CreateDebate


Debate Info

29
24
fuel of the future! a joke!
Debate Score:53
Arguments:24
Total Votes:76
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 fuel of the future! (15)
 
 a joke! (9)

Debate Creator

beevbo(295) pic



Hydrogen as a fuel source . . .


fuel of the future!

Side Score: 29
VS.

a joke!

Side Score: 24
2 points

I remember a demonstration in school, hydrogen added to oxygen - it explodes with the by product being water. How is this not a perfect choice for the future? We can avoid Hindenburg-like incidents by doping the hydrogen storage cylinders.

Side: fuel of the future!
1 point

When Hydrogen is added to Oxygen, it explodes with the product being water. If this is the case, and engine can be developed that uses electrolysis to seperate water into hydrogen and oxygen, which explode and turn into more water for electrolysis. If this happens inside the piston chambers, like gasoline explosions in a gas engine, the result is an engine that never needs to be refueled and recycles it's byproduct.

Side: fuel of the future!
sparsely(496) Disputed
-1 points

It's a hoax. A distraction to funnel money to the auto & oil industry while giving citizens the impression that they're working toward a viable clean alternative, when in reality a viable clean alternative already exists, in the form of electric vehicles.

Hydrogen power is nothing more than a carrot on a string. Pure vaporware.

Supporting Evidence: Chase that carrot! (www.wired.com)
Side: a joke!
daveim21(10) Disputed
1 point

The hoax argument gives no evidence to support its thesis. I might as well say that electric cars are a hoax, to funnel money towards the automobile makers. But I have no evidence, so I won't.

Side: fuel of the future!
Ledfoot(133) Disputed
1 point

While Electric vehicles may be more clean than oil, its still not very clean. Not even close to as clean as using Water to make hydrogen and have oxygen and water vapors as a bi-product. Where does electricity come from? The majority comes from burning coal. Clean? I dont think so

Side: fuel of the future!
2 points

One of the main arguments against hydrogen is the production, or rather the acquisition of the hydrogen itself, electrolysis requires a large amount of energy in comparison to actual output of the product. Currently that would mean burning ever more fossil fuels to generate the electricity needed to produce the hydrogen necessary. However if we consider this logically it is not a stretch of the imagination in the least that a hydrogen extraction facility might use solar power to produce the electricity for the electrolysis process. However even this is not the extent of the possibilities. For hydrogen fuel cells will produce not CO2, but H20. If these water emissions could be captured then a good design would either reuse the H20 directly, or store it to be used in a myriad of different ways. This in turn would limit the need to refuel, as much of the original product could be captured and reused by the system. In addition rather than require a production facility it might be possible to simply put water into a holding reservoir and allow the vehicle to produce its own hydrogen supplies.

In this way hydrogen does emerge as one of the most promising fuel sources of the future, whether it be in hydrogen fuel cells or perhaps much more far fetched fusion power.

Side: fuel of the future!
2 points

Although I would complete support using water for fuel, because its clean, I have one problem. This would effect our economy deeply. For one, where I live (Wyoming) our main form of money is from coal and oil. If we get rid of oil, our state, and country would go into a downfall. On the other side, The country wouldnt have to rely on Saudi Arabia suppling us oil, and we would be reducing the rate of national debt. And maybe get rid of most of Saudi Arabias power, which I think could become a threat to the country. Oil Companies have way to much power and will do anything for money.

Like with Stan meyers for example. A man with a plan. He created a vehicle to run on water, and then invented an injector that does things I dont understand to easily convert a combustion engine into one that runs on water. EASY, but unfortuantly he died. He was poisoned right after refusing to sell his patten to an oil company.

Side: fuel of the future!

I think that hydrogen can easily be the fuel of the future. It can be easily produced through electrolysis. I did a science experiment on this and found that the efficiency of using water with plenty of ions such as spring water can produce hydorgen at or even over 50% efficiency rate and that was using a solar panel which made the experiment more cost friendly. The solar panel was only a 15 volt solar panel where as most of the solar panel used to collect energy in real life are around 150 volts at the minimum and the higher the voltage the solar panel the better the efficiency rate. So for instance if I were to make a soulution with spring water and salt with a 150 volt solar panel the efficiency would be around 85% a very high efficiency rate for a minimal solar panel whereas a normal car fuel has about a 92% efficiency rate, but remember the solar panel was very minimal, there are even 390 volt solar panels. And the emmisions of hydrogen is only water vapor, whereas gasoline emits harmful gasses such as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide which are very harmful to our environment and atribute to global warmming. As you can see in the future hydrogen can be a clean and reliable fuel source.

Side: fuel of the future!
4 points

Hydrogen fueled cars are a complete fantasy. There is no logistical reason to believe they can fuel the future. The most abundant source of hydrogen is to separate it from natural gas, a process whose by product is, you guessed it, good 'ole CO2. So while hydrogen sounds like a green technology, it isn't.

Oh, and for good measure hydrogen has no visible flame when it burns, making it extremely dangerous.

Side: a joke!
Bradf0rd(1428) Disputed
4 points

While I agree that it is a very dangerous fuel when contained in bulk and pressurized, it's the most abundant element in the universe, so it cannot be that dangerous.

Also, you can extract both oxygen and hydrogen from water... which is what water consists of. You can even do this yourself with a 12 volt battery, two wires, two pencils, and a glass of water...

