WITAF.

At best, he doesn’t understand what a Hybrid Car is.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    You’ll need a ginormus piece of paper to write down everything that Donald does not understand…

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    From watching movies from the 60s-2020s, internal COMBUSTION engine’s also have a tendency to explode. I haven’t seen many hydrogen using vehicles exploding since the Hindenburg.

    • meco03211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      4 days ago

      Pretty sure the Hindenburg would have gone down the same even if it was filed with helium. Not that the hydrogen helped matters, just the initial problem wasn’t hydrogen’s fault.

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        It wouldn’t have. However, kind of ironically if it was filled with helium, it would have never gone up. Helium doesn’t have the same amount of lifting power as hydrogen.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Downvotes for being correct, or at least, not entirely wrong. The exact cause may never be determined, but there are a lot of plausible theories that the fire did not start with hydrogen, but rather the outer coating.

        If nothing else, hydrogen can’t burn without oxygen, and there’s very little oxygen inside the envelope. Something else has to leak first.

        • meco03211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Thank you. After the deluge I did hit up Wikipedia. The skin was coated in flammable material as I remembered. It did say the skin being a major factor was controversial and that the burn patterns didn’t indicate that to be likely, which is fine. But just the blanket downvotes with no one addressing that is annoying. It stifles any conversation. Were I not a naturally curious person I wouldn’t have looked into it further. I’m sure plenty of the downvotes came from people that probably didn’t even know about the static discharge part and still don’t know because they just downvoted and moved on in their ignorance.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        No… No, that’s not true. Yes, hydrogen and helium are both lighter than air. But that’s pretty much where the similarities end. Hydrogen is unstable, which is why it can explosively combust when mixed with as little as 4% oxygen. Helium is stable, helium won’t burn. So if it had been filled with helium, it might have crashed. But it definitely wouldn’t have been a catastrophic fireball…

        • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          The Hindenburg’s skin was also highly flammable. Regardless of what gas it contained it would still have burned as fast.

          The leaking hydrogen was just the initial fuel that the static arc ignited.

          One the skin was burning it was over.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 days ago

      Theoretically a hydrogen fuel vehicle could explode because it has a pretty large tank of hydrogen on board. Practically it’ll just burn up because it won’t all be released at once. And I’ve never heard of a single case of that actually happening in the field. And you can be damn sure it would be all over the news.

      • stewie3128@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 days ago

        I have a hydrogen car. H2 explodes more readily than it burns. The containment tanks are designed to mitigate this, and they are routinely tested with high-caliber rifles to make sure. There are YouTube videos of the tests.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          EV battery packs are also designed to mitigate thermal runaway events, even down to Tesla packs making every cell connection a fuse on case of issues. That doesn’t stop them from catching fire anyway after some accidents.

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Since hydrogen is so light though, it escapes into the atmosphere before collecting enough to explode in a car. BMW claimed this way back in the 90s when it was experimenting with the gas.

            There’s probably more of a danger of the tank and in hydrogen cars bursting, since the hydrogen is stored at relatively high pressures. But the gas could easily escape without igniting.

            Obviously anything is possible when you are storing energy as densely as possible. And one of the highest density energies we store is still hydrocarbons.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Are they routinely tested in high impact crashes too? Slamming into a phone pole might be more energy than a rifle round.

  • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 days ago

    I actually read the safety reports from the NTSB, and they did an awful lot of testing on this Toyota hydrogen fuel cell cars. Even far surpassing the test parameters, the fuel cells remained intact and undamaged. In fact, it was pretty incredible.

    • saigot@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      nothing short of a .50 Cal armour piercing bullet gets through those tanks. And even then a chance of an explosion is very very low, it would probably just produce a fire just like gasoline (which can also explode under the right conditions). But that safety requirement is still a barrier, as it raises the cost of an already extremely expensive technology. Personally I can see hydrogen catching on for some niche applications, but for every day driving I don’t see the price ever going low enough for it to make sense compared to electric.

  • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    4 days ago

    What hydrogen cars?

