The Instigator
94MX5
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lizame11
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Future Fuel: Hydrogen

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2014 Category: Cars
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 993 times Debate No: 44880
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

94MX5

Pro

With the inevitable end to our World's fossil fuel reserves we must look to other forms of fuel to power our automobiles and other forms of transport. With Hybrid's, Natural Gas Vehicle's, and Diesel's Engines dependence on petroleum based products for power they are not a viable alternative to regular gasoline. And with the clear and massive limitations of electric vehicles the only common sense choice for the future fuel of the world is Hydrogen and the Fuel Cell Vehicles it powers.
lizame11

Con

One of the issues we face with Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles is that they are extremely expensive for consumers. Hydrogen is not a natural energy source, meaning we cannot just get it from the ground, therefore we will have to seperate hydrogen from our source of water. The technology as of now to achieve this is very expensive making a hydrogen fueled car cost $100,000 or more. This is far more that what people are paying for gasoline powered vehicles now.
Debate Round No. 1
94MX5

Pro

On the contrary, hydrogen is a naturally occurring element, but not in a gaseous form. The difficulty comes in separating it from other elements. However, there are a number of ways in which that can be done and which have been done for decades now. And yes, HFC Vehicles are expensive to buy, but there were lease options available, like from manufacture Honda which allowed the public to be exposed this new form of automobile. And just like other new technologies the price will go down in time.
lizame11

Con

lizame11 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
94MX5

Pro

Also HFC vehicles are incredibly clean. In a time when government emission regulations are incredibly strict and more people are focusing on the efficiency & environmental impact of their vehicles, HFC offer something that hybrid, conventional gas, diesel, and natural gas vehicles can't & that is a true zero emissions vehicle. And this is all accomplished without the range or battery issues of electric cars. In short HFCs offer all the pros of the other fuels without any of the drawbacks.
lizame11

Con

Actually producing hydrogen isn't as "clean" as we think. The process to create the fuel uses electricity and that electricity will often come from plants that burn coal, a highly polluting source. And when hydrogen is extracted from natural gas, it produces carbon emissions, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid by using hydrogen in the first place.
Debate Round No. 3
94MX5

Pro

Right, that is at the moment. But the point of this debate is for why Hydrogen is the fuel of the future, not the hear and now. As time progresses and the technology becomes more available on a wide scale and the other factors involved with compressed hydrogen's production become more feasible at a low impact to the environment, like with the use of clean coals, the appeal of hydrogen will increase while its drawbacks decrease all while it continues to offer the freedom of gas without the impact.
lizame11

Con

I can only argue the facts that we presently have. What if technology cannot prove a way to avoid the harmful emmisions for hydrogen production? My argument would be the same. Also, hydrogen fuel is extremely flammable and odorless. If there were a hydrogen leak in someone's vehicle, they would not be able to detect it which is extremely dangerous. Being that tomorrow would technically be the future, a hydrogen fueled car, given the circumstances that are present, would not be the best choice.
Debate Round No. 4
94MX5

Pro

1) Clean Coal has been in use at some power plants since 2008 and its popularity in combination with other clean air technologies like Carbon Capture means that the environmental impact of electricity would be reduced.
2) Propane is, along with other Natural Gases, odorless, but a scent is added to it/them to make the handling of the gas safer. The same can be done to Hydrogen.
3) Extracting Hydrogen from NG shouldn't be done due to the non renewable nature of NG, especially when there are better alternatives.
lizame11

Con

lizame11 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SUDDENXD3ATH 3 years ago
SUDDENXD3ATH
Hydrogen is an extremely expensive alternative to gas, but the real question is whether or not it is efficient. Can a hydrogen fueled car travel the same distance that a gas powered car can for the same price (both financially and ecologically)? Hydrogen is, again, a very expensive alternative to gas. It costs more to get, and thus more to buy. It does not appear to be a viable option given the current economic struggle, limitation of technology, and the fact that electric cars and hybrids are far more efficient financially. (I am in no way endorsing electric cars. I am simply stating the facts.)
Posted by 94MX5 3 years ago
94MX5
I disagree with you on the Natural Gas route because, just like the gas we put into our vehicles now, it is a non renewable resource. And the whole storage and refueling issue for both Hydrogen and NG is a problem at the moment. But Honda still sells a Natural Gas version of the popular Civic which has a home refilling station that can be purchased. But the last time I checked the home refilling station had the same issue as electric vehicles and that is the refueling/recharging time is long. And by long I mean in the 7 hour range for the home NG refilling unit and the "quick charge" recharging stations for electric vehicles, which also shorten the overall life of the rather expensive batteries of EV's. And from a normal house outlet it would take a staggering 20 hours to recharge a car like the Nissan Leaf. I think if car makers really want EV's to be the future of automobile transport they are going to have the monumental task of reducing charge time to something in the range of how long it takes us to refill our gas cars. And I think this is the major appeal and freedom of owning a gas vehicle: you drive and drive and drive till you need more gas, spend a couple of minutes refilling, set off, and drive and drive and drive again. Electric and even NG vehicles do not offer that, while Compressed Hydrogen put into a Fuel Cell Vehicle, like Honda's FCX Clarity would take an amount time comparable to that of a traditional gas vehicle. And that is why I believe Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. It has all of the freedom of gasoline, with none of the drawbacks of gas or the other alternative fuel counterparts.
Posted by frankienstien 3 years ago
frankienstien
I don't think hydrogen is the best direction. CNG (compressed natural gas) would be easier . Neither one is safe enough for users to refill themselves, and one must always wonder what kind of bomb could they make out of the car using such fuels. I think it makes more sense to head in the direction of electric cars charged by natural forces, such as wind or tide.
No votes have been placed for this debate.