Lol - I'm hoping to buy a hydrogen Hummer in the future...Sgt.Kyle wrote:
its fugly....why are hydrogen cars so ugly...they should make nice looking hydrogen cars maybe people would actually buy them, prism are fugly and slow as hell
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- What if? Hydrogen cars only / environmental effects
But the water vapor in the air is natural. Its not harmful as it doesn't retain heat like CO2 does. It's just evaporated ocean and lake water basically. Actually, you could assume that the water is evaporated because the CO2 has made it hotter, therefor, evaporating more water.Pug wrote:
Right, so what I'm trying to determine is...replacing the carbon Greenhouse gas with H2O results in???? So what's the difference 'tween CO2 and H2O in terms of Global Warming?sergeriver wrote:
Doesn't water vapor constitute 1/3 of all the Greenhouse gases?
EDIT:
Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose? Still would get - 3 miles to the gallon.Pug wrote:
Lol - I'm hoping to buy a hydrogen Hummer in the future...Sgt.Kyle wrote:
its fugly....why are hydrogen cars so ugly...they should make nice looking hydrogen cars maybe people would actually buy them, prism are fugly and slow as hell
Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2007-07-25 11:06:05)
I don't think that's right. I thought H2O was a greenhouse gas.xBlackPantherx wrote:
But the water vapor in the air is natural. Its not harmful as it doesn't retain heat like CO2 does. It's just evaporated ocean and lake water basically. Actually, you could assume that the water is evaporated because the CO2 has made it hotter, therefor, evaporating more water.
I'm not sure which retains heat more. But would it be possible that we'd have less sunlight because there were more clouds?
actually it's more like 73%sergeriver wrote:
Doesn't water vapor constitute 1/3 of all the Greenhouse gases?
That sounds about right, but I don't know that much about climate.Pug wrote:
I don't think that's right. I thought H2O was a greenhouse gas.xBlackPantherx wrote:
But the water vapor in the air is natural. Its not harmful as it doesn't retain heat like CO2 does. It's just evaporated ocean and lake water basically. Actually, you could assume that the water is evaporated because the CO2 has made it hotter, therefor, evaporating more water.
I'm not sure which retains heat more. But would it be possible that we'd have less sunlight because there were more clouds?
Yep. But I like to ghost ride eco-friendly.xBlackPantherx wrote:
But the water vapor in the air is natural. Its not harmful as it doesn't retain heat like CO2 does. It's just evaporated ocean and lake water basically. Actually, you could assume that the water is evaporated because the CO2 has made it hotter, therefor, evaporating more water.Pug wrote:
Right, so what I'm trying to determine is...replacing the carbon Greenhouse gas with H2O results in???? So what's the difference 'tween CO2 and H2O in terms of Global Warming?sergeriver wrote:
Doesn't water vapor constitute 1/3 of all the Greenhouse gases?
EDIT:Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose? Still would get - 3 miles to the gallon.Pug wrote:
Lol - I'm hoping to buy a hydrogen Hummer in the future...Sgt.Kyle wrote:
its fugly....why are hydrogen cars so ugly...they should make nice looking hydrogen cars maybe people would actually buy them, prism are fugly and slow as hell
Sort of like developing a cig with 1/10th of the nicotine. If a heavy smoker does 2 packs a day, he'd have to smoke 20 packs to avoid the shakes.
If you use electrolysis to gain the hydrogen, you would have no net gain in water. Any water harvested to produce fuel would just be spit back out. No net gain = no greenhouse effect.Pug wrote:
I don't think that's right. I thought H2O was a greenhouse gas.xBlackPantherx wrote:
But the water vapor in the air is natural. Its not harmful as it doesn't retain heat like CO2 does. It's just evaporated ocean and lake water basically. Actually, you could assume that the water is evaporated because the CO2 has made it hotter, therefor, evaporating more water.
I'm not sure which retains heat more. But would it be possible that we'd have less sunlight because there were more clouds?
