What if? Hydrogen cars only / environmental effects

2007-07-25 10:26:38

#1

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6551|Texas - Bigger than France

Okay, so I got a message from the IRS today saying that the Honda FCX - a hydrogen-burning car qualifies for the a tax credit. This means its going to market soon.

Linky: http://automobiles.honda.com/future-car … 0725165545

To clarify the purpose here, I'm hoping that whether you DO or DON'T believe global warming is caused by man, I hoping you can make a leap for discussion purposes only based on these assumptions:

-Assume that carbon emissions ARE the cause of global warming.
-All carbon emissions sources (cars, power plants etc) that are currently contributing carbon are 100% replaced by hydrogen cell tech.
-Hydrogen cell tech emits water vapor, so assume an equal amount of water vapor emissions replace the current carbon emissions.

Again...for purpose of this discussion...for this topic only the above are true...whether you believe in global warming or not.

Questions:
-Would replacing carbon with water vapor be better or reverse global warming?
-If it was a reverse effect, would we eventually be worried about global cooling?
-What impact would more water vapor have on weather and the environment?

Okay, looks like a clarification is necessary to see if this will work. Also add the assumption: assume that the only difference is instead of carbon emissions you have water vapor, and the energy production growth curve is unchanged (so efficiency isn't lost).

Last edited by Pug (2007-07-25 10:58:02)

2007-07-25 10:29:35

#2

PureFodder: Member; +225|6294

Something to remember, you still have to make the hydrogen to put in the hydrogen fuel cells. This requires electricity which needs to be generated somewhere.

2007-07-25 10:31:22

#3

Skruples: Mod Incarnate; +234|6709

I would be more interested in where all the hydrogen comes from. You can make hydrogen and oxygen by running an electrical current through water (if I understand the process correctly), but if the energy you use to make the hydrogen comes from a coal burning powerplant, and you have to increase the production of the coal powerplant to offset the decrease in energy produced from burning oil, you may not come out ahead at all.

Remember, nothing is free. Not even hydrogen.

2007-07-25 10:34:49

#4

Havok: Nymphomaniac Treatment Specialist; +302|6683|Florida, United States

Just a thought, what chemicals get released into the atmosphere when we use hydrogen? Are we burning it? If so, how? If we combined the hydrogen in the fuel cells with oxygen necessary for fire, that makes....water. No fuel. So how does hydrogen work?

2007-07-25 10:37:16

#5

topal63: . . .; +533|6727

It will not slow the increasing trend of more CO2 being added to the atmosphere; even if it can. It would be like farting in a hurricane. Only inverse it. The hurricane is the fart and your ass burps clean. But the 500 million guys next to you methane away - nonstop.

But, then again (?) if it is going to make a dent into total emission volume, this will be dependent upon infrastructure & market forces:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-25 10:52:01)

2007-07-25 10:38:13

#6

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6231|Escea

Havok wrote:
Just a thought, what chemicals get released into the atmosphere when we use hydrogen? Are we burning it? If so, how? If we combined the hydrogen in the fuel cells with oxygen necessary for fire, that makes....water. No fuel. So how does hydrogen work?

It just makes steam I think, but that's a good point to raise.

2007-07-25 10:38:25

#7

Skruples: Mod Incarnate; +234|6709

when you combust hydrogen, it combines with oxygen atoms to form water. Because you're moving it from a high state of potential energy, I.E, free floating hydrogen, to a lower state, a water molecule, you get energy out of the deal. You get this in the form of an explosion, of which water is the end product.

Going the other way, you have to add energy because you are moving it from a low state to a high state; from water to hydrogen and oxygen.

Someone correct me if I presented that incorrectly.

2007-07-25 10:39:51

#8

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6231|Escea

Skruples wrote:
when you combust hydrogen, it combines with oxygen atoms to form water. Because you're moving it from a high state of potential energy, I.E, free floating hydrogen, to a lower state, a water molecule, you get energy out of the deal. You get this in the form of an explosion, of which water is the end product.

Going the other way, you have to add energy because you are moving it from a low state to a high state; from water to hydrogen and oxygen.

Someone correct me if I presented that incorrectly.

Looks fine to me lol.

2007-07-25 10:41:17

#9

Havok: Nymphomaniac Treatment Specialist; +302|6683|Florida, United States

Skruples wrote:
when you combust hydrogen, it combines with oxygen atoms to form water. Because you're moving it from a high state of potential energy, I.E, free floating hydrogen, to a lower state, a water molecule, you get energy out of the deal. You get this in the form of an explosion, of which water is the end product.

Going the other way, you have to add energy because you are moving it from a low state to a high state; from water to hydrogen and oxygen.

Someone correct me if I presented that incorrectly.

I think I understand what you mean. The process you mentioned of turning water into O₂ and H₂ is called electrolysis.

2007-07-25 10:41:18

#10

DaClown: Member; +2|6551|Germany

Yes replacing carbon with water would stop global warming from getting worse. All the exhausts we have now are warm to. So temperature won't be a point. The rest is (distilled) water. Every animal does it, drink and pee, no negative effect here. The only thing could be the lack of minerals in the water. It depends on the amout of water a car emits. Distilled water maybe dilutes the water in the soil.

