The Instigator
Breenius
Con (against)
Losing
36 Points
The Contender
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points

The Hydrogen Economy

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/14/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,265 times Debate No: 407
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (23)

 

Breenius

Con

The "Hydrogen Economy," for purposes of this debate shall be defined by its Wikipedia definition: "A hydrogen economy is a hypothetical economy in which the energy needed for motive power (for automobiles or other vehicle types) or electricity (for stationary applications) is derived from reacting hydrogen (H2) with oxygen."

I submit for argument that in fact, efforts to establish a hydrogen economy are misguided for the following reasons:
- It requires an infrastructure to be built from the ground up, the likes of which this country has not seen for over half a century.
- The time line for the implementation of a hydrogen economy is much longer than for other alternative schemes to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels. In other words, we should focus our efforts on pushing technologies that can help us in the short term.
- Hydrogen's efficiency as an energy carrier is much lower compared to other methods.

I look forward to your reply!
Solarman1969

Pro

Hi Breenius (rhymes with Genius ; ) )

Thanks for taking up this important topic

Well , in this opening round, lets just look at your opening statements, answer those, and provide a bit more background info- then we will go from there

Im not sure how much science and engineering background you have , but at least youre 24 whereas the last kid was only 14!

YOUR ARGUMENTS

I submit for argument that in fact, efforts to establish a hydrogen economy are misguided for the following reasons:

- It requires an infrastructure to be built from the ground up, the likes of which this country has not seen for over half a century.

We cant do it? Are you kidding? the country that built up an entire infrastructure to defeat Hitler and Tojo, landed on the moon in 1969 and built the Golden Gate Bridge in 1936 cant do it?

poppycock! We are AMERICA! We can do anything! (and the Germans and Japanses these days are also very peaceful and good engineers as well : ) )

ARG #2 by you

- The time line for the implementation of a hydrogen economy is much longer than for other alternative schemes to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels. In other words, we should focus our efforts on pushing technologies that can help us in the short term.

What about what we are trying now- Ethanol and Biofuels?

EtOH- and unmitigated and continuing disaster

http://www.scoop.co.nz...

The real problem with ethanol from corn is that it requires fuel to make the corn. David Pimentel a professor from Cornell has done the analysis [i]. An acre of U.S. corn can be processed into about 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel. That is $1.05 per gallon of ethanol before the corn even moves off the farm.

The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps and other treatments are needed to separate the ethanol from the water. All these need energy.

Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol which has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."

Overall ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of petrol. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol" Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. Drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

How about Biofuels?

Again, not the answer

http://www.businessandmedia.org...

As long as biodiesel is from waste streams, regulated carefully by ASTM standards so it doesnt kill motors, it can make up like 5% of our needs- maybe

but it still produces plenty the same amount of CO2 - which I dont care about, but some people, like Al Gore the idiot ,and the global warming dopes, do.

Ok what other options are there than DONT depend on photosynthesis to start, which is only 1% efficient, and competes with FOOD, more important that gas.

none as far as I know

Thus, these "short term" fixes are actually doing more harm than good, because we are wasting time and energy putting off the hard work we need to do

OK third point

- Hydrogen's efficiency as an energy carrier is much lower compared to other methods.

Well, liquid hydrogen is the most dense energy carrier known to man.

here is a link to the new liquid H2 BMW

http://www.ecofriend.org...

here are some other links of interest

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com...

http://planetforlife.com...

MY MAIN POINTS FOR FIRST SHOT

(1) Hydrogen can power anything and everything- including the space shuttle

(2) hydrogen can completely replace all fossil fuels, since we will not run out of water or the sun)

(3) hydrogen is a closed cycle, and makes no carbon anything

(4) there is no other feasible alternative that can replace gasoline

(5) By going down these other paths, we are delaying the hard work we need to be doing

(6) there is a sad lack of scientists and engineers in government, and thats why we continue to be stupid and do things wrong

(7) the sooner we get going on this - the better!

cheers

Hydrogen Guy aka SOLARMAN
Debate Round No. 1
Breenius

Con

Breenius forfeited this round.
Solarman1969

Pro

Solarman1969 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Breenius

Con

Breenius forfeited this round.
Solarman1969

Pro

Obviously you have lost interest in this subject and I see your account is closed

maybe someone on this thread with brains who cares about our energy future can debate me on this

Cheers

hydrogen dude - solarman
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by AK-47debater 9 years ago
AK-47debater
thank goodness your talking about something else besides islam being the destruction of the world and Ron Paul
Posted by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
"(2) hydrogen can completely replace all fossil fuels, since we will not run out of water or the sun)

(3) hydrogen is a closed cycle, and makes no carbon anything"

Am I reading this right, or do you want to use solar energy for converting water into hydrogen? You do realize that producing hydrogen from water has an energy efficiency of less than 100%(obviously) so you would need more energy to produce the hydrogen than there is in the gasoline and diesel fuels currently being used. I hope you realize that with current solar technology, that amount of energy is not possible to achieve.

"(4) there is no other feasible alternative that can replace gasoline "

Biofuel will replace gasoline, although, since it has a much higher energy content, biodiesel really makes much more sense than ethanol for fully replacing oil. Where do we get all this biofuel? Well you're right that corn ethanol makes no sense and has absolutely no potential, but I'll suggest that you read into algae as a feedstock for biofuel, specifically biodiesel. My research has shown that it would require less than 5% of the agricultural land currently farmed in the US to produce enough biodiesel from algae to replace petroleum(assuming everyone bought a diesel car), but it wouldn't actually compete with current agriculture because the photobioreactors that grow the algae do not need to be built on arable land. In fact, they would do best in the desert where sunlight is plentiful and land is cheap.

The way I see it is that we have two choices for producing energy when the oil runs out. One is figuring out a way to efficiently utilize solar energy, and biofuel from algae appears to be the best way to do that. The other is to turn our dependence to coal, which will ultimately be the source for hydrogen production. Biofuel from algae is a sustainable source of energy, but if we pick coal, we'll be right back where we are in another century.
Posted by fenderjazzerguy 9 years ago
fenderjazzerguy
I agree with you 100% solarman.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
BreeniusSolarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Greendonut 9 years ago
Greendonut
BreeniusSolarman1969Tied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
BreeniusSolarman1969Tied
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 chrispy4 9 years ago
chrispy4
BreeniusSolarman1969Tied
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 Descartes 9 years ago
Descartes
BreeniusSolarman1969Tied
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 buckaroo54 9 years ago
buckaroo54
BreeniusSolarman1969Tied
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 kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
BreeniusSolarman1969Tied
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 Chob 9 years ago
Chob
BreeniusSolarman1969Tied
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 WaximusMaximus 9 years ago
WaximusMaximus
BreeniusSolarman1969Tied
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 ccdem 9 years ago
ccdem
BreeniusSolarman1969Tied
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