3. Common Misconceptions%%

Due to the fact that public awareness of hydrogen is limited, opinions tend to be drawn from major events and occurrences covered in the press; the events that have the most sway on public opinion tend to be negative. There are two main past events that the public tend to draw their evidence from: The Hindenburg accident and the Hydrogen Bomb.

The Hindenburg

The Hindenburg disaster of 1937, in which a fire destroyed the German airship and claimed the lives of 35 of its 97 passengers, is often attributed to the hydrogen that provided the buoyancy. This belief is in part due to the fact that the company chairman Hugo Eckener publicly blamed the disaster on hydrogen, despite having evidence of the contrary. This blame was given in part due to the fact that the US reneged on their commitment to supply helium, of which the craft was designed to use.

Addison Bain from NASA carried out extensive literature research and investigation as to the true cause of the Hindenburg disaster [4]. It was concluded that the accident was attributed to the skin of the Zeppelin, which, in order to tauten and waterproof the fabric, and to reflect heat, was doped with materials now often associated with solid rocket fuel. The material then ignited due to electrostatic discharge upon landing. Other evidence to support this includes letters to the company from an electrical engineer concerning flammability tests of the material. It must be noted that the chairman had the reputation of the company to uphold, and blaming the hydrogen was deemed to be less harmful than blaming the design decisions leading up to the construction of the airship.

Furthermore, it has been shown that modern fuel cell vehicles cannot be compared to the Hindenburg for a number of reasons. In a report to the American Department of Energy [5], it is pointed out that the energy content of the hydrogen onboard the Hindenburg was equivalent to 19 GJ per passenger. Compare this to a modern FCEV which would hold on board approximately 0.2 GJ per passenger. In addition to this, note that in a FCEV the hydrogen is stored in crashed tested composite tanks, whereas on the Hindenburg it was essentially stored in a large cloth bag. It is concluded that due to the fact there is up to 100 times less energy stored in a FCEV, and that the storage method is much stronger, there is no comparison between the safety aspects of a FCEV and the Hindenburg.

The Hydrogen Bomb

The hydrogen bomb has no association to that of hydrogen gas. The term “hydrogen bomb” comes from the use of isotopes of hydrogen to produce a fusion reaction. In a fusion reaction, isotopes of hydrogen are fused together at very high temperatures and pressures. These conditions are similar to those found at the centre of the sun. These conditions have been in the past achieved by first setting off an atomic or fission bomb. In fact, scientists have been trying to form and sustain fusion reactions for many years using powerful lasers and magnetic containment in order to produce large amounts of clean energy: so far without success, highlighting the difficulty of creating such conditions. It is noted that under conditions that would be found on a FCEV, there is zero probability of forming a fusion reaction. Therefore, there is no relationship between the hydrogen bomb and hydrogen FCEVs.

Click to CONTINUE READING: 4. Proven Track Record

Click to go BACK: 2. Fear of the Unknown