NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates:

Earlier today I delivered a proposal entitled "Hydrogen Power Initiative" for your collective consideration. The wording of the proposal is posted below:

Description: RECOGNIZING that the current global economy is powered by petroleum, coal and other fossil fuels of finite supply
AND these fuels, when consumed, create pollution that has the effect of degrading the environment and creating by-products that are a hazard to human health
AND that location of petroleum supplies (in particular) means that some nations, acting in unison, have the ability to hold the rest of the world's economies hostage via embargo
AND that hydrogen is derived from a simple chemical reaction using ordinary water as a source
AND that the burning of hydrogen produces only water as a by-product
AND that hydrogen combustion engines would be designed to be more efficient than existing fossil fuel combustion engines:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1./ The United Nations promote and urge member promotion of development of hydrogen power as a replacement energy source for fossil fuels.
2./ Knowledge and technology for the production of hydrogen as an energy source be freely shared and distributed for adoption by all nations at their determination.

CONCLUSION:
Converting the world's economies from a reliance on a finite supply of inefficient and polluting fossil fuels would create a cleaner, healthier environment and would necessarily curtail the environmental destruction associated with oil drilling, coal mining, etc.
Each nation would have the ability to become energy independent. No nation would be able to hold hostage any other nation over their source of energy. Domestic energy production would be an entirely new industry and create jobs and tax revenues and would reduce trade deficits for current net energy importers.

I acknowledge existing UN resolutions #18 (Hydrogen Powered Vehicles) and #39 (Alternative Fuels), however, while both of the prior resolutions were aimed at the automotive industry and were concerned primarily with converting vehicular conveyance propulsion engines to hydrogen or other alternative fuels, the Hydrogen Power Initiative before you proposes adoption of a broad-based systemic move away from fossil fuel consuption, where practicable. It would apply not only to automotives but to electrical generation, home heating, other types of conveyance engines (aircraft, watercraft, etc) and possibly replacement of certain types of electrical storage batteries with hydrogen fuel cells.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. I hope we can count on enough delegates for quorum.

Delegates:

Earlier today I delivered a proposal entitled "Hydrogen Power Initiative" for your collective consideration. The wording of the proposal is posted below:



I acknowledge existing UN resolutions #18 (Hydrogen Powered Vehicles) and #39 (Alternative Fuels), however, while both of the prior resolutions were aimed at the automotive industry and were concerned primarily with converting vehicular conveyance propulsion engines to hydrogen or other alternative fuels, the Hydrogen Power Initiative before you proposes adoption of a broad-based systemic move away from fossil fuel consuption, where practicable. It would apply not only to automotives but to electrical generation, home heating, other types of conveyance engines (aircraft, watercraft, etc) and possibly replacement of certain types of electrical storage batteries with hydrogen fuel cells.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. I hope we can count on enough delegates for quorum.

For aircraft, we would need to shift to liq H2/ Liq O2 PDE or PDWE's, do you believe they are, as of yet, proven reliable enough for commercial implementation?

hydrogen is derived from a simple chemical reaction using ordinary water as a source
Please describe this process that must get more power out than it puts in. I'm always interested in the concept of perpetual motion and free energy. Naturally, I'm assuming you've figured out a way to crack hydrogen without using electricity, which has to be generated somehow. If you've broken that cycle, you have a duty to let the UN know.

Please describe this process that must get more power out than it puts in. I'm always interested in the concept of perpetual motion and free energy. Naturally, I'm assuming you've figured out a way to crack hydrogen without using electricity, which has to be generated somehow. If you've broken that cycle, you have a duty to let the UN know.

Actually, there isn't... It would still require the DI/DM H20~acid mix, and electricity... But doesn't require too much juice to keep running; though you are right; it would not be self-sustaining (I prefer nuclear technologies for power generation personally; so Tekanian Power Generation, being mostly Fission backups, with Fusion, MARC and ZPM (FT type) primaries, would not be suseptible to this proposal.

