The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

the proper versus current approach to "alternative fuels"

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: 2/15/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,079 times Debate No: 2676
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (16)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

Hydrogen is the only answer as a long term fuel replacement to gasoline and JP4.

Electric motors powered by a combination of stored energy, in batteries, and a fuel (hydrogen) can and will be able to replace in TOTAL the current and future consumption of Oil-based fuels like gasoline

Ethanol and ALL plant based fuels will NOT work over the long term

this is readily appparent

the sooner that we start down the correct path, the sooner we have what we ALL 100% want

- an energy economy completely run on carbon-less currency

electrons and water, hydrogen and oxygen

anyone want to argue with this ? feel free

this is THE preeminent debate we need to have nationally
Tatarize

Con

Hydrogen, as we currently use and create is not a fuel at all, it's a glorified battery. Hydrogen is exactly as green as the power grid, and less efficient. The way we produce hydrogen is by electrolysis of water. We tear water apart and get the H2 out of the H2O. Which is then used to power cars or other vehicles, either by direct burning or by a fuel cell.

In either case, you're still talking about making hydrogen via electrolysis of water. That takes energy to do and it's that energy which is ultimately used to power cars.

If we had hydrogen floating around for free we'd use it to power turbines and make electricity out of it. We don't. We have to make hydrogen and do a poor job at it.

When you say "and a fuel (hydrogen)" -- you're being extremely disingenuous and moreover just plain wrong. Hydrogen isn't a fuel the way we do hydrogen.

Furthermore, hydrogen is messy. It is the tiniest molecule (it's diatomic ergo molecule) there is, and thus leaks out of pretty much everything like a sieve.

We have no infrastructure for the creation of hydrogen.
We have no infrastructure for the transportation of hydrogen.
We have no infrastructure for the distribution of hydrogen.
We have no infrastructure for the use of hydrogen.
We have no infrastructure for dealing with accidents resulting in hydrogen leaks.
We have no infrastructures for dealing with accidents involving hydrogen cars.
We don't even have the flipping cars!

We have nothing towards this solution, which isn't even a solution at all!

Hydrogen isn't carbon free, hydrogen is simply using power from the power grid to split water and use the hydrogen as a fuel. However, you put more energy into that equation than you're ever going to get out again (2nd law of thermodynamics). Currently, most of that energy comes from coal!

---

Now you might ask, if not this then what? What will the future look like? Later this year, with all of the needed infrastructure intact, we are going to get the first line of manufacturer-created (there were earlier mods) plug-in hybrids. Using a gas-electric system with a large battery bank it allows people to plug their cars in at home or work to power them with enough range to travel around 50 miles before switching to the gas system. That's well more than the vast majority of people's driving. Many people could easily go months without needing another tank of gas. Electricity from the grid (directly) costs about a dollar a gallon (in comparative terms).

We have the gasoline infrastructure. We have the electric infrastructure. We have the cars. There are standard hybrids on the road and getting in accidents today and we are developing mechanisms for dealing with them accordingly. There has been massive and continual advances in battery technology so as the technology gradually improves (we don't have to replace all the cars overnight). We're going to cut down the charge time as well as increase the travel range in incremental steps. As gas prices go higher, the lure of Plug-In Hybrids will become stronger. The need to innovate the technology will become stronger. Further, we don't need some massive revamping of the entire infrastructure to switch over to a entirely new fuel.

Further, though corn-based ethanol is a disaster, sugarcane-ethanol is not and improving the gas engines to accept flex-fuel mixes allows those countries with successful ethanol programs to use the same cars. If, by some miracle, our ethanol programs become less of a joke we could still use them in the newer cars. Further you could add solar panels to the car (really a pittance in addition). Due to the smaller size of the engine allow multiple fuels. Further if the technology advances far enough the gas component could drop away completely.

---

Your solution is not a solution at all. You're inefficiently distributing energy from the power grid, in leaky form without any underlying infrastructure. I am proposing a solution already progressing in that direction. With a large influx of plug-in hybrids we will reduce our dependence on oil. Then we are down to the task of replacing our grid based brown energy with green (a task we are already slated with).
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

Oh gee once again to debate with a science genius who knows it all

Oh well!

