The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
zander
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 4/4/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,405 times Debate No: 3522
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (15)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

This is the answer

SPREAD THE WORD

HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN
zander

Con

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?
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

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
zander

Con

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
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

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
zander

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
I thought Solarman was the dumbest person one this site, but I'm pretty sure Sadolite's got him beat.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
hydrogen - electric hybrids are the answer

batteries will continue to improve

again, adding 5-20% H2 to gasoline (benzene, toluene xylene) is possible right now and will make the combustion better and cleaner

you can make h2 at home with a little box plugged into the wall.

name another fuel you can do that with

hmmmmm?

energy INDEPENDENCE and ECONOMY

are the keys

cutting emissions is great too
Posted by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Hey Solarman, 1st off you said you were an a - hole yourself. 2nd, whether I'm worthy of this debate or not is irrelevant because I'm not the one debating. BTW, nice win ratio.
Posted by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
First of all, 36 people died in the Hindenburg explosion...but I did some looking into it and apparently the culprit was the material that the blimp was made out of, which were responsible for the flames in the pictures. (The flames did not dissipate very quickly as you said they did, talking out your a$$. They would have though, if it was only hydrogen burning) So, based on my own research, I will concede that hydrogen may not necessarily be more dangerous than other fuels, but I think that the high pressure required to store it in a fuel tank would compound its explosive potential, and I have certainly read that safety in this is a primary concern for designing hydrogen powered cars.

The average person used 100gal/day of water, and the average household used between 300 and 400 gal/day, FYI. Regardless, it's difficult for me to believe that the billions of megawatts of energy used by the transportation sector would not require hundreds of millions or even billions of gallons of water to produce all of that hydrogen.

"(3) hydrogen can mix at ANY ratio, with ANY fuel and increase combustion and efficiency

becuase of its fast flame speed, new carbeurators are necessary if the gas is injected PRE carb."

that is interesting, I did not know that. Of course, you would still require a special engine that can accept hydrogen.

"Bottom line is that there is NO otrher really viable long term alternative and you can quote me on that"

Since hydrogen is essentially a way of turning electricity into liquid fuel, why don't you think that electric cars have potential?
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
hey convict loser, crawl back in the hole you came from

you are not worthy of this debate as your IQ is only -5
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Hemp for Victory

To address your points

(1) Hydrogen is by far the SAFEST fuel- look at the hindenburg- most walked away without a scratch because the flames went stright up and disspated very quickly

(2) Hydrogen requires almost no water, complared to the average usage (1000 gal/ day/ household)

I could do calcs for you in this regard ,but trust me

(3) hydrogen can mix at ANY ratio, with ANY fuel and increase combustion and efficiency

becuase of its fast flame speed, new carbeurators are necessary if the gas is injected PRE carb.

Bottom line is that there is NO otrher really viable long term alternative and you can quote me on that

hydrogen CAN and will run the entire transport infrastructure someday
Posted by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Solarman is just an a** hole.
Posted by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
"the water needed is NOT a factor at all- and it has to be PURE"

If it has to pure, than it IS a factor because fresh water is not something that is in abundance.

"b )Hydrogen is by FAR the SAFEST Fuel known to mankind- you and most are scared of it becuase you have been taught that - it is COMPLTELY SAFE"

Hydrogen is very explosive, remember the Hindenburg?

"This is simply wrong , along with biofuels, ethanol , and ANYTHING that uses photosynthesis- which is only 1% efficient, versus 15-25% for PV and Solar Thermal electric"

First of all, biofuel from waste material does not require photosynthesis. Now I agree that using crops for biofuel is retarded and only motivated by politics. However, whether or not PV and solar thermal plants are more efficient than photobioreactors is unclear. Even if more energy may be produced with PV or solar thermal, there is still the issue of converting that energy into a form usable for transportation. I know you think hydrogen is the answer (obviously), but there are just too many problems with it to make it really practical: the danger associated with its explosiveness, lacking of fresh water, and above all else is the high cost of cars that run on hydrogen - coupled with the cost of replacing the infrastructure to produce "normal" cars with hydrogen cars, and everything that goes along with them.

"Again, we are talking H2 Combustion - Mercedes Benz has a whole line of H2 cars in 08 "

I looked and couldn't find anything about this, perhaps you have a link? I see the F600, but its still a prototype.
Posted by stropheum 9 years ago
stropheum
I agree with solarman, even though he made good points I think that the argument could have been approached better on his part, but it was still pretty solid, however arrogant. But simply having solar/hydrogen cars is somewhat impractical. Something more practical would be to have interchangeable hydrogen cells for each car, so you could have two charging at home, so when one runs out, just switch it out for one that's fully charged or something. And biofuels are just a horrible idea, considering our country already can't sustain itself, due to having no gold standard or any true value to our money, and we have the largest standing debt perhaps in universal history >.<. And using up space for crops that we could be selling for biofuels would just be slowing down any form of ecoonomic progression we have. good debate altogether though, very close.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Interesting points, but simply wrong

Here is why

(1) Well, do you need freshwater for electrolysis, or is saltwater acceptable? There certainly are shortages of freshwater.

the water needed is NOT a factor at all- and it has to be PURE

(2) As for electricity, where do you expect to get it from? Solar, right? Solar is definitely going to be the main source of energy for the future

Electric sources

a) PV
b) Solar thermal
c) geothermal
d) wind
e) nuclear
f) coal
g) other fuels like NG

3) The problem with hydrogen, besides the further decrease in efficiency from converting electricity into hydrogen, is the expense of the fuel cells, as well as the danger associated with its explosiveness.

a) Hydrogen combsution NOT fuel cells
b )Hydrogen is by FAR the SAFEST Fuel known to mankind- you and most are scared of it becuase you have been taught that - it is COMPLTELY SAFE and NON TOXIC

4) As I've said before, biofuel from waste materials, as well as algae grown in extensive photo-bioreactors makes the most economical sense for utilizing solar energy

This is simply wrong , along with biofuels, ethanol , and ANYTHING that uses photosynthesis- which is only 1% efficient, versus 15-25% for PV and Solar Thermal electric

5) The difference between algal biodiesel and hydrogen from solar electricity is that the biodiesel can directly replace diesel in trucks and trains.

Biodiesel is a WEAK fuel and for the most part , a fraud , a subsizdized fraud, which is driving up food prices and starving the poor and again , you are at 1% efficiency

6) Conversely, converting the automotive fleet to hydrogen is a daunting task, and there is still no affordable car that runs on hydrogen fuel cells.

Again, we are talking H2 Combustion - Mercedes Benz has a whole line of H2 cars in 08

At least youre thinking : )
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
Solarman1969zanderTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: blergh I can barely read pro's arguments--which barely make any sense anyways
Vote Placed by Yodi 8 years ago
Yodi
Solarman1969zanderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Wayne 8 years ago
Wayne
Solarman1969zanderTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Solarman1969zanderTied
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 padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
Solarman1969zanderTied
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 GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
Solarman1969zanderTied
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
Solarman1969zanderTied
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 stropheum 9 years ago
stropheum
Solarman1969zanderTied
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 Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Solarman1969zanderTied
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 Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Solarman1969zanderTied
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