution. We'll move away from it, when the alternative is cheap enough. However, that doesn't mean I'm advocating for us to move to coal either, which is cheaper still.

I'm glad to see that you consider the risks of coal greater than the rewards. What you're saying is that there are varying levels of risk to various fuels and advantages and disadvantages, and we as a society choose which are most important to us. In the case of San Bruno, 8 people died. Big deal. Here's the biggest death toll I could find from a NG explosion in the U.S.:
Nearly 300 students in Texas are killed by an explosion of natural gas at their school on this day in 1937.

The Consolidated School of New London, Texas, sat in the middle of a large oil and natural gas field. The area was dominated by 10,000 oil derricks, 11 of which stood right on school grounds. The school was newly built in the 1930s for close to $1 million and, from its inception, bought natural gas from Union Gas to supply its energy needs. The school’s natural gas bill averaged about $300 a month. Eventually, officials at Consolidated School were persuaded to save money by tapping into the wet-gas lines operated by Parade Oil Company that ran near the school. Wet gas is a type of waste gas that is less stable and has more impurities than typical natural gas. At the time, it was not completely uncommon for consumers living near oil fields to use this gas.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/natural-gas-explosion-kills-schoolchildren-in-texas
300 kids dead in a single event is sure serious, isn't it? I've already mentioned the number of people who die in the U.S. every year in auto accidents (over 100/day), but how about the opioid epidemic, which is responsible for 116 dead every day in the U.S., i.e. every three days more people die of opioid overdoses or auto accidents than died once, 80 years ago in the worst pipeline disaster in U.S. history. Here's a partial list of world pipeline accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents I expect if you totaled all the dead and injured up, it would be far less than 1 week's worth of auto or opiod deaths in the U.S. alone.

Or how about the U.S. obesity epidemic: (36.5% of all American adults and 17% of children are obese per CDC 2014), as cardiovascular disease is responsible for almost 25% of deaths in this country, and is the leading cause. You're worried about a few deaths in spectacular fashion which happen years or decades apart, instead of the massive but diffuse health risks of our daily life.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:H2 is compressed up to 10,000psi. That number needs to be taken VERY seriously. Heck, even Toyota forbids the use of their tanks after a limited age, regardless of the condition of the tanks!
I imagine the main reason is because there's as yet not enough data on CFP tanks to certify them for longer. My scuba tanks are certified to 3,500 PSI and 2,640 PSI (the latter is for tanks that are nominally 2,400 PSI, but a 10% overfill is allowed as long as they pass an extra expansion test), and both have to be pressure tested every five years and visually inspected every year. However, they're steel, and we've got over 100 years of experience with them in that kind of service, with gradually increasing pressures and test intervals as experience was gained and metallurgy and test methods improved. Here's some reasonably current info for Type 4 composite tanks:
COMPOSITE TANK TESTING,CERTIFICATION, AND FIELD PERFORMANCE
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f11/ihfpv_wong.pdf

No one has suggested that tanks under high pressures are as safe as containers that are under low or no pressure. The question is what is the level of risk compared to other options, and how does the risk balance against the advantages and disadvantages of those options.

That's exactly what you're advocating when you claim that compressed H2's risks aren't being appropriately balanced against their benefits. From your position, either their benefits are so great that their risks are balanced against it, or that their risks are small enough to justify the small benefits gained. I'm from the camp that sees insufficient benefit for the risks that it poses.

Yes, I do think the benefits are greater than the risks. I believe we need to stop burning fossil fuels for transportation (and everything else eventually, using the remaining fossil fuels for feedstocks for plastics etc. if we can't find substitutes) and replace our vehicles with ZEVs, with all the health benefits that go along with them, and which far outweigh the risks of the occasional explosion or fire:
2018 Environmental Performance Index: Air quality top public health threat
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/20180124-epi.html
Recent research cited by the EPI suggests that around five million people die prematurely every year due to air pollution, accounting for approximately one in every ten deaths annually.
Pipeline and tanker explosions? BFD.

However, you'll be happy to know that H2 providers are now shifting to liquid H2 tanker transport, not from safety concerns but simply because usage and storage per H2 fueling station is growing, and it takes multiple compressed H2 fuel tanker trips per day to meet demand, where a single LH2 tanker can easily meet it. Naturally it won't eliminate all risk, because the stations may still store relatively large amounts on site in compressed form.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:57 pm

GRA wrote:I'm glad to see that you consider the risks of coal greater than the rewards. What you're saying is that there are varying levels of risk to various fuels and advantages and disadvantages, and we as a society choose which are most important to us. In the case of San Bruno, 8 people died. Big deal. Here's the biggest death toll I could find from a NG explosion in the U.S.:
Nearly 300 students in Texas are killed by an explosion of natural gas at their school on this day in 1937.

