Oh stupid, silly Hydrogen people...
Gaseous fuels typically require expensive compression and liquifaction in order to make them transportable. Otherwise there would not be any room for passengers and cargo, only fuel.
Methane liquifies when cooled to - 260 F cold but acheivable. still expensive to acheive.
Hydrogen liquifies when cooled to - 452 F. There is no way to maintain that temperature economically, you will lose 1-2% per day by volume.
By the way, seperation, compression and liquifaction of EITHER of these gases cost a huge amount of energy. Way more energy than the production of gasoline or alcohol so there is no difference in carbon footprint. In fact those "clean" gases may have a larger imprint than traditional fuels.
Liquid Methane will have reasonable storage pressures (under 100 psi) while liquid hydrogen will be unusually high (could be as high as10,000 psi).
Do you think you can rely on such a system to be leak free? Not really!
Hydrogen is twice as small as helium. Helium is used to detect very small leaks. However Helium does not burn or explode like hydrogen. Did I mention Hydrogen embrittlement that causes ordinary metals to fail horribly?
Methane burns with a nice visible yellow flame while hydrogen burns with an invisible blue UV flame.
Combine invisible flames with very high pressure storage requirements, high leakage, hydrogen embrittlement and you have a rolling bomb that will have a FAR greater statistical chance of exploding. Not to mention the explosion when the tank is crushed during an accident.
This will make the Pinto explosions look like a Boy Scout fart and your monthly insurance costs as high as a car payment.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
