The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
james94
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points

What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen.

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: 12/6/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,231 times Debate No: 157
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (18)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

EtOH is a disaster - both using more energy than is produced, and also depleting food sources (ie corn ) for humans, which is more important

Biofuels are OK but have major problems and will never make up even a FRACTION of our energy usage in the transportation sector (cars, planes , boats, trains, trucks etc)

Bottom line :any source of energy based on current photosynthesis, which is 1% efficient, is meaningingless in the long term or from an efficiency standpoint

Hydgrogen can be made from any source of electricity and water.

the world is 2/3 water

the sun provides about 15000 times the energy we need on a daily basis just in the US lower 48 territory alone to produce the hydrogen to run our entire transportation sector at only 5 % efficiency.

photovoltaics, nuclear, wind power, hydrolectric, coal, gas, and and other sources of electricity can all be used to produce hydrogen

hydrogen will only make water when burned stoichiometrically (correct 1:2 ratio), and some NOx if not, no CO2 for all you scared global warming schmucks

Cars should go from gas- electric hybrid, to nat gas / electric to hythane hybrid, to hydrogen / electric hybrid

Planes run fine on liquid H2

I would love to hear some schmuck who wants to try and push Ethanol or biofuels, or someone who thinks we can drill our way away from the muslim nutckaes and loser dictators (saudi, Iran, Venezuela, etc) who WE ARE COMPLETELY DEPEPENDENT ON

cheers

hydrogen guy
james94

Con

In response to your challenge, I find that maybe using alcohol might be better due to the fact that we need a cleaner way to fuel our cars. As you are probably aware we already have hybrid cars which run on battery or gas in the vehicle. Hydrogen although part water is an ok idea in theory this burns faster than gas would and emit more hydrocarbons into the air we breathe.
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

Hi James

I dont know how much background you have in the subject, but your points are quite wrong.

#1 Alcohol, or EtOH as I call it , is ethanol, the widely touted "new" alternative fuel

It takes 3 times as much energy in fossil fuels to make and transport a gallon on EtOH to the pump as gasoline

it is an inferior fuel, having less BTU/ gal

it also emits aldehhydes, like formaledyhde

finally, it is dependent on photosynthesis to start, which is 1% effieient

Bottom line : EtOH is a total loser and is only being pushed by misguided politicians with no clue by the farming lobby

hers is just one of many technical links to educate you , or just type in "ethanol is a disaster" is a google search

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

#2 yes we have gasoline electric hybrids, which are more efficient and intriduce regenerative brakes and and electric drive train

Hybrids will eventually be hydrogen-combustion - electric hybrids

#3 This is where you obviously have no background in science

" Hydrogen although part water is an ok idea in theory this burns faster than gas would and emit more hydrocarbons into the air we breathe."

How can H2, which burns with O2 to make H2O, emit hydrocarbons (HxCy)

this is nonsense.

Hydrgoen is split from water, through electrolysis, and remade into H20

there is no pollution whatsoever, unless you think water is a pollutant

#4 The ONLY way to fuel the ENTIRE transportation sector is with hydrogen and electricity, produced from renewable resources.

this is a plain and simple fact that is irrefutable

why havent we done it yet ? becuase gas has been 2$ a gallon until recently

hydrogen costs about 5$ / gallon equivalent (in Germany currently- where gasoline is 7-8$)

that is the only impediment

IT does need to be a TOP-DOWN, i.e federally mandated transition
james94

Con

In response to that although I don't have a background in science, I still think that a hybrid car would be more efficient.Next Please.

Water does not burn it is the additives in the hydrogen that burn which would cost much more than the regulation of the gas that is already being produced.

Gas additives do not work due to the fact that hydrogen is part water and carbon dioxide. it is the carbons that would be emited into the air not water.

Hydrogen would be more expensive to produce than water or gasoline produced today. This would not be cost efficient.

To regulate gas would mean bringing down the prices we are paying at the pumps today. The solution to gas burning cars is to look for cost efficient ways to cut down on fuel costs. Next Please.