The inference was that there was perhaps a catalytic conversion process that allowed you to generate hydrogen from water without using more power that you got out. Perhaps raising the temperature, adding camellia sinensis and N-acetylglucosamine, then allowing the precipitate to settle and cool ... no wait, that's iced tea.

This proposal is nothing more than an elevated fructose / baked pastry combination - "pie in the sky". You don't get any more free energy from hydrogen production than you do from coal-fired electrical generation. The power has to come from somewhere. If Tekania has figured out how to use fission and fusion in a reliable and efficient manner, then they have probably solved the fossil fuel problem anyway. The rest of us are going to have to use existing technology.

Given that the Republic is a major exporter of Uranium, I'm sure fission based alternative deals can be made :>

Description: RECOGNIZING that the current global economy is powered by petroleum, coal and other fossil fuels of finite supply

Not in all nations, but in enough.

AND these fuels, when consumed, create pollution that has the effect of degrading the environment and creating by-products that are a hazard to human health

So does breathing.

You do realize that moisture is a more potent "Green House gas" than any of the others and the fact that it has a bad tendency of making gasoline look clean when used in large amounts, right? Hydrogen power is about as cloase to clean and safe on the environment as toxic waste is and has an equivolent effect as well. About the only way I can think of using modern technology to cause an equal amount of environmental damage and weather pattern changes in a shorter amount of time is to use thermonuclear devices to destroy the world's mountain ranges.

If you'll excuse me, I have a few thousand hydrogen bombs to buy off of EvilBAY.

AND that location of petroleum supplies (in particular) means that some nations, acting in unison, have the ability to hold the rest of the world's economies hostage via embargo
AND that hydrogen is derived from a simple chemical reaction using ordinary water as a source

People have already dealt with this, so I'll leave it alone.

AND that the burning of hydrogen produces only water as a by-product

Which results in 300+% increases of moisture in many areas, resulting in a greenhouse effect that would make environmentalists cry themselves to death...

AND that hydrogen combustion engines would be designed to be more efficient than existing fossil fuel combustion engines:

The effectiveness is not worth the pollution. Effectiveness was the same arguement that got gasoline into use in the first place.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1./ The United Nations promote and urge member promotion of development of hydrogen power as a replacement energy source for fossil fuels.

Nuclear and antimatter are cleaner, more efficient, and the second can actually provide something that can be a secondary power source as waste.

2./ Knowledge and technology for the production of hydrogen as an energy source be freely shared and distributed for adoption by all nations at their determination.

Except for those that do not use technology for a variety of reasons, of course.

CONCLUSION:
Converting the world's economies from a reliance on a finite supply of inefficient and polluting fossil fuels would create a cleaner, healthier environment and would necessarily curtail the environmental destruction associated with oil drilling, coal mining, etc.

See above about the problems of hydrogen. I've ignored the fact of how extremely explosive it is (it makes gasoline look wimpish). All if would do is replace one type of environmental damage with something even worse. Hell, that's the equivolent of pouring radioactive sludge into the streets to keep people from littering.

Each nation would have the ability to become energy independent. No nation would be able to hold hostage any other nation over their source of energy. Domestic energy production would be an entirely new industry and create jobs and tax revenues and would reduce trade deficits for current net energy importers.

I have designs for antimatter reactors people can use. Considering that modern tech nations are more than capable of building reactors that produce antimatter and eventually reactors that use it, all I'll be doing is skipping you ahead a couple decades or so. It'll do far more damage if the reactor melts down, but if that happens it is caused by stupidity more than anything else.

I agree with DLE, with the exception of it being explosive. By using ovonics, the threat of a hydrogen fueled anything becoming a bomb can be elliminated. However, using such a hydrogen fuel source costs more than anything that would need it. So, what's the point?