It is more like closer to 2/3 or maybe more.Pug wrote:
Right, so what I'm trying to determine is...replacing the carbon Greenhouse gas with H2O results in???? So what's the difference 'tween CO2 and H2O in terms of Global Warming?sergeriver wrote:
Doesn't water vapor constitute 1/3 of all the Greenhouse gases?
Water vapor cycles quickly and constitutes the majority of the greenhouse effect. The total concentration (of water vapor) is dependent upon the concentrations of other greenhouse gases (these GHGs act as an amplifying/feedback mechanism; increasing water vapor content in the atmosphere). Emitting water vapor will not amplify the greenhouse effect - as these will be quickly cycled out - unlike GHGs which last for 10's of years to 200 or more years and build up in the atmosphere.
Basically the difference is water vapor (lasts a week before it becomes rain +/-) - an extremely short term increase in water vapor content (= little or no immediate impact - & no long term consequences).
vs
GHGs lasting 10's of years to 100's of years (acting directly; forcing some radiation back down to the atmosphere below the GHG molecules; in turn causing both a increase in temperature and a slight increase in water vapor content; which causes another slight increase in temperature) - there are long term consequence of having GHGs build up in the atmosphere.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-26 09:08:53)
Right, lads, this is an idea for how it should go.
1. You will require nuclear power stations. Lots of the buggers. Yes, I know the waste produce is extremely harmful, but just find somewhere to bury it if you care so much about solving the problem of 'global warming'.
2. Increase usage of renewable energy power stations such as wind, tidal, solar, hydro etc. power stations. Up-scale the input of energy into national grids through these outlets to a consistent 10-20% worldwide, and it'll make a large difference on the amount of nuclear waste produced.
3. Use the energy now produced by these 'clean' [read: relatively clean] energy sources to power not only the national grids of all nations but also to provide energy for the creation of hydrogen in said hydrogen powered vehicles/electric powered vehicles etc.
4. Be happy
1. You will require nuclear power stations. Lots of the buggers. Yes, I know the waste produce is extremely harmful, but just find somewhere to bury it if you care so much about solving the problem of 'global warming'.
2. Increase usage of renewable energy power stations such as wind, tidal, solar, hydro etc. power stations. Up-scale the input of energy into national grids through these outlets to a consistent 10-20% worldwide, and it'll make a large difference on the amount of nuclear waste produced.
3. Use the energy now produced by these 'clean' [read: relatively clean] energy sources to power not only the national grids of all nations but also to provide energy for the creation of hydrogen in said hydrogen powered vehicles/electric powered vehicles etc.
4. Be happy
I doubt you could do that efficiently in a car. FYI, hydrogen car are already on the market and have refueling stations already up and running in I think Germany.jonsimon wrote:
If you use electrolysis to gain the hydrogen, you would have no net gain in water. Any water harvested to produce fuel would just be spit back out. No net gain = no greenhouse effect.Pug wrote:
I don't think that's right. I thought H2O was a greenhouse gas.xBlackPantherx wrote:
But the water vapor in the air is natural. Its not harmful as it doesn't retain heat like CO2 does. It's just evaporated ocean and lake water basically. Actually, you could assume that the water is evaporated because the CO2 has made it hotter, therefor, evaporating more water.
I'm not sure which retains heat more. But would it be possible that we'd have less sunlight because there were more clouds?
+ use space cannons to shoot the radioactive waste into the sun or dump it on venus or something = waste problem solved and you'd use electricity from nuclear power plants to drive the space cannon (based on a spinning design of course its perfectly possible to build its just not feasible for human transport due to the huge acceleration forces would crush a human).TheDarkRaven wrote:
Right, lads, this is an idea for how it should go.
1. You will require nuclear power stations. Lots of the buggers. Yes, I know the waste produce is extremely harmful, but just find somewhere to bury it if you care so much about solving the problem of 'global warming'.
2. Increase usage of renewable energy power stations such as wind, tidal, solar, hydro etc. power stations. Up-scale the input of energy into national grids through these outlets to a consistent 10-20% worldwide, and it'll make a large difference on the amount of nuclear waste produced.