First of all, if not hydrogen - YOU name a fuel that can replace gasoline in its entirety forever ___________________________

Now to debunk your silly arguments

(1) Hydrogen, as we currently use and create is not a fuel at all, it's a glorified battery

Wrong. Hydrogen is a fuel, and powers the space shuttle for example. it has NOTHING to do with batteries, which are solid electrochemical storage devices.

(2) Hydrogen is exactly as green as the power grid, and less efficient.

This is a nonsceintific argument- "green" is irrelevant, although hydrogen is by far the most "green" according to wacko leftists who think we are all doomed due to CO2

(3) The way we produce hydrogen is by electrolysis of water. We tear water apart and get the H2 out of the H2O.

WRONG again. Primarily right now hydrogen is produced through reformation of methane (natural gas)

Eventually, electrolysis will be the primary methodology of creating H2 from water, through medium temperature catalysed steam electrolysis

Now you just spew some nonsense , which I will not address.

Until this statement

(4) hydrogen is messy. It is the tiniest molecule (it's diatomic ergo molecule) there is, and thus leaks out of pretty much everything like a sieve.

Hydrogen is the CLEANEST of all possible fuels. If I have an airplane FILLED with liquid hydrogen, and I rupture the tank, 100% of the hydrogen will evaporate into space at 7 miles per second. Not a drop will be left on the ground.

When hydrogen burns, it makes only water.

The fact that it can embrittle certain metals is well known and preventable.

the fact that it will escape through holes is a non factor.

Now to your stupid diabtribe

(5) We have no infrastructure for the creation of hydrogen.

yes we do- the natural gas infrastruture. We can mix hyodrogen with natural gas to make hythane as an intermediate

We have no infrastructure for the transportation of hydrogen.

Yes we do - tankers and the natural gas infrastructure

We have no infrastructure for the distribution of hydrogen.

Ditto

We have no infrastructure for the use of hydrogen.

Oh gee, so we cant build it? Germany has an entire infrastructure built already and Mercedes Benz DE is putting out lines of hydrogen powered cars starting in 07

We have no infrastructure for dealing with accidents resulting in hydrogen leaks.

Wrong. and hydrogen is MUCH SAFER than gasoline and JP4. you DONT NEED and infrastructure like a hazmat team

We have no infrastructures for dealing with accidents involving hydrogen cars.

Again, more nonsense

We don't even have the flipping cars!

Now you resort to hysteria.

you typify the typical NON-scientific liberal reaction to hydrogen, Congrats.

(6) Hydrogen isn't carbon free, hydrogen is simply using power from the power grid to split water and use the hydrogen as a fuel

WRONG. What if I take PV, Wind power, hydroelectric, or geothermal. Nice try

or even NUCLEAR power

(liberals start foaming at the mouth and running for the hills at even the mention)

(7) However, you put more energy into that equation than you're ever going to get out again (2nd law of thermodynamics)

Ok genius, well how about Ethanol ? it takes about 2 gallons of diesel to get one gallon of ethanol to the pump- boy thats efficient

You can electrolyze water at about 70% efficiency easily.

And please, you dont even know what the 1st -3rd laws even say, never mind enthalpy and entropy, so dont try to appear like you do

Now YOUR solution - electric cars

Now you might ask, if not this then what? What will the future look like? Later this year, with all of the needed infrastructure intact, we are going to get the first line of manufacturer-created (there were earlier mods) plug-in hybrids. Using a gas-electric system with a large battery bank it allows people to plug their cars in at home or work to power them with enough range to travel around 50 miles before switching to the gas system. That's well more than the vast majority of people's driving. Many people could easily go months without needing another tank of gas. Electricity from the grid (directly) costs about a dollar a gallon (in comparative terms)

Batteries alone will NOT work. They take 8 hours to recharge, they are heavy, the range is short and without a generator on board the batteries get run down quickly. General motors put out the EV1 more than 10 years ago and it failed.

And you "dollar a gallon" argument does not hold water.

A small car 9ie a prius) uses about 100 kW . that is 100 kWh per hr.

a kWh costs about 15 cents here in CA.

that is about $ 15 per hour or about 60 miles. that is $ 0.25 per mile

Gasoline costs 3$ per gallon. One gallon gets you about 40 miles with a car like a prius.

that is $ 3.00 / 40 miles = 7.5 cents per mile

and YOU said that

" Currently, most of that energy comes from coal!"

you cant have it both ways

the bottom line is that technology IS advancing and batteries continue to improve, but are not going to have quick recharge ever.

