Making Perfect the Enemy of Good

Critics of using hydrogen as a transportation fuel seized on an event that happened a few months ago to demonstrate hydrogen is not safe for use. Though no explosion or fire occurred and no one was injured, hydrogen critics used the event to question the safety of hydrogen.  Meanwhile, one can find reports each week on serious – often catastrophic – events associated with the production, distribution, and/or consumption of gasoline and diesel.  The reality is that, on the balance, hydrogen is no safer and no more dangerous than what we use today.  Citing safety concerns to oppose hydrogen as a fuel, therefore, is nothing more than a red herring.

On February 11, a semi tanker carrying liquid hydrogen overturned on Interstate 84 in Connecticut when the driver fell asleep at the wheel.  Hydrogen began to leak from the tanker but there was no explosion or fire.  Officials closed the freeway for several hours during the morning commute, causing traffic snarls and raising the profile of the incident.  Fortunately, no one was injured, but bloggers and readers posted comments en masse questioning the safety of hydrogen as a transportation fuel.

This past weekend a diesel fuel tanker overturned and caught fire, shutting Interstate 91 near Boston for 5 hours.  Sadly, the driver died.  Just a month earlier, the same company had a truck carrying gasoline explode, damaging several houses and destroying numerous cars.  But its virtually impossible to find blogger or reader comments citing these or similar incidents as justification for questioning the safety of using diesel or gasoline.

EIN’s concern is not the fact the hydrogen incident attracted the attention of bloggers and commentators.  Rather, we are concerned with the fact that similar incidents with conventional fuels do not draw nearly as much attention.  We’re concerned that familiarity and complacency skews the playing field against alternative fuels and vehicles.  We’re concerned that the public has the expectation alternative fuels will be perfect, rather than accepting they may be better.

There are properties of hydrogen that make it safer to use than gasoline and diesel.  At the same time, there are other properties that require hydrogen to be handled differently than gasoline and diesel to prevent fire or explosion.  This is true with all alternative fuels and vehicles.  Simply because they have some risk associated with them is not justification for opposing their adoption.  These fuels and vehicles must be compared with what is in use today.  The question should be: are they safer, more dangerous, or prohibitive to handle?  The answers to these question must then be weighted within the context of the other benefits and drawbacks of the fuel compared to the incumbent.

We cannot make perfect the enemy good.  There is no silver bullet.  Every alternative will carry some risk along with its benefits.  If we deem the benefits to outweigh the risks, but insist on the fuel or vehicle being risk free, we’ll never move forward.