To produce the hydrogen energy is needed in first place. But the technology in this size isn't in use yet. We should wait, technology evolves. And there already is solar, water and wind power ..

2007-07-25 10:43:13

#11

Noobeater: Northern numpty; +194|6456|Boulder, CO

To do it succesfully of course we'd require more efficient power plants that are more environmentally friendly but once we have them then its much much healthier for the planet (and it'l get those annoying hippies to stop whining)

2007-07-25 10:49:38

#12

jonsimon: Member; +224|6504

Hydrogen cells will not replace coal and the like. They are only appropriate for cars because they can store energy in a mobile form. Even so, they are less effecient. Nuclear wind and water are the replacements for coal.

2007-07-25 10:51:59

#13

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6231|Escea

We should all have mini-nuke reactors in our cars, surrounded in a lead engine housing, no need to refuel for twenty years or so.

2007-07-25 10:54:18

#14

Noobeater: Northern numpty; +194|6456|Boulder, CO

M.O.A.B wrote:
We should all have mini-nuke reactors in our cars, surrounded in a lead engine housing, no need to refuel for twenty years or so.

that would only work with nuclear fusion but when we have that then thats a perfectly good use for it as you wouldn't actually need much protection as fusion's alot safer and doesn't give out as much radiation, but untill we have fusion thats a no.

2007-07-25 10:56:40

#15

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6231|Escea

Noobeater wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
We should all have mini-nuke reactors in our cars, surrounded in a lead engine housing, no need to refuel for twenty years or so.
that would only work with nuclear fusion but when we have that then thats a perfectly good use for it as you wouldn't actually need much protection as fusion's alot safer and doesn't give out as much radiation, but untill we have fusion thats a no.

Using current technology, just dinna crash or KA-BOOM!

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-07-25 10:56:50)

2007-07-25 10:58:37

#16

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6551|Texas - Bigger than France

Okay, looks like a clarification is necessary to see if this will work. Also add the assumption: assume that the only difference is instead of carbon emissions you have water vapor, and the energy production growth curve is unchanged (so efficiency isn't lost).

2007-07-25 10:59:48

#17

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|6766|Argentina

Doesn't water vapor constitute 1/3 of all the Greenhouse gases?

2007-07-25 11:00:53

#18

DaClown: Member; +2|6551|Germany

And why we don't assume, that a car can drive just with putting a chicken in the trunk ?

2007-07-25 11:00:54

#19

jonsimon: Member; +224|6504

Foot note: Global Warming could lead to an ice age on it's own.

2007-07-25 11:00:55

#20

Sgt.Kyle: Kyle; +48|6492|P-way, NJ

its fugly....why are hydrogen cars so ugly...they should make nice looking hydrogen cars maybe people would actually buy them, prism are fugly and slow as hell

2007-07-25 11:00:57

#21

xBlackPantherx: Grow up, or die; +142|6351|California

PureFodder wrote:
Something to remember, you still have to make the hydrogen to put in the hydrogen fuel cells. This requires electricity which needs to be generated somewhere.

Theres a think called solar panels. Actually, you can use some hydrogen to make more of it, kind of a 2-for-1 kinda thing. Fuels itself. Of course, this could mean a shit load of more rain in the long run.

2007-07-25 11:01:58

#22

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6551|Texas - Bigger than France

sergeriver wrote:
Doesn't water vapor constitute 1/3 of all the Greenhouse gases?

Right, so what I'm trying to determine is...replacing the carbon Greenhouse gas with H2O results in???? So what's the difference 'tween CO2 and H2O in terms of Global Warming?

2007-07-25 11:02:10

#23

xBlackPantherx: Grow up, or die; +142|6351|California

Sgt.Kyle wrote:
its fugly....why are hydrogen cars so ugly...they should make nice looking hydrogen cars maybe people would actually buy them, prism are fugly and slow as hell

This is D&ST, please leave. Go into junk drawer to complain about the look of a hydrogen car.

2007-07-25 11:03:16

#24

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|6766|Argentina

Pug wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
Doesn't water vapor constitute 1/3 of all the Greenhouse gases?
Right, so what I'm trying to determine is...replacing the carbon Greenhouse gas with H2O results in???? So what's the difference 'tween CO2 and H2O in terms of Global Warming?

I really don't know. Good question there.

But then why is BMW selling its Hydrogen engine as the answer to the environment problem?

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-07-25 11:05:26)

2007-07-25 11:03:53

#25

Curtor: Member; +6|6158|Canada

Just harness the power of lightning. You need to know where it strikes? I would say that those high rise skyscrapers are a good bet. Do you know how many times a year something like the CN tower struck by lightning, and how much electricity is in one bolt of lightning? (About a 1.21 gigawatts .. but only in Back to the Future ) If you could somehow use that, and channel it into a hydrogen producing plant, you might just have something...

BF2S Forums What if? Hydrogen cars only / environmental effects

Havok wrote:

Skruples wrote:

Skruples wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Noobeater wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Sgt.Kyle wrote:

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Board footer