Toyota's big rig

Grandpa, Son the horseless carriage won't work, no gas station.
Dad, Daughter the Tesla won't work, no charging stations.
Son, Dad I want a Toyota's big rid. Dad where will you fuel up?

Toyota's field of dreams. We build it and the fueling stations will come...

Big rig.

Whenever I hear anything about hydrogen vehicles, I just think Hindenburg! Diesel is no where near as volatile as hydrogen, yet semis still burn. Place I work for has lost a few due to fires. A couple after an impact, and 3 at the same time while getting fuelled from a truck in our Charlotte NC terminal that didn't hook up the ground tether.

I just think Hindenburg me too,
Jet fuel is volatile. They have to hook up the ground tether.
It an all new ball game. New rules. New ball park.
Bet there won't be self service fueling stations.

My money is on Hydrogen fuel. They call it Blue fuel.
Companies making Hydrogen also selling natural gas,
A high percentage of Hydrogen is made from methane..

No clue how hard it is to convert methane to hydrogen,
Methane is all over the country, so it's possible hydrogen could be made in every town. Won't need a hydrogen pipeline network. Already have a methane pipeline.

When you hear of wooden houses do you think of the Chicago Fire?

Sounds a lot more promising and practical than Electric powered vehicles long term.

If you research the Hindenburg disaster in a science journal, you will find that the fire was actually the canvas, not the hydrogen bladders. The covering was made from cotton saturated with petroleum based paint that had Aluminum and iron powder used as anti UV protection. These are the same ingredients in solid rocket boosters used to lift many space craft into orbit. The cover burned off making the intense yellow flame with nasty smoke and extreme flame travel rate. The hydrogen would burn, but its heat was pulled upward in the inferno by lighter than air properties, and as a result probably saved more than it burned. Here is a piece from Wiki. This component is supported by me because hydrogen burns with a light blue flame, and not a bright yellow smoky inferno.

Incendiary paint hypothesis
The incendiary paint theory (IPT) was proposed in 1996 by retired NASA scientist Addison Bain, stating that the doping compound of the airship was the cause of the fire, and that the Hindenburg would have burned even if it were filled with helium. The hypothesis is limited to the source of ignition and to the flame front propagation, not to the source of most of the burning material, as once the fire started and spread the hydrogen clearly must have burned (although some proponents of the incendiary paint theory claim that hydrogen burned much later in the fire or that it otherwise did not contribute to the rapid spread of the fire). The incendiary paint hypothesis asserts that the major component in starting the fire and feeding its spread was the canvas skin because of the compound used on it.

Proponents of this hypothesis argue that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminum-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB) which remain potentially reactive even after fully setting.[55] Iron oxide and aluminum can be used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite. For example, the propellant for the Space Shuttle solid rocket booster included both aluminum (fuel, 16%), (and) iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4%). The coating applied to the Hindenburg's covering did not have a sufficient quantity of any material capable of acting as an oxidizer,[56] which is a necessary component of rocket fuel,[57] however, oxygen is also available from the air.

Bain received permission from the German government to search their archives and discovered evidence that, during the Nazi regime, German scientists concluded the dope on the Hindenburg's fabric skin was the cause of the conflagration. Bain interviewed the wife of the investigation's lead scientist Max Dieckmann, and she stated that her husband had told her about the conclusion and instructed her to tell no one, presumably because it would have embarrassed the Nazi government.[58] Additionally, Dieckmann concluded that it was the poor conductivity, not the flammability of the doping compound, that led to the ignition of hydrogen.[59] However, Otto Beyersdorff, an independent investigator hired by the Zeppelin Company, asserted that the outer skin itself was flammable. In several television shows, Bain attempted to prove the flammability of the fabric by igniting it with either an open flame or a Jacob's Ladder machine. Although Bain's fabric ignited, critics argue that Bain had to correctly position the fabric parallel to a machine with a continuous electric current inconsistent with atmospheric conditions. In response to this criticism, the IPT therefore postulates that a spark would need to be parallel to the surface, and that panel-to-panel arcing occurs where the spark moves between panels of paint isolated from each other. Astrophysicist Alexander J. Dessler points out a static spark does not have sufficient energy to ignite the doping compound, and that the insulating properties of the doping compound prevents a parallel spark path through it. Additionally, Dessler contends that the skin would also be electrically conductive in the wet and damp conditions before the fire.[60] Jim

So, in conclusion, no one really knows.

Zero emission. Except the emissions from building it and delivering it and selling it.

Wonder if the frames will rust apart ? LOL

(quoted from post at 14:17:59 08/27/21) Zero emission. Except the emissions from building it and delivering it and selling it.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the energy consuming processes to actually produce the hydrogen. As it does not exist in the wild as a useable fuel.

Yep. Just the same as gas and diesel
that need incredibly energy intensive
processing as they don't exist in the
wild.

300 miles, really Montana is 700 miles across alone

And not many EV run off Lightening either.

And they all for get the cost to make the propellant whether it be electrical or hydrogen or oil. along with the so-called pollution from the producing those wonder fuels. Wonder if it works that is. The electric cars everybody is infatuated with cost more to dispose of than the internal combustion engined ones they replace and have more pollutants to them in doing so. So how is that better. Like taking a truck that got 7 MPG and now with all the contraptions on it for so-called pollution control now only gets about 4 MPG and is now supposedly cleaner. I call BS on it.

(quoted from post at 16:29:16 08/27/21) Sounds a lot more promising and practical than Electric powered vehicles long term.

Click to expand...

we have many options we need to look at besides electric
https://www.oemoffhighway.com/engines/press-release/21563171/cummins-inc-cummins-begins-testing-of-hydrogen-fueled-internal-combustion-engineric https://www.oemoffhighway.com/engines/press-release/21005554/scania-ab-scania-introduces-bioethanol-engine#:~:text=Scania%E2%80%99s%20bioethanol%20engines%20operate%20on%20ED95%2C%20an%20ethanol,according%20to%20the%20diesel%20principle%20with%20compression%20ignition.