The Consolidated School of New London, Texas, sat in the middle of a large oil and natural gas field. The area was dominated by 10,000 oil derricks, 11 of which stood right on school grounds. The school was newly built in the 1930s for close to $1 million and, from its inception, bought natural gas from Union Gas to supply its energy needs. The school’s natural gas bill averaged about $300 a month. Eventually, officials at Consolidated School were persuaded to save money by tapping into the wet-gas lines operated by Parade Oil Company that ran near the school. Wet gas is a type of waste gas that is less stable and has more impurities than typical natural gas. At the time, it was not completely uncommon for consumers living near oil fields to use this gas.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/natural-gas-explosion-kills-schoolchildren-in-texas
300 kids dead in a single event is sure serious, isn't it? I've already mentioned the number of people who die in the U.S. every year in auto accidents (over 100/day), but how about the opioid epidemic, which is responsible for 116 dead every day in the U.S., i.e. every three days more people die of opioid overdoses or auto accidents than died once, 80 years ago in the worst pipeline disaster in U.S. history. Here's a partial list of world pipeline accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents I expect if you totaled all the dead and injured up, it would be far less than 1 week's worth of auto or opiod deaths in the U.S. alone.

Or how about the U.S. obesity epidemic: (36.5% of all American adults and 17% of children are obese per CDC 2014), as cardiovascular disease is responsible for almost 25% of deaths in this country, and is the leading cause. You're worried about a few deaths in spectacular fashion which happen years or decades apart, instead of the massive but diffuse health risks of our daily life.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote: I imagine the main reason is because there's as yet not enough data on CFP tanks to certify them for longer. My scuba tanks are certified to 3,500 PSI and 2,640 PSI (the latter is for tanks that are nominally 2,400 PSI, but a 10% overfill is allowed as long as they pass an extra expansion test), and both have to be pressure tested every five years and visually inspected every year. However, they're steel, and we've got over 100 years of experience with them in that kind of service, with gradually increasing pressures and test intervals as experience was gained and metallurgy and test methods improved. Here's some reasonably current info for Type 4 composite tanks:
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f11/ihfpv_wong.pdf

No one has suggested that tanks under high pressures are as safe as containers that are under low or no pressure. The question is what is the level of risk compared to other options, and how does the risk balance against the advantages and disadvantages of those options.

That's exactly what you're advocating when you claim that compressed H2's risks aren't being appropriately balanced against their benefits. From your position, either their benefits are so great that their risks are balanced against it, or that their risks are small enough to justify the small benefits gained. I'm from the camp that sees insufficient benefit for the risks that it poses.

Yes, I do think the benefits are greater than the risks. I believe we need to stop burning fossil fuels for transportation (and everything else eventually, using the remaining fossil fuels for feedstocks for plastics etc. if we can't find substitutes) and replace our vehicles with ZEVs, with all the health benefits that go along with them, and which far outweigh the risks of the occasional explosion or fire:
2018 Environmental Performance Index: Air quality top public health threat
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/20180124-epi.html
Recent research cited by the EPI suggests that around five million people die prematurely every year due to air pollution, accounting for approximately one in every ten deaths annually.
Pipeline and tanker explosions? BFD.

However, you'll be happy to know that H2 providers are now shifting to liquid H2 tanker transport, not from safety concerns but simply because usage and storage per H2 fueling station is growing, and it takes multiple compressed H2 fuel tanker trips per day to meet demand, where a single LH2 tanker can easily meet it. Naturally it won't eliminate all risk, because the stations may still store relatively large amounts on site in compressed form.


You can't mix death tolls in other industries and expect that to fly as an apropos analogy, that's bad logic. On its own merits, H2 does NOTHING to alleviate the auto accident and opiod deaths, nor would it do anything to resolve the pipeline deaths. The air pollution deaths caused by automobiles are in dense urban environments, where they're better solved by BEV's (lower costs and at higher energy efficiencies). Once the superfluous info is removed, you'll see that there's VERY LITTLE benefit that H2 provides (zero emission long-range travel) for its cost.

And long-haul trucking will soon be knocked over as a kingpin of the fuel cell argument. Nikola Motors has YET to produce their truck in volume. If they don't hurry soon, then Tesla will kill their market in 2019 when the semi is expected to be released - a truck that's both lower-cost to operate, and cleaner than diesel.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333

Return to “Other Electric Cars & Plug-In Hybrids”