• @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        181 year ago

        I’m guessing that they are (falsely) equating it to the hindenburg, when IMO it wouldn’t be much different safety-wise than current fossil fuel powered planes.

        It’s not like they would be filling the wings and luggage compartment with free-floating hydrogen, it stays in it’s tank

        • @thepianistfroggollum
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          Hydrogen is very hard to make stay in it’s tank. And flying around with a tank of pretty much the most flammable element with a few hundred people sitting on top of it seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Yes, but notably you can design to reduce the risk of leaking hydrogen. If the areas around the tanks are designed to allow any leakage to vent before it reaches dangerous levels, you can reduce the risk. Yes hydrogen is flammable, so tanks of it are dangerous. Jet fuel is also quite flammable, and we’ve used that for a long time.

            This is all in contrast to the design of the Hindenburg, which was specifically trying to hold onto a bunch of hydrogen in the flammable regime

        • @thepianistfroggollum
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          Or, you know, the fact that hydrogen is extremely explosive and incredibly difficult to contain.

      • @thepianistfroggollum
        link
        English
        -41 year ago

        What makes you think I don’t know how it works?

        It’s a bad idea because hydrogen is highly flammable and explosive compared to jet fuel.