The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Derek.Gunn
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY FUTURE

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,646 times Debate No: 2985
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (14)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

I want to have this debate over and over until all you laypeople get it and DEMAND THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOW THIS AS THEIR ENERGY POLICY. They DONT WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO MAKE YOUR FUEL AT HOME WITH ELECTRICITY AND WATER - HEAR ME?

THIS IS THE ANSWER THE ONLY ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY CRISIS THAT WILL SND THIS WORLD INTO WAR OVER AND OVER FOREVER.
Derek.Gunn

Con

We have many things that use energy, and some of them could be powered by burning nice, clean hydrogen gas.

However: computers, bicycles, toasters, sailing boats, hang gliders, jet fighters, weed-whackers, fan-heaters, and a vast number of other things are far better powered by other forms of energy.
So in this regard, hydrogen (H2) is not the answer to our energy future.

It is possible to produce H2 (and O2) from water at home via electrolysis. I've done it myself.
However, this cannot solve the coming energy crisis.
Electrolysis just changes the energy from electricity to gas.
We still need to create the electricity in the first place.
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

Solarman1969 forfeited this round.
Derek.Gunn

Con

I really haven't anything to add.
Except: electrolysis of steam appears to be extremely efficient!

According to Wikipedia, electrolysing steam produces > 100% energy return. :-)
Read here:http://en.wikipedia.org...

Imagine! One could absorb heat from steam, and reduce the need for cooling towers in nuclear (or coal) plants and generate hydrogen really efficiently at the same time. Fantastic!
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

Sorry- not much of time as of lately

you have caught on

all you have to do is plug in an electrolyzer and make hydrogen and oxygen.

you can fill a tank in your car and augment the gasoline mixture right now

hythane is hydrogen-natural gas mixture, which can be at any ratio

the only reall issue I see is the regulations about how to store the hydrogen on board a vehicle

it really is THE revolution- SOLAR HYDROGEN

what do you think of my clever idea?

Right now I just sell solar - I am ready for hydrogen as well

F*** the Saudis and Chavez the dictator

hydrogen now!

SOLARMAN
Derek.Gunn

Con

Yes, I've noticed you've been putting your attention elsewhere.

I wouldn't waste any breath on Chavez or the Saudis.
Chavez has let power go to his head and seems now to be just another South American banana republic dictator (though with oil).
The Saudis are much the same. With their trillions, they could have changed their country from a desert to a cacti-forest; but no, they though it better to own jets, yachts, and a merc for every day of the week. So their (immense) number of princes will inherit desert and dead vehicles instead.

THE DEBATE...

I can't see hydrogen playing a big part in powering cars.
Yes we can have 110% efficient steam-based electrolysis, and then burn it in a car at perhaps 15% efficiency.
Compare this to 100% electricity charging a capacitor at 95% efficiency and running the car at 85% efficiency.

The compressing, transportation and infrastructure need for hydrogen all make it even less attractive.
The transmission infrastructure for electricity is far more efficient, and we already have batteries that allow a sports-car to compete in the current market, and things are only going to get better: http://blog.wired.com...

Our future energy needs are likely to be met via improvements and expansion in:
* Nuclear power
* Photovoltaics
* Solar-powered water heating (saved us >1/3rd of our electricity last year)
* Energy efficiency
* Algae-based oil production
* Wind power and others

- those are some of the answers to our energy future.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
No? Could you provide some examples of first-world countries the less control?
"
That's not relevant, because there is no country that exercises "very little" control over it's businesses. As such, it's relative position to other countries gives no clues to it's absolute position

The most honest man in a gang of thieves has still stolen quite a bit.

"

Only if you choose the alternative definition for "conservative".
Of course these are relative terms, but in a given context, as political definitions they are diametrically opposed.
One is just being silly otherwise.

The same can also be said of "radical" and "reactionary".
One must establish one's definitions, otherwise one is doomed to speak nonsense.
"

Define the rest of the terms then. All of them. Because in no way is that the "alternate" definition of conservative, it's the classic definition

"
That, by my definition and point-of-view, is extremely right-wing.
I wonder if anyone outside of the US would disagree?
"

By your point of view maybe, by the definition you just gave, assuming normal definitions for the terms within, it is not. It is not reactionary, i.e. a position established solely to counter that of another, and it is not conservative, i.e. not based on any sort of tradition or status quo, being entirely without precedent.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Ragnar,
> The US does not exercise "very little" control over business of whatever form.

No? Could you provide some examples of first-world countries the less control?