3. Use the energy now produced by these 'clean' [read: relatively clean] energy sources to power not only the national grids of all nations but also to provide energy for the creation of hydrogen in said hydrogen powered vehicles/electric powered vehicles etc.
4. Be happy
and solor power cells take about 10 years to regain all the energy used in their creation as they're made from plastics.
i think wind power takes about 12 years.
just expanding on your good idea.
As a Now solution it doesn't work, the technology isn't here & the fuel is very expensive. Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car?" (2006, it's been on the Encore network in the States, rent it, get the torrent, loads of clips on you tube). Hydrogen fuel cells aren't a going venture.
So, why can we not use nuclear power? Right, it's perfect except for the harmful radioactive byproduct.
(Well, and there's the safety issue, so just place them in orbit, like that other guy ^^^ said. Then if they explode, it can rain down onto the planet instead of just wiping out a few blocks )
So, why can we not just launch the nuclear waste into the sun? It is not like there are nuclear reactions going off inside the sun on a regular basis.
But I guess, then again, don't fix what's not broken. You would hate to put off some delicate balance no one knew about, and end up somehow shutting down the suns core. The nights would get really cold...
EDIT: I saw that 'Who Killed the Electric Car". Recommended to all who are even remotely interested on the topic.
(Well, and there's the safety issue, so just place them in orbit, like that other guy ^^^ said. Then if they explode, it can rain down onto the planet instead of just wiping out a few blocks )
So, why can we not just launch the nuclear waste into the sun? It is not like there are nuclear reactions going off inside the sun on a regular basis.
But I guess, then again, don't fix what's not broken. You would hate to put off some delicate balance no one knew about, and end up somehow shutting down the suns core. The nights would get really cold...
EDIT: I saw that 'Who Killed the Electric Car". Recommended to all who are even remotely interested on the topic.
Last edited by Curtor (2007-07-25 11:48:11)
How big would an object or explosion have to be to have some effect on the Sun?Curtor wrote:
So, why can we not use nuclear power? Right, it's perfect except for the harmful radioactive byproduct.
(Well, and there's the safety issue, so just place them in orbit, like that other guy ^^^ said. Then if they explode, it can rain down onto the planet instead of just wiping out a few blocks )
So, why can we not just launch the nuclear waste into the sun? It is not like there are nuclear reactions going off inside the sun on a regular basis.
But I guess, then again, don't fix what's not broken. You would hate to put off some delicate balance no one knew about, and end up somehow shutting down the suns core. The nights would get really cold...
EDIT: I saw that 'Who Killed the Electric Car". Recommended to all who are even remotely interested on the topic.
Dude, we could chuck the entire Earth at it, and it would still want dessert......
Then we can guzzle hydrogen lol, yes I would buy one as well.Pug wrote:
Lol - I'm hoping to buy a hydrogen Hummer in the future...Sgt.Kyle wrote:
its fugly....why are hydrogen cars so ugly...they should make nice looking hydrogen cars maybe people would actually buy them, prism are fugly and slow as hell
Again, hydrogen cars are already on the market and have refueling stations already up and running in I think Germany. Good mpg, VERY cheap to refuel.makeuser wrote:
As a Now solution it doesn't work, the technology isn't here & the fuel is very expensive. Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car?" (2006, it's been on the Encore network in the States, rent it, get the torrent, loads of clips on you tube). Hydrogen fuel cells aren't a going venture.
Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2007-07-25 17:11:49)
Not quite, the creation of a current commercial solar panel requires some fairly nasty chemistry, the mining of many rare elements that require the creation of huge amounts of mined rock and purification which is obviously pollution heavy. The resultant solar panels have both poor efficiency and operational lifetimes. If current solar pannels were that great we'd all be using them now.xBlackPantherx wrote:
Theres a think called solar panels. Actually, you can use some hydrogen to make more of it, kind of a 2-for-1 kinda thing. Fuels itself. Of course, this could mean a shit load of more rain in the long run.PureFodder wrote:
Something to remember, you still have to make the hydrogen to put in the hydrogen fuel cells. This requires electricity which needs to be generated somewhere.