To address the myriad "points" made so far:

Revealing the method to create the fuel source is an after effect of the adopted proposal. The idea is to stimulate research into this area to develop the technology. Same goes for it's use as a fuel source for aircraft (and watercraft). The technology doesn't currently exist...this proposal creates impetus and clarifies a direction to take. Something like the 1960's challenge to go to the moon before 1970...think on it like that.

Say what you like about nuclear and antimatter and whatnot but hydrogen combustion producing water as opposed to fossil fuels producing sulfer dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide and the host of other noxious chemicals that results is preferable on every level...commentary about water being a greenhouse gas aside. Consider that it's much easier to get water out of the sky (aka "rain", condensation, etc) than it is to get ozone. As a health concern there is no argument (short of being submerged in a large quantity of water, aka "drowning") that makes the by-products of hydrogen combustion more concerning that those of fossil fuel burning.

I won't address the patent lunacy of the claim "[h]ydrogen power is about as cloase to clean and safe on the environment as toxic waste". Can't debate those who won't agree to play in the arena of reality.

To address the myriad "points" made so far:

Revealing the method to create the fuel source is an after effect of the adopted proposal. The idea is to stimulate research into this area to develop the technology. Same goes for it's use as a fuel source for aircraft (and watercraft). The technology doesn't currently exist...this proposal creates impetus and clarifies a direction to take. Something like the 1960's challenge to go to the moon before 1970...think on it like that.

Ok, thank you for that clarification.


Say what you like about nuclear and antimatter and whatnot but hydrogen combustion producing water as opposed to fossil fuels producing sulfer dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide and the host of other noxious chemicals that results is preferable on every level...commentary about water being a greenhouse gas aside. Consider that it's much easier to get water out of the sky (aka "rain", condensation, etc) than it is to get ozone. As a health concern there is no argument (short of being submerged in a large quantity of water, aka "drowning") that makes the by-products of hydrogen combustion more concerning that those of fossil fuel burning.

Hydrogen is fine, but does not generate enough power in combustion for many types (FT)of use. Though mind you, Fusion has many similarities, since it does use (Deuterium) the second isotope of hydrogen... MARC's (Anti-Matter) and ZPM's (Quantum Reactors) are preffered as they can produce far more power (I could probably run some nations entire power-grids off of a single ZPM). I do understand the fosil fuel concern.


I won't address the patent lunacy of the claim "[h]ydrogen power is about as cloase to clean and safe on the environment as toxic waste". Can't debate those who won't agree to play in the arena of reality.

That concept is absurd: Though, to the extent that it is still pretty unsafe, as far as its explosive potential is concerned. And most nations using hydrogen as a combustible fuel, do not possess the technologies to make storage of it safe (such as keeping it contained in -100C enviroments over extended periods in slush form), to prevent its chance of combustion.

Revealing the method to create the fuel source is an after effect of the adopted proposal. The idea is to stimulate research into this area to develop the technology. Same goes for it's use as a fuel source for aircraft (and watercraft). The technology doesn't currently exist...this proposal creates impetus and clarifies a direction to take. Something like the 1960's challenge to go to the moon before 1970...think on it like that.
You're trying to legislate physics, and physics won't hold still for it. This is a perpetual motion scheme, whether you see it or not.

You crack water in hydrogen and oxygen, creating fuel, ozone, and some waste heat. You then put the hydrogen into engines and recombine it with oxygen to create motive power, water, and waste heat. At every stage of the process, inefficiencies creep in to create waste heat, thanks to our old buddy entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your net result is that you have less energy from the combustion of hydrogen than you used to crack the hydrogen in the first place.

This is not the space program or the Manhatten Project. We know how to do it. We CAN do it. We just can't make 150% out of 100%, no matter how hard we squeeze.

This is not the space program or the Manhatten Project. We know how to do it. We CAN do it. We just can't make 150% out of 100%, no matter how hard we squeeze.