Ethanol from any source , as well as biofuels or ANYTHING that starts with photosynthesis (1% efficient) , which aslo displaces FOOD from people, is the WRONG PATH.

Also you did NOT address AIRPLANES and TRUCKS and SHIPS, did you?

NONE of these will run on batteries, and will need a fuel

HYDROGEN , with the highest energy density, can power all of them

HYDROGEN is LIMITLESS

HYDROGEN is ULTIMATELY CLEAN

HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER

Someday that will get it
Tatarize

Con

Don't you have a rule that when people insult you they instantly lose? I expect your resignation next round. (not really)

A fuel that can replace gasoline in its entirety forever- electric energy.

Preferably electric energy derived from solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wave, tidal energy sources. However, even if derived from just coal it actually ends up putting less pollution into the atmosphere (still).

* You misapprehend the battery comment. We make hydrogen by splitting water. By the second law of thermodynamics the energy in the hydrogen is necessarily less than the energy we used to split the water. That doesn't make it a fuel. That makes it an energy storage substance. Other than from other energy sources (electric, natural gas) where do we get hydrogen?

* Green energy, renewable energies and carbon neutral energies are all needed to not only reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, foreign energy sources, but also needed to prevent and slow the progress of global warming and climate change.

* "Primarily right now hydrogen is produced through reformation of methane" -- You cannot scale that. It can be done, but cannot be scaled to any degree. Methane is a fossil fuel, one which we have about 50 years worth remaining and certainly cannot be a permanent replacement. That process produces twice as much CO2 as hydrogen (by the chemistry).

* Regardless of the manner of electrolysis the end result is the same, less energy than it took to make is in the resulting product. That's just basic physics. For the sake of argument, I'll let you say you have perfectly efficient electrolysis, which is to say you have exactly as much energy in the hydrogen as you used on the water. -- That's a glorified battery!

* Unlike a real battery however, you have no ability to store more energy. Battery technology has high potentials to store far more energy than we currently have in a tank of gas. Supercapacitors, better materials, faster charges, new technology... the possibility of innovation here is quite large.

Batteries can be improved.

The recharge time has been improved on a Toshiba batter. 90% in five minutes.
http://www.dailytech.com...

Cheap Li-ion batteries:
http://www.popularmechanics.com...

Nanotech advancement 10x battery life:
http://www.news.com...

And potentials to advance completely away from batteries to capacitors.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org...

We are dealing with storing energy in either chemical form or in the electric field of a capacitor. That's pretty limitless and allows for massive amounts of innovation.

* Being messy and tiny and leaky is far is not discredited by your comment of it being the "cleanest". Frankly, it's not. To get the hydrogen you're using actual energy. Just because it's a fairly green battery doesn't mean it's green energy. If you filled a building filled with hydrogen rupture it it might well just leave a giant hole in the ground if anything sparks.

* We used the water to make hydrogen. The fact that hydrogen burns into water again is just confirming what I said in my intro... glorified battery.

* I ignored the embrittle problem and certain other problems as they are simply small technological hurdles. I think however, the fact that it leaks all the time (think a 2-day old helium balloon) is problematic.

* You cannot hijack the natural gas infrastructure. First, it will leak! Secondly, we use that for natural gas! My stove isn't set to run on a hydrogen and natural gas mix. My water heater, dryer, my heater they aren't either. Am I to forgo my use of natural gas in order to have leaky hydrogen to power a car which cannot pressurize the gas itself? We only have so much natural gas, and that's only while we're using it at the rates we're using it. Power cars with the stuff would drop our amount of natural gas and drive up the price. And we'd end up with electrolysis (which scales).

* If you wanted to convert cars over to run on natural gas, that is something to be independently discussed. As is, you're arguing that one gas is pretty much another. And though we currently use natural gas in things made for natural gas.

* Building the infrastructure is an acceptable ideas. Though, here we are faced with a catch-22. Do we build the infrastructure first or the cars first? How much infrastructure do we produce before the cars and who foots the bill if it doesn't work? Though, I assume that will be overcome.