The byproduct is water, so you put water in, separate it, and the combustion of the oxygen and hydrogen creates water again. I cannot think of a more perfect fuel, and just because it seems impractical now doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold onto this goal and push technology to allow us to use it without the dangers of using it today.

Also, our sun burns hydrogen... I can see it's flames from 146 million km to 152 million km away... (I kid)

Side: fuel of the future!
beevbo(295) Disputed
4 points

A quick search on google reveals:

"Steam reforming is currently the least expensive method of producing hydrogen and accounts for about 95 percent of the hydrogen produced in the United States. It is used in industries to separate hydrogen atoms from carbon atoms in methane(CH4). Because methane is a fossil fuel, the process of steam reforming results in greenhouse gas emissions that are linked with global warming.

Electrolysis is a process that splits hydrogen from water. It results in no emissions but it is currently a very expensive process. New technologies are being developed all the time."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/ sources/IntermediateHydrogen.html#HowIsHydrogenMade?

Side: a joke!
xaeon(1093) Disputed
3 points

London has a large amount of hydrogen fueled buses, with the only emission from those being water.

It's being used now and it works! There's no fantasy in it.

Supporting Evidence: BBC News - London's Hygroden Powered Buses (news.bbc.co.uk)
Side: fuel of the future!
1 point

Cool, I didn't know about this, thanks. That one great thing about this site is when you have a bunch of people doing research all at once you can learn things at a furious pace.

I wonder where this hydrogen is coming from, it says it's just a trial basis so they must have some sort of make-shift fueling station somewhere. Since it's on a trial basis I imagine they're still figuring out if it's economical.

Side: fuel of the future!
Cdelvalle(196) Disputed
1 point

It may be true that Hydrogen today is not green, but then again, Hydrogen is the fuel of the future, not the present.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element, constituting 75% of the Universe. To say the most abundant source is of Hydrogen is in Fossil fuels is a fallacy.

Also, technology has advanced to the stage that Hydrogen production can happen without fossil fuels (look at the argument below which quotes the Department of Energy with recognizing Hydrogen production with no fossil fuels). So clearly there are clean ways to produce Hydrogen fuel with no adverse pollutants.

Lastly, GM estimates initial Hydrogen infrastructure to cost about $12 billion. That's less than the U.S. spends each month in Iraq.

If the infrastructure is cheap and the technology to produce clean Hydrogen is there, that makes Hydrogen an amazing future fuel for the world.

Side: fuel of the future!
beevbo(295) Disputed
2 points

I can certainly concede the point as to the most abundant source of hydrogen not being natural gas, but as show in my response above it currently accounts for 95% of our supply. If electrolysis were to become a cheap and efficient process then yes, we would certainly have a legitimate fuel source on our hands, assuming we could deliver it safely and are able to build the infrastructure, which are both large challenges.

You really have to think about what is involved in a change like this. In order for the public to be willing to buy into hydrogen they're going to want the same convenience afforded by current fossil fuel powered cars. Hydrogen engines are expensive as it is, that cost won't be going down anytime soon as there is no demand for this engine since there is no place to fuel up.

You really have to put the horse before the cart here, and put the infrastructure in place before the cars truly become popular. Let's say you would logically start with a few spotted fueling stations in major cities. Let's also say the best case scenario of retrofitting gas stations to provide both gas and hydrogen. If you're an owner of a gas station, how motivated are you going to be to retrofit your business to supply hydrogen with so few vehicles on the road. Not only that, but the fuel will be expensive, giving consumers little to look forward to if they actually decide to buy into a hydrogen powered car. They were paying high prices for gas before, and still paying high prices.

All this really makes little sense when you consider that battery technology is quickly getting better as the demand for hybrid vehicles go up, and we're already seeing the re-emergence of the electric car. These are much easier and more logical ways to fuel the future, alternatives that already have the infrastructure in place and are ready to go right now.

Perhaps we can use Hydrogen as a source of energy, but it would make more sense for it to replace coal, and then we would have clean power to charge our electric cars.

Side: a joke!

Hydrogen is a volatile, extremely combustible gas. Gases are inherently difficult to control and utilize given their very nature. The concept of hydrogen cars sounds similar to the idea floated around in the 50s and 60s of nuclear fuel cars; which would have also been a rather bad idea.

Imagine car accidents, which are extraordinarily frequent. Highly flammable gases are bound to leak in major accidents, posing an explosion hazard. If there is a multiple car pile-up imagine the situation of having a dozen or so cars all leaking hydrogen gas at the same time. A single spark could cause an explosion that would be able to level a block of highway and severely damage any nearby buildings.

God knows how more dangerous gas stations would be, if someone wasn't hooking their nozzle up properly and lit a cigarette, well, it's much more likely to cause an explosion than a gasoline leak.

This, of course, is a trivial problem next to the fact that even developing the infrastructure and technology to implement such a dangerous plan is ten to twenty years away. We'd probably get Japanese hover-cars before hydrogen fueled vehicles become marketable.

Side: a joke!
daveim21(10) Disputed
1 point

Gasoline and the vapors it emits is a highly volatile chemical. Hydrogen would not likely be sold as fuel, rather water for electrolysis inside the vehicle.

Side: fuel of the future!
1 point

Are they proposing a possible catastrophe, There are alternative resources the can use, why not suggest the green solution instead like converting waste or manure to energy.

Side: a joke!
-2 points