NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal resolution #18
"Hydrogen is one of the most reactive elements in the periodic table, as it only has one electron to gain, and one to lose. This makes hydrogen very unstable in its usual form and can easily be burnt and cause fires.

While hydrogen is clean, it is not safe to burn it in large numbers and confined spaces. What do people use in hot air baloons? AIR, not hydrogen, however there was a time when this was true.

This was stopped when an entire blimp caught fire in the USA years ago and landed, still burning on a playing field it was hovering above.

Repeal this unsafe resolution."

Hydrogen is also a lot less polluting than traditional fossil fuels, since its only by-product when it combusts in the presence of oxygen, is H20. A.K.A Water.

Petroleum is also highly flammable, needing only a spark to cause an explosion, but you don't seem to be too concerned about this.

This was stopped when an entire blimp caught fire in the USA years ago and landed, still burning on a playing field it was hovering above.
Some might call this pedantry, but I do like to see actual facts stated.

The Hindenburg was neither a blimp nor a hot air balloon. It was a zeppellin. Zeppellins have iron frames, blimps do not.
The reason it was filled with hydrogen was because the US, which at the time was the only nation producing helium, was not selling helium to Germany.

Hydrogen was not used as a power source as you seem to imply - it was used simply to lift the zeppellin. Motors were used to propel the airship.

Your reference to hot air balloons is incorrect. Hot air balloons have never used hydrogen to create lift - as their name implies, they use hot air, and navigate using wind, thermals and air currents.

Also, the spark that killed the Hindenberg by igniting the hydrogen gas was caused by a static arc generation and a leak in one of the gas bags ...

The Hindenberg had earlier dropped water ballast, soaking the ropes attached to it to shortly be used to secure it, and, these ropes dragged along the ground, providing a conductive circuit for static generation between the earth and the stormy local area atmosphere, with the poor Hindenberg as the go between. Also, a small rip in a gas bag from strong wind conditions earlier, also I think a wrong sealant resin being applied in an earlier repair, let gas escape and fill out around the rip ... near the tail of the Hindenberg ...

Any-way, the static arc met with this gas, and boomity.

I think that was the official investigation conclusion ...

* Sorry, just wanted to demonstrate my possible " Oh the humanity ! " knowledge, ;)

What is it with all these new nations trying to repeal everything under the sun?

We need a "Pealed Bells" resolution. Make it so that it is a UN offense to peal any and all bells, as bells are a nuissance and can harm hearing... Yes the logic must be that faulty.

That way, Vastiva, we can take delight inRe-Peal Pealed Bells Resolution.

Oh Look! It's a first-time forum poster looking to become active

oh, look. It's the regular forum giving him plenty of reasons never to post again :rolleyes:

PS. Looks like I'm "over the hill", I suppose

Since the USA doesn't exist in the NationStates world, I'd say this resolution is by default null and void.

Why do you want to get rid of hydrogen cell technology (which burns clean) and replace it with petroleum, which causes air pollution? At the worst, a hydrogen explosion hurts only where it explodes - it has no lasting effects.
When an oil tanker goes, the effects last for a very very long time (see the Exxon Valdez disaster).

(Also TGed to the individual, just in case he's not reading this thread)

So the decimation of 6 or 7 Blocks is okay because it burns cleaner? :headbang:

Yes, err, well. Ever noticed how firemen evacuate huge areas when there are compressed gas cylinders in a fire?

Hydrogen car pile-up. Now that would be interesting.

Why do you want to get rid of hydrogen cell technology (which burns clean) and replace it with petroleum, which causes air pollution? At the worst, a hydrogen explosion hurts only where it explodes - it has no lasting effects.

Exactly!

No lasting effects!

...except death.

Hydrogen is also a lot less polluting than traditional fossil fuels, since its only by-product when it combusts in the presence of oxygen, is H20. A.K.A Water.

Actually, that is the worst form of pollution. That type can drastically change weather conditions in an entire region in a much shorter period of time than petroleum fuels. The result is you can get up to a 200-300% increase in moisture in the region (depending on how much the fuel can use, as this is an extreme estimate), which can result in "global warming" happening within a matter of years or, even more hazardous, a relatively sudden massive drop in temperatures, starting a possible slide into an ice age iwthin a couple of decades. And, no, that is not enough time to prepare to survive an ice age.

While hydrogen seems like a good idea, realistically it can be far, far worse than petroleum. Plus, using it exclusively pretty much eliminates fuels cleaner than petroleum and less environmentally-damaging than hydrogen, even if most of them are impractical anyway.

Petroleum is also highly flammable, needing only a spark to cause an explosion, but you don't seem to be too concerned about this.

So is hydrogen. Hydrogen can, when ignited in the same amounts as your average petroleum tanker found on the roads, wipe out several blocks. Taken in large enough numbers, like a power plant running on hydrogen having a sudden explosion, you could be talking about decimation equal to a small nuclear bomb.

If you think that is bad, remember that oxygen is even more explosive as a gas.

Actually, that is the worst form of pollution. That type can drastically change weather conditions in an entire region in a much shorter period of time than petroleum fuels. The result is you can get up to a 200-300% increase in moisture in the region (depending on how much the fuel can use, as this is an extreme estimate), which can result in "global warming" happening within a matter of years or, even more hazardous, a relatively sudden massive drop in temperatures, starting a possible slide into an ice age iwthin a couple of decades. And, no, that is not enough time to prepare to survive an ice age.

And Carbon Dioxide, Monoxide, and Nitrogen Oxide don't cause any Global Warming at all?
I think you'll find that water is a darned sight less toxic than the rubbish that you get from burning oil.