> But it's not impossible to be both "socialist" and "conservative." It's really quite common.

Only if you choose the alternative definition for "conservative".
Of course these are relative terms, but in a given context, as political definitions they are diametrically opposed.
One is just being silly otherwise.

The same can also be said of "radical" and "reactionary".
One must establish one's definitions, otherwise one is doomed to speak nonsense.

> I oppose government involvement in anything but courts, military, and police actions

That, by my definition and point-of-view, is extremely right-wing.
I wonder if anyone outside of the US would disagree?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
So, in saying the the US is very right-wing, I'm saying that the government exercises very little control over corporations/big-business.
Quite the reverse."
The US does not exercise "very little" control over business of whatever form.
"
left-wing: "socialist or radical section of a political party"
right-wing: "conservative or reactionary section of a political party"
"

But it's not impossible to be both "socialist" and "conservative." It's really quite common.

"Socialist" and "Radical" are also in no way synonyms. Socialism is not a radical idea, it is the status quo and has been in one form or another for thousands of years. Radical ideas are things like capitalism, "official" communism, anarchism, things that aren't the status quo. For example, I am a radical capitalist, meaning in essence I oppose government involvement in anything but courts, military, and police actions.

This is why terms like "left wing and "right wing" are misleading in discourse-- they sound like opposites but they really aren't.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Ragnar,
actually dictionaries do provide definitions, i.e.
left-wing: "socialist or radical section of a political party"
right-wing: "conservative or reactionary section of a political party"

So, in saying the the US is very right-wing, I'm saying that the government exercises very little control over corporations/big-business.
Quite the reverse.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Ragnar: ".. entail that the government stop being socialist..." eh? Which government?
Couldn't be the US govt; one of the most right-wing in the world.

Socialism: Government control of the economy.

The Us government clearly has a great deal of control of its economy. Therefore... you get the picture.

Terms like "right" and "left," having no real definition, have no business in a discussion.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Got to agree with you there Solarman.

Cheers,

Derek
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
still have to find a way to fuel planes, trucks, ships and all diesel and JP4 fueled vehicles

All alternative energy is good in general, except turning food into fuel - BAD idea

cheers

SOLARMAN
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Kleptin: hydrogen, gasoline, coal-dust, and even flour can go "BOOM".
It's only a problem if not controlled.

Ragnar: ".. entail that the government stop being socialist..." eh? Which government?
Couldn't be the US govt; one of the most right-wing in the world.

Solarman: Have a little faith. ;-) New things do get invented over time.
There are people working on this http://en.wikipedia.org... and other types of batteries too.
- Nuclear power - Thorium reactors (the Indians are making them) thorium triples the nuclear fuel available to the world.
- Photovoltaics - Sliver technology (being produced in Australia) reduces the cost of PV's by 2/3rds.
- Solar powered hot water - evacuated tubes mean that you can heat water in Antarctica ( in summer ;-)
- Algae-based oil production - theoretically the way most oil was originally created. Potentially the world's future oil source as it give the highest known yield per hectare. The best news is it can grow in salty water in desert areas :-)
- Wind power - new designs mean even greater yield per pylon.

Is strange you say batteries are not going to "cut it". Hydrogen can be regarded as a kind of battery in as much as it is storing energy you've gathered from elsewhere.

IIRC the two recoverable boosters don't burn hydrogen, but a dirty epoxy-based solid fuel. Certainly the shuttle's triple nozzles use hydrogen, but cold fuels and oxidants are quite a headache for NASA. It's why they use foam for insulation... but that's another story.

Cheers
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
the government supports the current MORON energy policy

(1) NO NUKES

(2) ethanol and biofuels

(3) OIL and GAS subsidies for giant oil firms

(4) NO Drilling for Oil here

(5) no hydrogen

(6) no solar , wind , and other renewables

they are MORONS
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
I want to have this debate over and over until all you laypeople get it and DEMAND THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOW THIS AS THEIR ENERGY POLICY."

But "getting it" economically would entail that the government stop being socialist, and therefore stop having any "energy policy" other than "let people have what they pay for :D"
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Solarman1969Derek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by wheelhouse3 9 years ago
wheelhouse3
Solarman1969Derek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Solarman1969Derek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cjjavier3 9 years ago
cjjavier3
Solarman1969Derek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by psynthesizer 9 years ago
psynthesizer
Solarman1969Derek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
Solarman1969Derek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Bnesiba 9 years ago
Bnesiba
Solarman1969Derek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Solarman1969Derek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Solarman1969Derek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Solarman1969Derek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03