But if we were to submit a proposal "Repeal of the Laws of Thermodynamics" . . . ;)

While the intent of this proposal is sound, I don't think it's flaws can really be overcome. While it might be beneficial to several of the more modern nations to research and exploit Hydrogen Power, it's unreasonable (and as Tekania pointed out, possibly dangerous) to apply it to the less developed nations who have neither the resources nor the technology to even attempt such a thing.

You're trying to legislate physics, and physics won't hold still for it. This is a perpetual motion scheme, whether you see it or not.
Ok, I've got to address this.

Bringing any energy source to market requires an input of energy in some form or another. Fossil fuels requires exploration to locate the source, drilling or mining to acquire it, transportation of it to a shipping facility, shipping it to a refinery (in the case of petroleum), the entire refining process, and finally transportation of the refined product to the distribution centers. Hydrogen power would basically be relegated to the final two pieces...production and transportation to distribution.

I don't mind arguments about how it is currently a net loser with regard to energy in versus energy out...the idea behind the proposal is to create the incentive to develop the tech to make it a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Insofar as legislating physics goes...well...suppose you were to supply the electricity to produce the hydrogen from exisiting renewable resources. Say solar or hydroelectric? Hydro, in particular is attractive as water is both the energy producer and the base material.

And how much energy is being expended in producing engines to reduce their emissions output? How much energy is being expended producing electric alternatives to fossil fuel powered machines? Batteries for cars, for instance?

There is a point in the energy in/energy out issue...but it's a point valid only if you limit the scope. That and I'm not privy to the details of how much energy (X) is needed to produce Y volume of hydrogen that, when burned, produces Z amount of energy. The assertion that for hydrogen power that Z exceeds X may be true...but it must surely also be true for fossil fuels considering the more lengthy process to bring that product to market...so I'd hazard a guess that this argument is a straw man.

Insofar as legislating physics goes...well...suppose you were to supply the electricity to produce the hydrogen from exisiting renewable resources. Say solar or hydroelectric? Hydro, in particular is attractive as water is both the energy producer and the base material.
Hydro and solar (plus wind, tides, and all the other alternative sources) aren't practical alternatives because they don't provide sufficient power to meet anyone's needs - yet. The "hydrogen-as-fuel" argument is the real straw man here, because it's just the method of transporting power from production to consumer. You still have to generate the power in some way, and the suggestions in this proposal are barely even nebulous.

Of course I'd like to see us get away from non-renewable sources of energy. I'd love to see solar satellite generators merrily beaming raw power to our factories and electrical grids. Fact is, we're not there yet, and without the generation capacity, the hydrogen argument falls flat on its face. You're treating a symptom while ignoring the underlying cause (and telling me that the cause is a part of the symptom. The whole cannot be included in the part.)

You're asking for hydrogen power as a viable alternative, but the only way to currently produce it in sufficient quantity (in real world terms) is to burn fossil fuels to generate the power. Whether the smoke comes from a hydrogen-generation plant or the exhaust pipe of a gas-burning automobile, we're still burning non-renewable energy.

To address the myriad "points" made so far:

Revealing the method to create the fuel source is an after effect of the adopted proposal. The idea is to stimulate research into this area to develop the technology. Same goes for it's use as a fuel source for aircraft (and watercraft). The technology doesn't currently exist...this proposal creates impetus and clarifies a direction to take. Something like the 1960's challenge to go to the moon before 1970...think on it like that.

Except you need approximately 50 years to find a way to create hydrogen without having to burn a nonreplaceable fuel source, and then it'll take you at least 40 to get that new method in enough use to even start to move away from fossil fuels. Going the nuclear and antimatter route could have you putting up your first antimatter reactors in as little as 20 years, though it'll still take you 40 years (at least) in order to get it spread around enough to replace fossil fuels.

Your choice: 60 years or 90.