    The sum total of Toyota and whoever else’s efforts still amount to an inconsequential fraction of the vehicles currently in operation, probably not even a notable portion of a percentage point.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 days ago

      We’re dealing with a man who saw pictures of a spray bottle and the sun and decided it meant injecting bleach and putting a lightbulb inside you. Do not presume he thinks rationally.

  • sumguyonline@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Hydrogen comes from water. Oil comes from pits deep in the earth. To turn an engine: We make controlled explosions inside a steel chamber to turn a crank using refined oil. The theory of operation does not change for hydrogen powered cars, the process of extracting it does. Hydrogen: A truck pulls up to a beach - drop a hose - tank is full so wrap up the hose and drive off. For oil - first you need gigantic oil pumps, then you drill a massive damned hole in the ground. At this point hydrogen is easier. The absolutely insanely stupid statement of “they explode”, yeah you moron, so did the Gremlin when they got rear ended, you don’t blame the fuel you blame the engineer. Complete idiots speaking their mind think they know, but in reality hydrogen and oxygen could replace oil and natural gas over night and there would be no change so long as the systems were engineered to handle the change in gases. Mostly it would be flow reducers because hydrogen and oxygen burn hotter and faster than oil and natural gas. But any explosions outside of the engine itself, are engineering failures, not of the fuel type which is one of the dumbest uneducated statements I have ever heard about a fuel type - " it blows up so I don’t like it" you rancid hotdog, what do you think gas does? A gallon of gas can send a 1 ton car 30miles, if you ignite it directly it can send every part of your body 30miles in every direction. IT’S WHAT FUEL DOES!!! WHAT MATTERS IS HOW WE ACQUIRE IT! THE TECH IS BUILT AROUND THE FUEL! Weak damn humans.

    • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      I get your point but hydrogen isn’t just sea water, you’ve got an awful lot more energy to put in after the “tank is full so wrap up the hose and drive off” stage to separate the hydrogen from oxygen to get the fuel. The difficult bit comes after “get water”.

      • Belgdore@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        And It generally requires a lot of electricity. So, batteries cut out the middleman.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Gonna clarify a few things…

      Hydrogen comes from water.

      This is like saying flour comes from cake. You’ve got it backwards.

      To turn an engine: We make controlled explosions inside a steel chamber to turn a crank using refined oil. The theory of operation does not change for hydrogen powered cars

      Hydrogen opens up the possibility of using a fuel cell, skipping the noisy and inefficient combustion in favor of directly creating electricity and driving an electric motor.

      Hydrogen: A truck pulls up to a beach - drop a hose - tank is full so wrap up the hose and drive off.

      Not even close. To get hydrogen from water, you need a shit-ton of electricity and a lot of infrastructure, or you need to free it up with a chemical reaction (Aluminum and hydrochloric acid if I remember correctly). Right now the chemical way is lower cost and more available.

      It’s better to use that electricity to move the car around, rather than split water with it and using the resulting hydrogen to move cars.

      • TotalFat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        The worst part about the gas you put in your car are all the additives they cram in there. Gas for small planes you check it by sticking your finger in it to make sure it’s full. Your finger doesn’t even smell afterwards unlike car gas where you stink for a week. Also no skin cancer! Next you drain some from the bottom to make sure there’s no water. After a quick visual inspection, you just pour it out onto the ground.

          • TotalFat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            All natural, organic, free-range, gluten-free lead! With a name you can pronounce. Couldn’t harm a fly. Look at me! I turned out fine!!

        • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          Gas for small planes you check it by sticking your finger in it to make sure it’s full.

          I know some people have different practices, but myself and the pilots I’ve known use a dipstick to check fuel level. You do you, but remember that aviation fuel contains lead, which is easily absorbed through the skin. I always use gloves when checking fuel.

          I can’t deny that most pilots don’t use gloves, that there are fewer additives in aviation fuel, nor that we are trained to dump checked fuel on the ground. But I don’t see those as “green flags” for aviation fuel.

          For anyone interested, here’s the Material Safety Data Sheet for aviation fuel. For comparison, here’s the MSDS for automotive gasoline. I wouldn’t want to touch either without skin protection.