Car Dealers have a device that can be put into the carbourator that can give the driver 50 to 100 mpg. The government does not want the general public to know about this, they would rather look for alternative fuels which would cost the public more money for the research and development of this.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

I cant really argue this subject with you James becuase you are too lacking in science and Chemistry, fuel and combustion technology.

the argument I made is that hydrogen is the only possible and best fuel for transportation.

It has nothing to do with hybrids or not

Cars are not running on water- water had nothing to do with hydrogen.

Finally, your silly conspriacy theories about "secret carborueators" that would somehow triple gas mileage is just silly

I appreciate your attempts, but you really have to have a clue about Chemisty and combustion, and such in order to debate this topic

the debate primarily hinges on Ethanol and biofulels, the current attempts at alternative fuels, being disasters and never being able to make a significant impact, thus we are wasting time going down the wrong road.
james94

Con

In response to your previous argument, no you don't know my background . Which has nothing to do with this debate. Although I am not a combustion scientist I am well aware of the gas prices today. This is why I ask you to prove your theory of why we need hydrogen cars as opposed to gas burning ones. I have some knowlege of how a car engine works which gives me some leverage to continue debating this issue.

You obviously have not looked at a car enging lately to study how it works, as opposed to someone who is curious about it like me. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to have a curious mind. Now to learn about the thing called a combustion chamber. This is the little chamber that the gas goes to when it enters the tank this then fires off sparks to help make the car go.

Although I do not know as much as a scientist might I try to analyze how and what would make a car or other vehicle run. Hydrogen is a molecular structure , made up and split from different structures. This would be a more expensive source of fuel to use in our vehicles, looking for other sources of fuel would not be the solution for our problem with oil and gas.

We should regulate gas so that we can put a seal on how much our gas costs,by doing this we can look to renewable resources, we can convert our recycleables into oil which would cut down on fuel costs, because we would not have to rely on overseas oil as much as we do now.Plus we have alot of oil off the coast of the United States that we have never drilled.

Scientists and chemists are not automechanics, so your theory about this is unfounded please back up this arguement, because this sounds like nonsense.

Please read Automechanics 101 to find out what makes the engine of the car go. You will find this book in the local library this will blow your mind.

You in the last 2 rounds of this debate you have not proven why we should use hydrogen instead of gas in our cars.

In response to you personally attacking me and my character I do not appreciate it ,Also I will not dignify those with a demeaning or malicious statement I am only directing the arguements to the debate at hand not at you in any personal way,as you have done to me.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Sugar. Ethanol from sugar works really well. Ethanol from corn doesn't work very well.
Posted by james94 9 years ago
james94
Ethanol has been used in central america and is cheaper and affordable.Check this out America.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Batteries might be too heavy for now, perhaps supercapacitors for planes. However, yeah, that might be an issue.

I am optimistic about batteries and battery-technology, but I don't think overly so.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
very good Tartar

i hope youre right- my main gig and interest is PV

I think youre a bit optimistic on batteries, and then

what about aircraft, my friend?

we should have a debate in this subject since you obviously have some background

cheers and merry Xmas

solarman
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Yes. You need to store the electricity. That process however, is very efficient compared to the hydrolysis and combustion of H2. Again, storage is a pain. As for the EV charge time, just a couple days back Toshiba announced their Super Charge ion battery which charges up 90% in about five minutes. There's a number of further battery upgrades easily coming down the pipeline from supercapacitors to supercharge, to better storage potential.

The argument for hydrogen boils down to an argument from ignorance. You don't know what could do it, so it must be hydrogen. Let me just say, hydrogen doesn't work. It's a massive pain to store and use, and isn't efficient. You have no distribution and nobody is getting around to getting any distribution. Plug-in hybrids are on the market in late 2008 and mods are on the market now. Your argument is that hydrogen will replace gas, because several of the other things aren't going to work. Well my predicted solution is happening regardless what you predict. Hydrogen is simply bad. It has nothing to recommend it.