* Not a hazmat team to deal with a crash, but rather a well trained group of firefighters who know where they should not use the jaws of life to cut you out of that? How to detect a hydrogen leak, and what the risks are involved when different parts rupture or the car catches on fire.

* I've seen them at car-shows but other than that I've seen them nowhere.

* I do not typify the "non-scientific liberal reaction to hydrogen" -- the fact of the matter is that hydrogen has a large amount of following within the liberal community. My objection however is simply a scientific understanding that hydrogen is just a glorified battery and not a very good one at that.

* Converting the power grid to carbon neutral profile is certainly a requirement to moving forward with energy today. Global warming is not our friend. We need to switch to carbon neutral sources of power (hydrogen is not a source) sooner rather than later.

* I am strongly pro-nuclear. I am pro-science and the science behind nuclear is sound.

* I never advocated ethanol, at least not corn ethanol. Sugar ethanol works well as it's a biproduct and works out quite effectively and doesn't replace food.

* I said 2nd law because that's what prevented it. 0,1,3 weren't mentioned as they weren't needed.

--

My solution (which isn't needed for the topic) is plug in hybrid cars, which transition to electric as the technology does.

* The EV1 wasn't a failure, GM just recalled all the cars and forcibly scrapped the project (they didn't want politicians forcing them to make electric cars), see "Who Killed the Electric Car". Further, there are cars being put out all the time.
Tesla Roadster - http://www.topspeed.com...

There is massive potential for increases in technology here, whereas you're scrambling with "just build the infrastructure" or "we'll use this fossil fuel instead. Plug-in hybrids and electric cars are on the road today.

* For quick charge comment see Toshiba. Further, supercapacitors would have the ability to charge in a few seconds (you don't want to do that/might as well be lightning).

* Hydrogen has less energy density than gasoline. Pure liquid hydrogen has less hydrogen than gasoline (the molecules pack the energy better than simple pressurization).

* There's no room for advancement when you're dealing with chemicals. But, take a look at cell-phones. The charge time, the battery technology, the rather continual and gradual improvement. That's what we need in a car technology.

Hydrogen has nothing behind it, and it can't scale.

---

Your calculations about the "price per gallon" were flawed. The wikipedia page on the Toyota Prius (which I assume you used) didn't say the energy use was 100kwh. Rather it was saying the current limit to drive range was 7 miles in all electric mode up-bounded by the speed of 100 kilometers per hour. The range limit is low because batteries aren't designed for electric only mode and this is not a plug-in or electric model. The batteries only store about 1.3 kwh of power. Which by the way, works out to 0.185 kilowatt / mile or 2.8 cents a mile. That's 37% less than gasoline at $3.00 or $1.11 dollars a gallon.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

Once again, it is silly to argue with a fool with no scientific background at all, it is like arguing with a college freshman (or high schooler)

lets first go over all your ERRORS first, and then I will adress your correct arguments

ERROR 1

"A fuel that can replace gasoline in its entirety forever- electric energy."

CORRECTION

how about aircraft? trucks and buses ? ships? spacecraft?

electric alone wont even work for Priuses (more on than later)

ERROR 2

By the second law of thermodynamics the energy in the hydrogen is necessarily less than the energy we used to split the water. That doesn't make it a fuel

CORRECTION

WRONG . hydrogen is a fuel. period.

it is mostly made from methane right now, which is NOT renewable.

It can also be made from bacteria. and of course water (H2O)

ERROR 3

Green energy, renewable energies and carbon neutral energies are all needed to not only reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, foreign energy sources, but also needed to prevent and slow the progress of global warming and climate change.

CORRECTION

Climate change is a total BS tax scheme. But I am not here to argue that

the main reason we need renewables is NATIONAL SECURITY and ECONOMICS. period

ERROR 4

* "Primarily right now hydrogen is produced through reformation of methane" -- You cannot scale that. It can be done, but cannot be scaled to any degree. Methane is a fossil fuel, one which we have about 50 years worth remaining and certainly cannot be a permanent replacement. That process produces twice as much CO2 as hydrogen (by the chemistry).

