HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER

This is the answer

SPREAD THE WORD

HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN

Hydrogen is most definately not the answer to our fuel crisis.

Short and simple, as your opening argument gave me little to work with, hydrogen doesn't solve the problem.

The world is approaching the oil peak rapidly. This is not to say we will run out of oil, but that there comes a point when drilling for natural resources yields marginal returns. As we drill deeper it costs more and yields lower quality resource which costs more to refine, which also costs more. So, as Dr. Hubbard famously predicted, there will come a point where, eventhough natural resources are still left, it will be more cost than benefit to retrieve them.

Now, you may say this is the exact reason we need hydrogen, but take a closer look at how we get hydrogen. Hydrogen energy requires energy to be produced. That production energy comes from the natural resources we are running out of, namely natural gas. Best estimates report 10% of hydrogen production is by renewable energy. So, we are just using our depleting fuel to create another fuel. This means hydrogen is a virtual go-between for energy reliance.

On top of that, hydrogen is entirely impractical. A hydrogen ready car costs almost $1 million on order and can go about 70 miles before needing a recharge.

Natural resources account for more than 80% of our energy source and is set to peak in less than a decade. How to you expect to counter that with a fuel that is that impractical and relient on the very fuels we are running out of?

First of all, take your time

First of all I want you to give me what YOUR alternative fuel of choice IS

ETHANOL IS A DISASTER

SO ARE BIOFUElS

hydrogen is the ONLY energy carrier capable of supplanting gasoline, diesel and JP4 etc IN TOTO

period.

No product of photosynthesis is going to replace gasoline

again

ETHANOL IS A DISASTER

SO ARE BIOFUElS

"The world is approaching the oil peak rapidly."

"This is not to say we will run out of oil"

well which is it?

and FIRST OF ALL WE NEED TO DRILL MORE YES MORE EVERYWHERE

Im sure we agree on this point

AND BUILD NEW REFINERIES

again, Im sure we agree on this point

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES

again , Im sure we agree on this point

BOTTOM LINE

SOLAR

PERIOD.

SOLAR - HYDROGEN

IT WORKS

ITS SIMPLE

TAKE PV ELECRICITY at 15% efficiency or large solar thermal at 20%

there is enough sunlight hitting the planet DAILY to power it for a few years

10% of available commercial roof space in Los Angleles county will provide the total power for the state at peak load (50,000 MW or 50 GW)

hydrogen is produced from WATER

it can be done at HOME with a LITTLE MACHINE called an ELECTROLYZER

so ELECTRICITY + WATER = HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN + YOUR CAR , TRUCK , SHIP , AIRPLACE, SPACESHIP + OXYGEN= WATER

Water-----> Hydrogen --------> water

HYDROGEN POWERS THE SPACE SHUTTLE- It has the HIGHEST ENERGY DENSITY

it also is a VERY LIGHT GAS and embrittles metal, and escapes into space easy

but it is

THE ONLY ANSWER KIDS

THE ONLY ANSWER

for our transportation needs

GET FAMILIAR WITH IT

PROMOTE IT

THE TIME IS NOW

DO YOU HEAR ME?

IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OBAMA

GOT IT?

SOLARMAN

I don't think I have ever seen such an eccentric argument.

Biomass. Biomass is waste and green resources which are turned into fuel. While biomass still takes energy to produce it is incredibly more efficient than hydrogen and has the capability of being even more efficient. Biomass is made from our own waste (not crap, garbage), so it is ever-abundant and we are producing it instead of depleting it. It needs technological development, but is a much better prospect than hydrogen.

Nuclear facilities are a tough candidate because of the potential danger and political contreversy surrounding them. But, you don't advocate them anyway and they are off topic.

OK, so hydrogen is made with electricity. Where does the electricity come from? People could spend all day circling a hand crank like those Farraday flashlights... If you want to use solar energy to convert water to hydrogen, keep in mind that it takes 1.3 kWh of electricity to produce 1 kWh of H energy. Laws of thermodynamics dictate we will always get less out of H than we put in. To create the kind of electricity we would need to replace natural resources it would take a massive amount of sunlight. So, anywhere other than CA or the Sahara is pretty screwed.

Also, building solar plants big enough to replace the resource vacancy is about 50 times MORE costly than current plants.

Also, hydrogen is simply not dense enough. It would take 237,000 litres of gas hydrogen or 60 gallons of liquid hydrogen to replace a 20 gallon gas tank. Not to mention the fact that liquid hydrogen is cold enough to freeze air, presenting countless engineering messes. As you pointed out, H embrittles metal. This means it naturally escapes your car while eroding it.

Also, you don't answer the impracticality of hydrogen. Why invest in an energy middle-man? Especially one that costs a boatload. All hydrogen does is transfer energy. It doesn't create energy, it is simply a fuel cell. We put energy we already have into a 'fuel' that provides diminsihing returns at staggeringly higher costs?

DOESN'T MAKE SENSE

PERIOD

ILLOGICAL

DONE

you are plainly and simply completely wrong

here is your first point

While biomass still takes energy to produce

yes it takes MORE ENERGY IN THE FORM OF GAS? DIESEL that it MAKES

and the WASTE STREAM is MINIMAL compared to our gasoline consumption

"so it is ever-abundant"

No it is NOT

there is VERY LITTLE in the WAY of WASTE BIOMASS

Now you move on

"Nuclear facilities are a tough candidate because of the potential danger and political contreversy surrounding them"

you have no concept hwat you are talking about

please explain fast breeder reactor technology to me and also the TOTAL amount of nuclear waste EVER generated to date, and finally HOW MANY PEOPLE have DIED due to NUKES in the USA?

again, you have NO CLUE

except that the ONLY opposition is by STUPID IDIOT DEMAGOGIC dcemocrats

YOUR NEXT POINT

"OK, so hydrogen is made with electricity. Where does the electricity come from? People could spend all day circling a hand crank like those Farraday flashlights..."

you are an idiot and are not worth debating science with

you probably dont even know what a kilowatt hour, Joule and Faraday are.

