yes, you're right, President Bush wants nothing to do with hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogena...nitiative.html

later

nice one aemon, thwarting the uninformed!

EDIT: i didnt know that either by the way.

1.2 billion only to H fuel cars. We need more if we are going to change a standard.

dont you think you should research it thouroughly first before throwing it into mainstream circulation? anyways, as always.. theres never enough money in any situation.

1.2 billion only? thats alot of money pro. and if he is such a money grubbing, republican, oil tycoon - why is he alotting any money at all to hydrogen research? its gonna take a long time to change standards, no matter how much money you dump into it. how long have we been using gasoline?

later

pwnt pwned owned. how should i spell it?

I'd say pzoned but the whole Pizza Hut thing is over. Anyways, hyrdogen fuel cells are nothing more than a waste of money. No real benefits.... I'm just waiting for tons uninformed responses...

yea ok water vapor vs smog... + global warming.. + all the crap that comes with both... smooth one vee.. nothing uninformed about that what I said..

Before I get started, let me first make sure we all understand that hydrogen power is not an actual source of energy but rather an energy storage device. This is because we get hydrogen from molecules and the extraction requires energy. The two primary sources for hydrogen are natural gas and water. It requires extremely high amounts of energy to extract hydrogen from water (electrolysis). Where do you think this electricity comes from? According to the DOE, 70.6% came from fossil fuels and another 20.0% came from nuclear energy, both sources being horrible polluters.

That being said, I am certain you can understand that hydrogen fuel cells do not eliminate the smog, but just creates it at the power factories rather than the vehicle itself. Also, automobiles contribute roughly a fifth of the total pollution while half of the pollution comes from industrial applications. So in addition to keeping the same amount of smog, we'll throw in enough water vapor to cause low level clouds. With wator having an extremely high specific heat, roughly 9 times that of iron, it is sure to have drastic effects environmentally.

With respect to the global warming issue, not only do the sources of hydrogen produce more heat than we'd need if we used those sources directly for energy, but we'll have other heat issues along the way. That includes heat being made from the machines that compress the hydrogen.

Keep the arguments for hydrogen coming, I like showing why hydrogen fuel is evil.

From http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/Sources.htm

And that does nothing to say how hydrogen can help.
Well, it does go to credit what I said about fossil fuels (I know I said natural gas, I meant fossil fuels, I'm fixing that in my previous post after I finish here).

You know J, I think you're trying to win an argument you're just going to lose. I like you, but you're way to closed minded. Hydrogen will produce wastes just like fossile fuels, and that's not going to help the polution problem. Oh, and a bit of info straight from my Environmental class, your state (OR) uses the most water on a daily basis, more than California! That's pretty insane, of course most of it's industrial use, but everybody's part of the problem, and that doesn't exempt you even though you think it does ;) .

:lol: i'm from WA! hahhahaha.. but yea.. I can't just give up!

The technology to build cheap environment friendly automobiles has been around for decades. Methanol for example. It's cheaper, burns clean, and current automobiles are easily converted to use it.

What you have to ask yourself is not who will benefit, but who will it hurt? And the answer it Oil companies. The Oil industry pumps hundreds of millions of dollars stamping out these technologies because their entire industry would crash. They give millions to political parties to ensure that neither the Democrats or Republicans even mention alternative fuel sources. In addition, it could mean thousands of jobs and who wants to be the president that causes that?

What it's going to take is for someone to start an entirely new automobile manufacturing business based on alternative fuel. But that would cost billions and who wants to spend that? Or, a gradual switch from oil to alternatives over a long period of time to give the oil industry time to adjust.

The answer is easy, implimenting the solution is not.

Whoops, I thought you were from OR. Well, in that case, Washington uses the same amount of water as California, a state that is more than twice WA's size! Amazing, but no, you're still not exempt. You drive a car just like everybody else here, so you're part of the problem ;) .

but I don't drive a big honking truck or SUV! I try!

Cik's absolutely right again. Methanol and Alcohol are easily among the best solutions right now. All the downsides they have are lesser than with gasoline and most other fossil fuels, and a very minimal amount of changes are required to make gasoline based vehicles compatible (maily fuel delivery and computer components).

About hydrogen causing its own forms of pollution, you're right gnogtr. I just want to note that it doesn't replace fossil fuel's pollutions, because it doesn't eliminate them. For the most part, you're still using natural gas to get the hydrogen from, but now you are also using coal for electricity to extract the hydrogen, using even more fossil fuel than if you were to just use gasoline. That's why I've seen some experts suggesting that hydrogen might actually increase pollution emissions. Hydrogen's just a battery.
An evil battery.

I dont understand :confused:

Hyrdrogen would only have water as a byproduct. Its basic algebra.

Water + Electricity = Hydrogen

yea but he's saying that we get electricity from coal... screw coal! Solar and hydro baby!

solar is highly inefficent right now.

I know.. $ should go into it.. oh yea how could I forget WIND power! :D

Actually the candians just figured out a way to make them more efficent recently. Its in the slashdot archive somewhere.

Yeah, there are several ever increasingly efficient models of solar power, yet the most efficient to date is still not even close to where it should be. Some bushes, as small as 3 feet in diameter can receive as much energy as a football field filled edge to edge with today's most advanced solar panels. If we were able to harness that science as an energy source organically, then we'd actually have a source that's good for the environment.

Wind power has increased tremendously lately, yet we are still producing something like a total of 7000 megawatts (we use a little over 2 million megawatts). One of the problems with wind power is the cost; the current amount that we have is worth 4 billion dollars. Even though wind power is considered green energy, it has a negative effect on weather patterns and tends to cool ambient temperatures. It's probably considered green because we don't know much about the results of the effects on weather patterns or to what degree. The Union of Concerned Scientists seems to favor wind power over everything else right now. (note: their site is currently showing errors, but if you're interested keep checking it)

Chaos theory man

what, like the butterfly effect?

bingo.

No. Fields of wind mills drastically slow down air movements, and, even more importantly, the air molecules themselves (which causes decreases in temperatures). It's bad enough polluting, but at least we can filter the air and fix it. Weather is a different beast, however. It's something that we are not more powerful than, and something we know very little about. Note that weather also affects more than rain and sunshine. Current levels of production of energy from wind power allow it to have a very minimal effect on weather, but if we were to take it from .35% to 35% it would be an entirely different picture.