CORRECTION

Methane steam reforamtion stoichiometry 101 (a couple catalzed steps actually)

CH4 + 2 H20 -- > 4 H2 + CO2 (4 : 1 ratio of H2 to CO2 (plant food) )

Nice try, Chemistry genius

(note that this is typical of liberals- they LIE and use words like "by the Chemistry" when they have NO CLUE what an atom or molecule is at all)

ERROR 5

* Regardless of the manner of electrolysis the end result is the same, less energy than it took to make is in the resulting product. That's just basic physics. For the sake of argument, I'll let you say you have perfectly efficient electrolysis, which is to say you have exactly as much energy in the hydrogen as you used on the water. -- That's a glorified battery!

CORRECTION

(so now I see we have switched to Physics to act like were a smart liberal)

No, hydrogen is a FUEL. It is a GAS. It is an ELEMENT.

a BATTERY is a SOLID ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL, with an ELECTROLYTE.

Your nonsensical arguments about the source of hydrogen are irrelevant

ERROR 6

* Unlike a real battery however, you have no ability to store more energy. Battery technology has high potentials to store far more energy than we currently have in a tank of gas. Supercapacitors, better materials, faster charges, new technology... the possibility of innovation here is quite large.

Batteries can be improved.

CORRECTION

What this is is simply liberspeak hopefulness- which is fine.

There IS of course HOPE for improvement in batteries- but you know NOT of the current state of the technology or the physical and chemical limiations

The main issues with batteries are

(1) Weight
(2) Cost
(3) Longevity
(4) Recharge Time
(5) Materials limitations
(6) Environmental factors (temperature coeffient of voltage)

ALL of the examples YOU note do not fulfill criteria 1,2,and 6 for TRANSPORT

You have NO CONCEPT OF HOW MUCH POWER A CAR NEEDS

Now I am going to skip to your last statement for ERROR 7

ERROR 7

Your calculations about the "price per gallon" were flawed. The wikipedia page on the Toyota Prius (which I assume you used) didn't say the energy use was 100kwh. Rather it was saying the current limit to drive range was 7 miles in all electric mode up-bounded by the speed of 100 kilometers per hour. The range limit is low because batteries aren't designed for electric only mode and this is not a plug-in or electric model. The batteries only store about 1.3 kwh of power. Which by the way, works out to 0.185 kilowatt / mile or 2.8 cents a mile. That's 37% less than gasoline at $3.00 or $1.11 dollars a gallon.

CORRECTION

This completely nonsensical statement belies your complete and utter ignorance

here are some FACTS

(1) For the little crap Prius , it is about 57 kW in power

http://www.toyota.com...

(2) for a real SUV (toyota highlander) , it is about 270 HP in power

http://www.carseek.com...

For you, genius, 270 Hp at 1 HP = 0.766 kW = 206 kW

So to be an ALL electric car, in one hour, you will need

57 kWh for the prius or 206 kWh for the Highlander

Thus the hybrid is mostly using GASOLINE for now, NOT electricity

ALL of your arguments for new batteries are NOT for cars, they are for computers and small EXPENSIVE things

the HYBRID is the answer

the fuel for the motor needs to transition to HYDROGEN, which is the ONLY fuel that can power everything and be scalable to any size.

HYDROGEN can power AIRPLANES, the SPACE SHUTTLE and ANY TRANSPORT VEHICLE

this is a FACT

HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER

Sooner of later, after enough peasants starve to death, maybe congress will get it and give up the Ethanol and Biofuel DISASTER

At least you support NUCLEAR ENERGY - you are not totally hopeless

SOLARMAN
Tatarize

Con

Let's remember that this debate isn't about me or where I see the future of fuel going. And though, due to innovation, existing infrastructure and the possibility of gradual implementation I believe it will continue to go in the way it has already shown a willingness to go (with plug-in hybrids already on the road and production models hitting the road soon in far greater numbers / get on the waiting lists now... it'll be a while with demand what it is).

I was simply pointing out where I see the economy going. We have a massive investment in gasoline and it's going to take years to get away from it. Plug-in hybrids allow for a transition away from gasoline to another readily available infrastructure with energy, the power grid. The higher the price goes the greater the demand. The greater the demand the more people use electricity and buy cars with better mileage and more of a push for electric to be used. The technology used is improving and allows for massive amounts of additional innovation. We're already heading in that direction, and the higher gasoline prices and entrenched oil structure make my points more obvious.