FOOL!

"If you want to use solar energy to convert water to hydrogen, keep in mind that it takes 1.3 kWh of electricity to produce 1 kWh of H energy."

yes electrolyzers are about 70% efficient- WAY TO GO, SCIENCE GENIUS!

"Laws of thermodynamics dictate we will always get less out of H than we put in. To create the kind of electricity we would need to replace natural resources it would take a massive amount of sunlight. So, anywhere other than CA or the Sahara is pretty screwed."

Again, YOU ARE A MORON

Why dont you tell me what the sun hours are exactly for

Los Angeles
New York
Miami
Fargo
Anchorage
Seattle
Omaha

and also tell me why GERMANY now has about 1/3 of its peak load from solar (not a very sunny place)

as soon as you can even tell me what a sun hour is, then you can talk

"Also, building solar plants big enough to replace the resource vacancy is about 50 times MORE costly than current plants."

THis is nonsensical crap

there is 1000W /m2 = 100W / sf

you do the math , genius

at 15% , PV makes 15 W/ ft2 or for 1000ft2 = 15,000 W DC = 15 kW DC

the average house uses about 2 kW average load

so I only need to put about 400-500 sf of panels to get rid of the electric bill on a house typically

or on a business , 5,000-20,000 SF of panels

so once again, you are COMPLETELY WRONG

PG&E just signed a 20 year deal for a 900MW plant in the desert and the Luz solar plant has been very profitable since the 1970s (Mojave desert)

YOU HAVE NOT THE SLIGHTEST CLUE WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT WITH SOLAR

NOT THE SLIGHTEST

Ok back to H2

"Also, hydrogen is simply not dense enough. It would take 237,000 litres of gas hydrogen or 60 gallons of liquid hydrogen to replace a 20 gallon gas tank. "

This is your first real argument

You can use high pressure compressed gas or liguid for planes

It works fine

you can also use hybrids with it

Im not going to get into details in this debate, but the Germans (BMW) have a full line of H2 cars coming out this year.

and H2 can be MIXED into the fuel stream for now

Now you just lose it, becuase you dont have a clue

"Also, you don't answer the impracticality of hydrogen. Why invest in an energy middle-man? Especially one that costs a boatload. All hydrogen does is transfer energy. It doesn't create energy, it is simply a fuel cell. We put energy we already have into a 'fuel' that provides diminsihing returns at staggeringly higher costs?"

You are clueless, as proven by this statement

"It doesn't create energy, it is simply a fuel cell"

study a little and get back to me

it is a CARRIER, or a CURRENCY

a FUEL CELL is a GENERATOR that can use MULTIPLE FUELS , including H2

Give me your alternative that will possibly work, if not H2

Anything involving biological entities is not practical, or possible, period.

I appreciate your efforts here but you need to learn alot more about it.

SOLARMAN

Let me preface my argument by saying I could not understand half of what you said during the entire debate. Not that it was some how out of reach or to complex, but I just could not decifer what you seem to think is a use of the english language. Also, I could do without the personal attacks.

Anyway, I'm not advocating biomass in the debate. You asked for an alternative and I gave you one. I can't really decifer what you argued for on the point, other than its lack of supply. In response, biomass is essentially garbage. I think it is safe to say we have more than enough garbage lying around.

On to nuclear facilities. I'm not claiming nuclear plants don't provide energy. Shernoble and five mile island have scared the general public away from nuclear power and stirred a political gridlock on the topic, making it hard to establish enough nuclear power, even if it is safe, to replace natural resources. I was not talking about nuclear bombs, rather the danger of plant leaks or nuclear waste, but more notably the politcal barriers to nuclear power (i.e. those "STUPID IDIOT DEMAGOGIC dcemocrats").

On the electricity point, you pretty much just insult me and move on.

You admit that creating H energy is terminally inefficient.

All of your statistics account for the electric bills on homes, not energy requirements. What about heating costs, driving cars, etc. Your stats prove my point. Just to account for the electric bill on homes we would need 500 sf of solar panels per house. Does this in any way seem plausible or realistic? The average house doesn't have that kind of roofing space, so we can't do it that way. We could put solar panels somewhere else, but the transfer of energy to homes makes it even less efficient. As of 2003 there are 9 million homes. So, we are talking about constructing 500 million square feet of solar panelling just to take care of homes, not counting businesses etc. Practical? Cost efficient? Possible? NO. Keep in mind those figures are JUST for electricity in homes.

I would imagine a solar plant in the Mojave would be profitable. How would this fair for locations that are not in the hottest locations in the world? It still doesn't counter cost of building.

So, we can't store H. The gas tanks would be immense and H is incredibly volatile. Anyone remember Hindenburg? We have to keep H at extremely cold temperatures and it remains large. You don't answer the engineering problems for a pure H car, something necessary to REPLACE oil. A simple hybrid isn't enough.

I know its a currency, thats the problem. Its a middle man and will always be inefficient. We talked about this earlier.

I don't need to provide you with an alternative (eventhough I did). You are here preaching the wonders of H and I'm showing you that you are wrong. If a college student knew the miracle cure to the looming energy crisis, don't you think we would be working on it already?

The fact is H is not the answer. Its terminally inefficient, impossible to store effectively and safely and is just another hyped up quick fix to a problem that is going to take a lot of time and dedication to solve.