This is why the idea of the public using hydrogen cars is kind of crazy.
In practice, hydrogen cars are quite safe. They're just not worth the cost in infrastructure and lack of efficiency compared to BEVs.
Two words: Attached Garage
Don't BEVs weigh more than hydrogen cars, given the same model and range? That would give at least some incentive to use hydrogen over BEV, as it decreases road wear, which reduces the costs associated with the operation of that car.
Additionally, hydrogen cars could be considered safer once they've gotten into an accident, as risk of battery thermal runaway wouldn't usually be an issue for extended periods of time in hydrogen cars, whereas several car carrier ships have been lost due (in part or in full) to battery fires.
Gas still has the infrastructure, but batteries are closer to having what they need than hydrogen for critical adoption.
Unless you're in the upper Midwest and your car is one of those stuck at a charger unable to fast charge because it's too cold and you didn't have an hours worth of time and energy to preheat it.
You also have the problem where it is "too hot". Higher battery wear and all. Part of me feels the BEV revolution only considered half the northern hemisphere.
I think cold is a harder problem to solve, I think your delta T of environment temps and operating temps are much greater in cold weather.
I've worked in areas where they were developing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles at major auto makers. The facilities are equipped with collectors, detectors, and alarms, and everyone knows to GTFO if the alarm goes off. Hydrogen leaks indoors are extremely dangerous.
Possibly what you're trying to say is that it's easier to get the air in? Or that it's stored under pressure?
Add in a minuscule spark energy and H2 is no joke
Hydrogen has zero of those safety virtues.
Encouraged by this I filled one of those grocery store vegetable bags with H2 + O2 from the same electrolysis setup (combine both outputs this time). Stoichiometric mixture! The boom was so loud I thought it was going to break my windows from about 20 feet away.
[1] https://www.history.com/news/the-hindenburg-disaster-9-surpr...
I'm all for bringing back H2 blimps, but let's be honest about H2 - it's crazy dangerous.
Lower spark energy Broader range of combustibility Faster detonation speed (? [1])
It's only positive is it dissipated quickly, but that's not that great because it goes boom boom at 5% H2 -air. Everyone I know who has worked on combustion problems (I haven't myself, but colleagues have) give H2 a lot of respect.
[1] this one is an educated guess on my part based on the thermo.
But not at the same time. That is important because H2 has such a wide ignition range. At the lower end of concentration it isn't much easier to ignite than other things. A readable discussion:
* https://h2tools.org/bestpractices/hydrogen-compared-other-fu...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVeagFmmwA0
(Edit: added Toyota's test where they shot an hydrogen tank, you can see the fibers and the gas dispersion)
But a hydrogen / air mixture is explosive from 4% hydrogen to 74% hydrogen, Americans love their attached garages, and most attached garages feature a perfectly-placed electric spark detonator...er, I mean electric garage door opener...which is triggered daily.