Another problem with the hydrogen cell is that hydrogen leaks. It leaks a lot due to being so damned small. Making a large scale hydrogen production and distribution network will result in huge losses from hydrogen leaks (it's significantly more problematic than methane).
To get a proper hydrogen fuel cell network running and running efficiently would be very useful, but is currently a major engineering challenge.
Using the assumptions you've given, there would be a positive impact on global warming. I don't think global cooling will ever be a real issue, as we've proven we can warm the planet up without trying...imagine what we could do if we put our minds to it! I think it might increase humidity a little, particularly at rush hour and near major road systems. In any case, I think we'd need better stormwater systems (partuicularly around those major road systems) to cope with the increased amount of water around the place. We'd also need better water-resistant buildings, spouting etc...just learn to deal with more water and all it brings, really.
Realisticly, I don't think hydrogen cars will have a huge impact, at least straight away; we know there are other gases which also contribute to global warming, and oil-based fuels will be around for hundreds of years to come. Its one more thing that can help, however, and shouldn't be discounted for this very reason.
Realisticly, I don't think hydrogen cars will have a huge impact, at least straight away; we know there are other gases which also contribute to global warming, and oil-based fuels will be around for hundreds of years to come. Its one more thing that can help, however, and shouldn't be discounted for this very reason.
solar?Skruples wrote:
I would be more interested in where all the hydrogen comes from. You can make hydrogen and oxygen by running an electrical current through water (if I understand the process correctly), but if the energy you use to make the hydrogen comes from a coal burning powerplant, and you have to increase the production of the coal powerplant to offset the decrease in energy produced from burning oil, you may not come out ahead at all.
Remember, nothing is free. Not even hydrogen.
Global warming is BS, scientists can't agree if there will be cooling or warming or both. They don't even fully understand the natural cooling and warming effects that the earth goes through, let alone the effect of humans. That's why the optimum term is climate change, because we're fucked any which way.
This would be exactly the debate this topic is NOT designed for. For the unlikely scenario I've posted, I was hoping to understand a H2O versus CO2 comparison. I believe there is flaws on both sides of the Global Warming debate, but I was hoping for a little different discussion.mikeyb118 wrote:
Global warming is BS, scientists can't agree if there will be cooling or warming or both. They don't even fully understand the natural cooling and warming effects that the earth goes through, let alone the effect of humans. That's why the optimum term is climate change, because we're fucked any which way.
Just get a fully electric car and worry about the efficiency and environmental effects of the power plants... Even using coal this has to be better than petrol/diesel.
www.teslamotors.com
I want one!!!
www.teslamotors.com
I want one!!!
Ok to adapt the point of my post I pose this question. How are we to know and theorise the effects of introducing hydrogen vehicles upon the Earth climate if scientists are not even sure about the natural state of order and our own burden on the environment atm?Pug wrote:
This would be exactly the debate this topic is NOT designed for. For the unlikely scenario I've posted, I was hoping to understand a H2O versus CO2 comparison. I believe there is flaws on both sides of the Global Warming debate, but I was hoping for a little different discussion.mikeyb118 wrote:
Global warming is BS, scientists can't agree if there will be cooling or warming or both. They don't even fully understand the natural cooling and warming effects that the earth goes through, let alone the effect of humans. That's why the optimum term is climate change, because we're fucked any which way.
If you take the leap that CO2 is causing global warming (which I don't necessarily agree with), what happens if you replace CO2 with H2O?mikeyb118 wrote:
Ok to adapt the point of my post I pose this question. How are we to know and theorise the effects of introducing hydrogen vehicles upon the Earth climate if scientists are not even sure about the natural state of order and our own burden on the environment atm?
That's the question I'm interested in. The global warming debate about whether it's happening or not is covered elsewhere. I was hoping for something different...that's all I was looking for. I'm not trying to detract from your point, I'm just hoping for a discussion that isn't arguing about whether it's true/false/etc.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- What if? Hydrogen cars only / environmental effects