Hybrids.
Plug-in hybrids.
Plug-in hybrids with better batteries.
Toss a solar panel on that bad boy for kicks.
Add in a modular engine to change fuel source easily.
Just keep improving the batteries.

Also, if you understand the requirements for this kind of car as far as parts are concerned, it's pretty clearly going to be the car of the future.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Tartarize

please feel free to look at the new deabte someone challenged me on the hydrogen topic

you make a key error here

Wind/Solar/Nuclear/Coal -> Electricity -> Car Moves.

You must have energy STORAGE in transportation

Either a battery, or hydrogen, or gasoline

I predict that cars will go

gas-electric hybird

nat gas - electric hybrid

hythane (natgas/ h2 mix) - electric hybrid

then h2 - electric hybrid

EVs alone need too long to charge to be realistic

the key with H2 is it IS FEASIBLE.

Yes storage is a problem but you can do hydrides, compressed gas and liquid

yes H2 does EMBRITTLE standard metals and you need special alloys

H2 however is NON TOXIC and VERY VERY SAFE- it evaporates into space instantly and only makes water when it burns

again, give me what else we can use when oil runs out

Im all ears
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Hydrogen isn't a fuel source. It is produced by those forms of electric power because you can easily do electrolysis on water. Which produces Hydrogen. This process takes power, and that is not power you get back. Even when fuel cells are widely able to be used they are only 90% efficient (which is actually fantastic) however with the power loss in electrolysis and in combustion you're losing a lot. A lot more than battery storage loses.

Wind/Solar/Nuclear/Coal -> Electricity -> Hydrogen -> Electricity -> Car Moves.

Wind/Solar/Nuclear/Coal -> Electricity -> Car Moves.

Hydrogen is a fuel storage technology. And the molecules are tiny as hell, it tends to leak out of the storage. Think of a Helium balloon. After a day or so it's mostly leaked out, the same is true for Hydrogen. You need to store it under pressure, you need to store it in thick containers, you need either pump it to a place or make it on site. - All of which have rather major problems, all of which requires you replace massive amounts of infrastructure, for a difficult fuel. For electricity we have a rather amazing power-grid, that's everything you need and we have it. There are downfalls, like a couple hundred mile range (good enough for 95% of people) before you're back on good old gas. Unless some technology makes a full switch to electricity a feasible thing, there will still be a need for a secondary fuel, but the primary fuel, make no mistake, will be electricity from the power grid.
Posted by br323206 9 years ago
br323206
Tatarize, maybe your right about electricity as the best alternative I don't know. Both hydrogen and electric seem good to me but just to clear something up: You can, in fact, store hydrogen, and relatively easy for that matter. Also, just curious what makes hydrogen inefficient? If you could elaborate I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Where is the button for you both lose?

I think Hydrogen doesn't stand a chance in hell of working for a number of reasons: You can't store it, it's just a battery, there's no real gain, it's inefficient, plug-in hybrids are advancing and should go to electric cars where we can directly use renewable resources.

James' argument is incoherent and pathetic. He seems to argue that car engines can't run on hydrogen or something like that. He doesn't have a basic understanding of the science or why it matters. He thinks a vague idea of how an engine works by exploding stuff and causing motion makes him more qualified than scientists or chemists: They aren't auto-mechanics! Duh, and auto-mechanics don't design cars nor do they make next generation cars.

Solarmans' pathetic argument wins, on the grounds that it went unopposed.
Posted by james94 9 years ago
james94
how do you what i know magpie you don't know my what i know check your facts maybe you might learn somthing.I don't question the votes i hate poor losers.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Solarman1969james94Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
Solarman1969james94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Solarman1969james94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Solarman1969james94Tied
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 Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Solarman1969james94Tied
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 lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
Solarman1969james94Tied
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 tarsjake 9 years ago
tarsjake
Solarman1969james94Tied
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 Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Solarman1969james94Tied
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 A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
Solarman1969james94Tied
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 Thucydides 9 years ago
Thucydides
Solarman1969james94Tied
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