People aren't going to replace their cars or shift away from gasoline soon. This is a major reason I think plug-in hybrids are an obvious choice. We need to reduce demand and allow people to shift over to a more electric when the gas prices are high, to allow the gas prices to stabilize.

However, this debate isn't about that, this debate is about whether "Hydrogen is the only answer as a long term fuel replacement to gasoline" or "a fuel (hydrogen) can and will be able to replace in TOTAL the current and future consumption of Oil-based fuels like gasoline" -- Do you recall any argument to this effect?

He did suggest, "Ethanol and ALL plant based fuels will NOT work over the long term"

He did not, however, make an argument at any point as to why hydrogen works. Hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's produced by breaking water apart or by converting methane (already a fuel / fossil fuel) into hydrogen. That's hardly an amazing feat.

Electricity -> Water -> Hydrogen -> Car -> Car moves.
vs.
Electricity -> Car -> Car moves.
-- or Gasoline -> Car -> Car moves. (we aren't going to lose that paradigm soon)

How did Solarman respond to these objections?

How are the infrastructure problems overcome?
-- Build it. Ship it in containers. Use natural gases' infrastructure. Something something...

How is the leaky nature of hydrogen overcome?
-- "Non-issue."

How is the lack of cars overcome?
-- YOU NON-SCIENTIFIC LIBERAL WITH YOUR TREE-HUGGING HYSTERIA!

Why is hydrogen better than the current approach? Why will hydrogen work? Why is it the only solution? Why?

I'd go to the trouble of refuting my opponent's argument, if he had an argument! All the technical problems with hydrogen which has constantly and consistently kept the technology on the backburner and given people pause is somehow ignored and everything else, even proven technology on the roads in ever increasing numbers, is wrong because... why?

Other than matter-of-factly declaring things, solarman has done nothing to establish his argument (whatever it may be). He hasn't met his burden of proof or apparently even tried to argue his side. Problems aren't problems for him and solutions aren't solutions.

Hydrogen isn't a bad technology, it simply has a lot of hurdles to get over before it become viable solution to our energy problems. The same can be said for a number of the technologies vying to solve this problem. Why is hydrogen different? This is what solarman would needs to have addressed in this argument and he perhaps should have given that a shot rather than being rudely typical.

------------------------------

-- "how about aircraft? trucks and buses ? ships? spacecraft?"

Not every solution fits to every problem, there's plenty of room for trucks and buses and ships to store plenty of batteries. I am not aware of any major projects doing so currently. Though I've heard less about hydrogen on the point.

Electric alone works fine depending on the range. Comparing hybrids with plug-in hybrids is a little bit off. Hybrids charge up their batteries in order to run the stop and go traffic of day to day life (which they are highly efficient at) without running a poorly suited electric engine for the task. A plug-in hybrid has more batteries and is better suited to accept electricity as energy rather than a buffer.

-- "By the second law of thermodynamics the energy in the hydrogen is necessarily less than the energy we used to split the water. That doesn't make it a fuel"
---- "WRONG . hydrogen is a fuel. period."

What an interesting way of violating physics: declaring it so!

-- "It can also be made from bacteria. and of course water (H2O)"

You managed to escape physics there too? Why don't you just burn the hydrogen resulting in water, generating power, then simply make more hydrogen out of water and start the process over again. You'd have a perpetual motion machine! If you're just going to ignore the laws of thermodynamics, go all out!

-- "CH4 + 2 H20 -- > 4 H2 + CO2 (4 : 1 ratio of H2 to CO2 (plant food) )"

4 H2 = 8
Atomic weight = 8.

C = 12.01
O2 = 32
Atomic weight = 44.01.

Though, I'm glad to see you're going by the atom. *smirk*

So if you put 1 gram of diamonds on a 10 grams of gold ring it's more diamond than gold?

"In central station hydrogen production from natural gas reforming, the mass of CO2 emitted is 2.51 times greater than the mass of hydrogen produced."
http://www.getenergysmart.org...

-- "No, hydrogen is a FUEL. It is a GAS. It is an ELEMENT."

You can't get energy from nothing. It's going to take power from the power grid or from a non-renewable source.

-- "Batteries can be improved."
---- "What this is is simply liberspeak hopefulness- which is fine."

