When is hydrogen explosive

Air Surveillance for Hazardous Materials. Hagar, R. Hopfer, U. Digestion and absorption of basic nutritional constituents.

Devlin, ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Lewis, R. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Submarine Air Quality. Monitoring the Air in Submarines. Olcott, T. Naval Sea Systems Command. Submarine Atmosphere Control Manual. Windholz, M. Budavari, L. Stroumtsos, and M. Fertig, eds. Wong, K. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book. Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text. To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter. Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released. Get This Book. Visit NAP. Looking for other ways to read this?

No thanks. This is the opposite of what we find for heavier gases such as propane or gasoline fumes, which hover near the ground, creating a greater danger for explosion. With the exception of oxygen, any gas can cause asphyxiation.

Hydrogen is nontoxic and nonpoisonous. Hydrogen does not create "fumes. More safety information about hydrogen can be found at the following websites: www. Amid the wreckage. McCullough noted that "Ohio Power Co. Cooling things down. Water from fire hoses sprays on a hydrogen delivery truck and the surrounding area to keep the area cool after the explosion.

A prompt response. A fireman walks through debris near a hydrogen delivery truck after the explosion. The local fire department arrived quickly on the scene to assist the other emergency response teams in fighting the fire and aiding injured workers.

In the aftermath of the incident at the Muskingum River Power Plant, AEP personnel conducted their own examination into the cause of the explosion. Due to the fatality and the injuries sustained by workers at the facility, the U. The device had been replaced by the hydrogen vendor several months prior, when the vendor was on-site to make repairs related to an apparent leak. The replacement relief device assembly did not have a fusible plug to support the disc. When the rupture disc failed, the disc, or a piece of fusible plug left in the vent pipe during the replacement several months prior to the explosion, penetrated a bend in the piping, permitting the hydrogen to vent lower down in the area of the tanks as well as up the normal vent path, McCullough explained.

OSHA brought enforcement actions against the involved entities as a result of the findings from its investigation of the incident. Those actions initially consisted of 18 citations, nine each against the hydrogen vendor and Ohio Power Co. After an informal conference, the number of citations against each company was reduced to eight. Most of the citations were directed at the design and construction of the hydrogen system.

After the incident, AEP took corrective actions to guard against future problems related to the handling of hydrogen at the plant. AEP has made other changes in plant operations to further ensure that no more hazardous incidents occur at the facility. The cylinders have been moved away from spaces occupied by people, and the structure is protected from vehicle encroachment and ignition sources. Despite the large number of systems that use pressurized hydrogen to cool generators, for the most part, few incidents or problems occur.

Still not enough? There are over hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road around the US. Given how much the movies like to bash hydrogen fuel see Wonder Women, among many, many others , if there was a problem the media would have already informed us. It would be easy pickings given our embedded bias against hydrogen. The key difference is that a BEV cannot rapidly dissipate the energy stored in batteries like a fueled vehicle can.

This means that once a cell is damaged, neighboring cells in the battery can continue to catch fire or explode at a later time. This issue has led to BEVs requiring special storage and observation after a crash. You can search for videos of first responders trying to put out a BEV that is on fire.

The latest article I read is not clear whether BEVs have fewer post crash fires than gasoline vehicles. This is not an admonishment of BEVs!

The fact that this emerging technology is already on par or better than gasoline in terms of safety is remarkable. It would be great to see a direct study comparing BEV safety with hydrogen fueled vehicles, once both technologies have had a chance to mature. We work with hydrogen every day in the lab. Ample opportunity for thought. I actually think the problem is convenience. Think back to your first introduction to hydrogen.

Probably in a high-school or college chemistry class. One of the most commonly watched videos of hydrogen on youtube is of a balloon filled with hydrogen and oxygen being lit on fire. Regardless, this extreme introduction to hydrogen is embedded in our culture and memory.

So how dangerous is hydrogen fuel? In many situations where a vehicle is located outdoors hydrogen is safer than conventional liquid fuels or natural gas. This in no way implies that hydrogen is not dangerous — there are many situations where hydrogen, like any other fuel or energy storage device, can cause an accident. You just have to know the rules for working with hydrogen. The H2tools.