Bobby,

I haven't introduced anything - I have merely reported what is going on around the world.

But it is a relief to read a post from someone with a normal working brain after being saturated by unhinged emotional dribble from the unhinged trolls.



Petrol is inflammable and will burn if ignited. So in a crash there is always the possibility of the petrol getting onto the hot exhaust. Fortunately this doesn't happen all that often. And there is a vast amount of experience with petrol and diesel.



With the dangerous all electric basically untested still experimental Tesla "cars" the driver is used as a guinea pig by Tesla to find faults in their still experimental '"cars".

The trouble with Tesla is that by international standards they are just a tiny cash strapped experimental car "manufacturer" who does not have the time or facilities to rigorously test their potentially dangerous "cars". There are numerous reports of structurally inadequate suspension and steering components in their experimental "cars".

Their self driving is a death wish.

In a Tesla the driver is sitting on top of a dangerous lithium fire bomb and in many crashes this lithium fire bomb has ignited and keeps burning for days.

Their excessively long recharge times and potentially fatal crashes condemns Tesla range anxiety cars to the scrap heap long term.

With the arrival of Mercedes and Volkswagen the safety issue of all electric cars will dramatically improve. But the long recharge time and range anxiety remains to ultimately condemn them to the scrap heap as happened about 200 years ago.




In the far more practical usable hydrogen cars getting ready to hit the scene the hydrogen is stored at pressure in a very strong tank similar to LPG and LNG.

It is very safe and hydrogen just escapes upward into the air if released.

Already Toyota is producing hydrogen cars for the Japanese market and hydrogen infrastructure is being steadily expanded.

As Toyota is a gigantic profitable company they can afford to properly test their cars.

I thought they dissolved the hydrogen in another metal for storage.

Bobby, your punctiliously pedantic precision is commendable as it neatly diverts the discussion away from the topic.
Just to clear your mind of your inflammably flammable confusion:-

Flammable vs. Inflammable
Both words mean the same thing, but one of them is bound to confuse most people.
"When cooking over a gas stove, avoid wearing loose, (flammable/inflammable) clothing that could catch fire easily." Which word is correct: flammable or inflammable?

Trick question: both flammable and inflammable are correct, as they both mean "capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly." This makes no sense to the Modern English speaker. In English, we think of in- as a prefix that means "not": inactive means "not active," inconclusive means "not conclusive," inconsiderate means "not considerate." Therefore, inflammable should mean "not flammable."

i-fell-into-a-burning-ring-of-fire
What's the difference between 'flammable' and 'inflammable'?

That would make sense—if inflammable had started out as an English word. We get inflammable from the Latin verb inflammare, which combines flammare ("to catch fire") with a Latin prefix in-, which means "to cause to." This in- shows up occasionally in English words, though we only tend to notice it when the in- word is placed next to its root word for comparison: impassive and passive, irradiated and radiated, inflame and flame. Inflammable came into English in the early 1600s.

Things were fine until 1813, when a scholar translating a Latin text coined the English word flammable from the Latin flammare, and now we had a problem: two words that look like antonyms but are actually synonyms. There has been confusion between the two words ever since.

What do you do? To avoid confusion, choose flammable when you are referring to something that catches fire and burns easily, and use the relatively recent nonflammable when referring to something that doesn't catch fire and burn easily. Our files indicate that use of flammable and nonflammable has increased in print over the last few decades, while use of inflammable has decreased.



Now back to the actual topic.

The hydrogen is stored in basically 2 ways.

BMW actually reduced it to cryogenic state.

But Toyota and Hyundai simply store the hydrogen as gas under pressure.

The process was clearly designed to feel like filling up with gasoline or diesel, with the same relative steps that need to be executed to fill up. With gasoline, there are different octanes of fuel, but with hydrogen, there’s only the one type to worry about.

However, stations can operate at two different pressures — H35 or H70 — which dictate fueling time.

H35 stations operate at 35 Mega Pascals | 350 bar | 5,000 psi, while

H70 stations operate at 70 Mega Pascals | 350 bar | 10,000 psi.


High-pressure hydrogen tanks
The Mirai has two hydrogen tanks with a three-layer structure made of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic consisting of nylon 6 from Ube Industries and other materials. The tanks store hydrogen at 70 MPa (10,000 psi). The tanks have a combined weight 87.5 kg (193 lb) and 5 kg capacity.

There are already hydrogen fueled cars operating in California.

All that is holding back hydrogen cars is getting the infrastructure up and running and then all the electric inconveniences will quickly end up in the junk yards just like they did some 200 hundred years ago.

Sounds like the crushed broken brain of the nauseating troll is bleeding.

juliar wrote on Sep 9^th, 2018 at 4:44pm:


Yes it's very rare that Petrol cars catch on fire isn't it socko LOL

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fiat-chrysler-verdict-jeep/u-s-jury-awards-15...

U.S. jury awards $150 million for Jeep fuel-tank fire death

Quote:

Definitely need a Pest Killer to fumigate under the floor boards to get rid of the nauseating unhinged trolls.

Bobby,

I am relieved you are satisfied with the now standard hydrogen pressures being used world wide.

The pressure system is simpler than the cryogenic system used by BMW which tends to leak.

Huge effort is being channeled into setting up the hydrogen infrastructure as it is already clear that the electric heaps are just dangerous impractical inconveniences which will end up in the junkyards once the ultimate hydrogen future energy becomes widely available.

The big attraction of hydrogen is that it is a much bigger system than the dead end electric heaps as it can power cars and trucks and buses and trains and its refuel time is the same as petrol and diesel.

But the really big attraction is converting it to ammonia and exporting it as a ammonia to Japan and south Asia where it is converted back to hydrogen energy.

Hydrogen is very attractive for storing the output of otherwise fairly useless wind and solar.

also hydrogen fuel cell cars R electric vehicles with a rather large lithium battery on board......