No I gave you a great list of many of the improvements being made in batteries. Anybody with a cellphone can tell you that massive strides have been made over the years and new technology and innovation comes around all the time. We're already going in the right direction. Hydrogen is simply a battery, and isn't a very good one. Battery technology however is making fantastic strides in the right direction. And can continue to be improved ways elements cannot.

-- For the little crap Prius , it is about 57 kW in power

57 kW @ 5000 rpm. That 5000 RPM is pretty important.

Your calculations were still based on misunderstanding the term being discussed and it still works out to a bit over a dollar a gallon (as much as that makes any sense when dealing with electric energy rather than an actual volume of something).
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I just locked on to the fact that youre an ADULT with some SEMBLANCE of intellect

cheers

SOLARMAN
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Those figures about the Tesla Roadster were from their website.
Entirely possible that they have somewhat "economical" with the truth.
However, the Roadster uses AA batteries (thousands of them), and one would expect a custom battery soon with better performance. Their site says they've significantly extended the expected lives of the batteries by slightly reducing the voltage they are charged to.

Given that one is typically at home sleeping for 8 hours a day. Spending half that time charging one's car shouldn't present a problem.

The cost ($98K US) is about half that of an Aston Martin or Ferrari with similar acceleration and performance - it's a sports car.

In a sports car, or any private car for that matter, volume is certainly germane.

Hybrids certainly appear to have a future, especially diesel hybrids.

As for hydrogen being a means of providing power, I just can't see it.
But I guess we could debate it.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
First of all, I worked for the company that sells the Tesla, and your facts are wrong

the batteries will NOT last if they are constantly used

batteries do NOT last long when cycled continuously

Most have a lifetime of only 2000 cycles, and they decrease in efficiency from day 1

You will have to show me different with EMPIRICAL data to prove otherwise

second, the charge time is a KILLER

"A full charge using the Home Charging Station (included) takes 3.5 hours"

A gas tank takes 2 minutes to fill

A hydrogen tank- same thing

Third , cost Cost = $98,000 USD - another killer

Fourth, the volume argument is not really germane- weight is the only important aspect- that is why it is the ONLY fuel that will get us into space

Now dont get me wrong- hybrids ARE the way

cars will go

gas-electric hybird
gas electric plug in hybrid
nat gas - electric hybrid
hythane - electric hybrid
hydrogen combusiton - electric hybrid
and or hydrogen fuel cell electric

electric motors are superior to combustion

batteries ALONE will not power a vehicle effectively to replace all uses of gasoline (esp aircraft)

hydrogen will fill in all the gaps and give good storage

cheers back to ya!
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
The Tesla Roadster is the first car from the company.
- i.e. version 1.0

It uses Li-ion batteries.
Zero to 100 km/h in less than 4 seconds; top speed of 200 km/h.
A full charge using the Home Charging Station (included) takes 3.5 hours
Range is just over 350km
Only needs to be serviced once a year - so little to go wrong!
Cost = $98,000 USD

This propulsion could be used on a truck.
Planes however wouldn't do very well, and jet-fighters can't really use anything else.
I believe a 747 was once converted to run on hydrogen, however the tanks occupied nearly all available space in the fuselage - where one would like to store luggage.

The batteries last for 5 years/160,000km.
Don't know what they cost to replace. Typically things become cheaper with mass production (just ask the Chinese ;-)
The batteries are of course recyclable.

This Kiwi* knows that Density = mass/volume
Energy density = energy/volume (according to me and the Wikipedia page provided)
Hydrogen compressed; ~5MJ/l
whereas petrol is over 30MJ/l - so the H2 occupies around 6 times the space of petrol.

Requiring a regularly-shaped fuel tank occupying 6 times the space of liquid fuel can be quite a drawback; and not just in 747s.

Certainly electric cars aren't perfect, but they are a step in the right direction.
Hydrogen also has it's drawbacks and shortcomings.
Don't you think?

Cheers

*Kiwi = A flightless bird or person born in New Zealand.
Not to be confused with the fruit; "kiwifruit" ;-)
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Oh so I see we have another energy expert.

What is your bachelors degree in?

