Bigger issue is when you have no vent and heat just builds up around the entire tank.

E.g. parking house fire, a fire on a packed ferry and similar.

I can see its use in shipping since any accident on a ship, while catastrophic, is at least somewhat isolated and contained as opposed to vehicles in dense traffic, parking garages, near residential homes etc.

With the thousands of accidents happening on roads every year something can and will happen with hydrogen based vehicles whether as fuel, transported or both.

To not even offer a word about risk and consequences in an article seems disingenuous. Even if the risk is low the consequences are major.

What happens if there is a fire in a parking garage and you have multiple hydrogen vehicles now being exposed to extreme heat over a long time?

Instead of burning off you now have a risk of a major explosion causing far more damage than burnout from liquid fuels or batteries.

Why are these concerns always omitted when it comes to articles and discussions surrounding the commercialized use of hydrogen?

That’s the point.

It explodes rather than burn off.

Which makes the consequences much higher even if the risk is the same or lower.

Throughout the entire article not a word was mentioned about consequence and risk in the case of unforeseen failure or accidents. To me this seems deliberate because the consequences are massive.

And what happens if this is exposed to a fire, collision or similar?

Issue with hydrogen is and always will be the potential magnitude of consequences linked to failures and/or accidents.

An electric or fossil fuel vehicle is just going to burn down in a rather controlled manner. Not so with a vehicle running compressed gas.

The potential damage this can cause, especially in traffic, near housing and similar is massive. And if you have multiple of these vehicles then what is the potential for chain reactions?