We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon
Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Hydrogen isn't necessarily more dangerous than other fuels. The issue with that accident was that the majority of the volume of the vehicle was fuel. Which isn't normally the case (except maybe with rockets, or with tankers transporting fuel).
And it wasn't even fuel they would burn to propel the airship forward. The Hindenburg had 4 diesel engines, which may have even been the cause of the fire (directly, or through their fuel being the source). There are other theories, such as static buildup, a lightning strike, or even sabotage.
I guess even if its just fuel (and not a lifting gas) the large storage space needed for hydrogen gas might reduce safety, it might be harder to properly isolate a very large tank from static or other threats. If your using liquid hydrogen then you have the possibility of failure of the cooling method for your cryogenic storage (although the tank would still be highly insulated, you wouldn't get a sudden shift to all gas, you would just have to vent some of the gas as it develops to avoid over-pressure)
OTOH hydrogen also has some safety advantages. Its lightness means it flows away in to the sky as it burns which usually causes less damage to things around it. It also normally produces a lot less harmful gases and smoke around the fire then conventional fuels (a perfect hydrogen/oxygen fire would just produce steam, so it would "no harmful gasses and smoke" but in the real world you have other objects and gasses around to burn).
Here is a video with some tests
Experimental Investigation of Liquid Hydrogen Hazards, 1960, Film Number 1