I did TWO thesis on hydrogen in Mechanical and chemical engineering on this subject

batteries are OK, but not very good at all actualy

I have several questions for you

(1) name a battery bank that fits the cost criteria

- batteries are heavy and Li-ion are expensive

(2) name a battery bank that meets the time criteria

- batteries take 6-8 hours to recharge

(3) name a battery bank that meets performace criteria in terms of range (350-400 miles)

(4) name a battery bank that will run

- a truck
- an airplane
- a jet

(5) name the lifetime of a battery bank OF ANY KIND, in terms of LIFE CYCLES for deep cycling , that will be necessary in motor cars

(6) name the COST of replacement, and the recycling and toxic aspects of batteries

And to completely smash this incorrect comment

Hydrogen has at best 1/4 the energy density of petrol (gasoline)

WRONG. You show your IGNORANCE. Shame on you KIWI!

Hydrogen has the highest energy density of any fuel per mass

Hydrogen has one of the highest energy density values per mass. Its energy density is between 120 and 142 MJ/kg. This means that for every 1 kg of mass of hydrogen, it has an energy value of 120-142 MJ. It is highly flammable, needing only a small amount of energy to ignite and burn. Hydrogen burns cleanly. When it is burned with oxygen, the only by products are heat and water.

Gasolines energy density is 46.9 MJ/ kG

Ethanol is 30

LPG is 34

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In a few applications (comparing, for example, the effectiveness of hydrogen fuel to gasoline) both figures are appropriate and should be called out explicitly. (Hydrogen has a higher energy density per unit mass than does gasoline, but a much lower energy density per unit volume in most applications.)

The point is simple- hydrogen is the best fuel , period
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
How can anyone think Con lost this???
Hydrogen has at best 1/4 the energy density of petrol (gasoline), requires a heavy tank, and needs energy to pressurise the fuel.
Batteries are getting better all the time, and can be any shape.
There are already viable electric cars on the market (fantastic acceleration!) and they're only going to get better.

Burning hydrogen in a car involves an 85% loss in energy (if equivalent to petrol)
Running a car on Li-ion batteries = 15% loss in energy. Electric motors are very efficient.

e.g. http://www.teslamotors.com...

Another nice thing about electric cars... even if you burn coal for its electricity, you still produce less CO2 in an electric car. ;-)

Cheers
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Oh gee , another brilliant child

Oh gee ! hydrogen is scary !

Uhmmmm- dummy

Hydrogen is by far the SAFEST FUEL KNOWN TO MAN

MANY ON THE HINDENBURG WALKED AWAY WITHOUT A SCRATCH (those that didnt jump)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Despite the violent fire, most of the crew and passengers survived. Of the 36 passengers and 61 crew, 13 passengers and 22 crew died. Also killed was one member of the ground crew, Navy Linesman Allen Hagaman. The two dogs on board the airship also died. Most deaths were not caused directly by the fire but were from jumping from the burning airship. Those passengers who rode the airship on its descent to the ground survived. Some deaths of crew members occurred because they wanted to save people on board the airship. In comparison, almost twice as many perished when the helium-filled USS Akron crashed.[12]

this is so typical for the sheeple public who believe total BS because of IGNORANCE of Chemistry, History ,and FACTS.

Nonetheless the professor will continue to shine light in the dark

SOLARMAN
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
Question for the self-proclaimed science weeny here :D (yes you Solarman1969)

I thought hydrogen was HIGHLY flammable, how do you fix that?
(iirc, the Hindenburg was filled with it and that one burned like a tourch)
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Bottom line is the nonscience weenies who try and take any point contrary to the obvious answer will slowly but surely be worn down by the truth

SOLAR_ HYDROGEN is the answer.

period.

If you dont think so, please come up with your alernative
Posted by aceofelves 9 years ago
aceofelves
Wow, Tartarize actually lost a debate. The Pro did a better job honestly. Hydrogen will eventually be the answer. There is no known alternative at this point in time, and it's doubtful that there will arise one. What better than the most aboundant thing on earth? Water is an excellent source of energy, whether it is from turbines or hydrogen.

Wind and Nuclear energy are also useful but more unreliable and unstable.

Pro Wins this one.

Solarman, you did an excellent job. It was very refreshing to see someone so efficiently disable Tartarize for once.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 Erick 6 years ago
Erick
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 sagarous 8 years ago
sagarous
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 Aewl1963 9 years ago
Aewl1963
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 Persuasion 9 years ago
Persuasion
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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