While hydrogen seems like a good idea, realistically it can be far, far worse than petroleum. Plus, using it exclusively pretty much eliminates fuels cleaner than petroleum and less environmentally-damaging than hydrogen, even if most of them are impractical anyway.
You mean that perhaps it should be repealed, so that petroleum burning cars can be banned, rather than forcing everyone to use hydrogen? If so, you should have just said that in the first place. ;-)


So is hydrogen. Hydrogen can, when ignited in the same amounts as your average petroleum tanker found on the roads, wipe out several blocks. Taken in large enough numbers, like a power plant running on hydrogen having a sudden explosion, you could be talking about decimation equal to a small nuclear bomb.

If you think that is bad, remember that oxygen is even more explosive as a gas.

That's why you wouldn't find hydrogen tankers freely running across a nation's motorways. Hydrogen would explode as soon as it comes in contact with air, so a lot more safety measures would be employed to prevent any sort of 'leakage'.

If you think that is bad, remember that oxygen is even more explosive as a gas.
No, it isn't.

Oxygen does not combust. What oxygen does, is allow things to combust. The gas itself does not burn.

Should also point out that carbon monoxide, which results from the incomplete combustion of carbon and carbon compounds, is extremely poisonous, while carbon dioxide, which results from the complete combustion of carbon and carbon compounds, is a major greenhouse gas, far surpassing good old H2O.

And Carbon Dioxide, Monoxide, and Nitrogen Oxide don't cause any Global Warming at all?
I think you'll find that water is a darned sight less toxic than the rubbish that you get from burning oil.

At current time, there is no evidence actually proving that CO2 emissions, humanity, and the increasing temperatures of Earth are actually related. For one thing, there is historical evidence that we're actually in a cold period of Earth'sd history that is going to end soon anyway (the Romans were able to grow grapes in Greenland, for example). For another, the current shift of the magnetic poles that is going to be happening over the next thousand years or so will not only cause such scientific mysteries as "El Nino," but is likely to cause unusual temperature and weather changes until it ends. Thirdly, even if it is related, there is no evidence humanity is the cause or even technologically capable of trying to stop it. Earth has been in a continuing trend of deoxification for, iirc, the last 75 billion years, with possible evidence the decrease has been "snowballing" as time advances (but, like "global warming," it lacks enough evidence to prove it as more than just a minor possibility).

What we have here is a case of scientists assuming something based on the lack of evidence otherwise, despite what evidence they have being shaky at best and easily disproven as being viable or even evidence at worst.

You mean that perhaps it should be repealed, so that petroleum burning cars can be banned, rather than forcing everyone to use hydrogen? If so, you should have just said that in the first place. ;-)

Me like long, windy posts. Make life more interesting than the one-liners I see a lot of.

That's why you wouldn't find hydrogen tankers freely running across a nation's motorways. Hydrogen would explode as soon as it comes in contact with air, so a lot more safety measures would be employed to prevent any sort of 'leakage'.

Then how are you going to move it from where it is produced? If you use pipes, keep in mind the high frequency of pipes rupturing. If you use vehicles, at least one is going to get into a wreck and explode. If you use a plane, you still need a truck to take it from the airport to the plant. About the only way to safely transport it over long distances is to use a transporter or some other scifi tech. It is for that reason alone it is more dangerous than gasoline (which, as we both know, has its own problems).

No, it isn't.

Oxygen does not combust. What oxygen does, is allow things to combust. The gas itself does not burn.

Actually, that doesn't match scientific evidence or even the safety measures advocated by fire departments. You don't think it explodes? Shoot a tank of pure oxygen with a gun powerful enough to penetrate it. Or, better yet, just open the tank up and get a spark near it. Then, your ghost can come to me and tell me how it went.

Oxygen, when mixed with other gases, doesn't explode. By itself, oxygen will explode, with slightly less difficulty than gasoline, and can do a lot of damage, far more than even an equal amount of hydrogen can do in some cases. Or have you forgotten the safety precautions required if you are going to have a tank of pure oxygen around? Try reading one of those tanks sometime, or asking anyone who has dealt with it for any length of time. The fact it is required in the process of the chemical reaction called fire, when in its more mixed form, should have been a big hint to you.

also point out that carbon monoxide, which results from the incomplete combustion of carbon and carbon compounds, is extremely poisonous, while carbon dioxide, which results from the complete combustion of carbon and carbon compounds, is a major greenhouse gas, far surpassing good old H2O.

Don't get me laughing. Okay, a few facts.

1) H2O is a liquid, not a gas. In the gas state it tends to separate a small amount into the gases that make it up. However, those gases stay together and can easily recombine should the temperature drop, resulting in rain or even snow. The problem is not just temperature increases, but the possible danger of altering the way the entire ecosystem in that region works. That danger is, ironically, the same reason petroleum is looked down upon, although petroleum is projected to do it at a much slower rate.
2) Hydrogen is a known poison. Oxygen is a known neurotoxin, and is extremely potent. CO2 is also a known poison, and extremely potent. Considering that everything around us is poisonous in certain amounts, toxicity is kinda pointless to measure.
3) Actually, most of the world's CO2 results from organic chemical processes, not pertroleum combustion. Every creature, from plants (yes, they do excrete CO2 at times during their lifecycles) to animals and even bacteria usually produce CO2. In fact, at one time in Earth's history it required a large amount of very active volcanos just to keep oxygen levels constant (they died out, ironically) and the constant decline of oxygen in the air is related to the organic processes of living creatures. It's only recently in human history that people have actually measured it and discovered exactly how far back the problem possibly goes.