Say what you like about nuclear and antimatter and whatnot but hydrogen combustion producing water as opposed to fossil fuels producing sulfer dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide and the host of other noxious chemicals that results is preferable on every level...commentary about water being a greenhouse gas aside. Consider that it's much easier to get water out of the sky (aka "rain", condensation, etc) than it is to get ozone. As a health concern there is no argument (short of being submerged in a large quantity of water, aka "drowning") that makes the by-products of hydrogen combustion more concerning that those of fossil fuel burning.

The damage in this case is still the same damage that is the primary complaint about fossil fuels: Climate changes, only with hydrogen you're speeding it up. Introducing levels of moisture into an area in amounts equal to at least twice that native in the area, with the norm being around ten times that in the area, and you're going to have a climate shift happen so fast you won't even have time to see it comming before it's too late to stop it. One of the bad qualities of moisture is how it interacts with heat, so you can expect temperatures in some areas to jump as much as 10 Degrees Celsuis within ten years (assuming the far more dangerous, and also far more likely, side-effect happens). However, the real danger isn't heat. It's the other, and more likely, option.

Another problem you have with so much moisture in the atmosphere is when temperatures start to go down for the year. Moisture isn't exactly going to protect you against freezing; just ask Antarctica about that. What is likely to happen is an accelerated and immensely greater temperature drop accompanied by increased freezing and much more ice than normal -a phenomenon known among scientists as an ice age.

Now, ignoring the danger half of humanity will freeze to death or die of heat exhaustion as a result of this, let's look at the other health risks. There are such things as pneumonia, various diseases that breed in moist atmospheres, an increase in mosquitos due to an increase in places they can they their eggs due to an increase in the amount of moisture on the ground from an increase in rain (which, of course, will help the above-mentioned ice age along), and various other things I honestly don't have the time to account for.

If you really want the results of hydrogen being used that much, excuse me while my ships find a really big rock to smack into Earth.

I won't address the patent lunacy of the claim "[h]ydrogen power is about as cloase to clean and safe on the environment as toxic waste". Can't debate those who won't agree to play in the arena of reality.

I am playing in the realm of reality. The reality is that the two are equally safe for the environment, though toxic waste isn't as likely to trigger an ecological disaster on a planet-wide scale. The problem here is, as you have shown in your post, you're refusing to see the reality of the situation and choosing to ignore it when people point it out to you. If you cannot be bothered to deal with it when people point out that hydrogen isn't the poster child it appears to be, then don't bother posting or submitting proposals.

What is it about the concept of "promotion" and "incentive" that some cannot seem to grasp? Antimatter reactors? Um...as soon as you beam back up, let me know when you've successfully tested your first Jeffries Tube. Love the "timelines-as-scientific-fact" angle too.

In any event, the proposal is to produce incentives to spur the development of hydrogen as an alternative fuel source. If science in general were to take the tack of the nay-sayers that seem to be roosting on this proposal then we'd all be merrily gnawing on bones in a cave, quite possibly without the benefit of fire. Claiming something cannot be done because it cannot be done today is to loudly proclaim that you have no imagination, cannot envision anyone else having any either, and oh-by-the-way, science never makes progress.

Of course, that's all nonsense and it takes people of vision with clear goals in mind to make things happen. The proposal provides the clear goal and recommends that it be adopted as a goal for the UN and member nations for the solid reasons contained therein.

But to continue to ramble about "[i]ntroducing levels of moisture into an area in amounts equal to at least twice that native in the area, with the norm being around ten times" which is, clearly, a product of wishfully pulling bogus stats out of one's backside isn't productive...but it is comedy gold. I love the part where the vast amounts of increased moisture (remarkable since water destroyed = water created, therefore no net new water) account for both increases AND decreases in temperature. Forget the fact that 70% of the planet's surface is covered by water and that the planet has happily been dealing with airborne water (read "fog", "rain", "snow", etc...) for a few billion years. No....THIS will cause ruination to mankind. Good lord.

As for the energy to produce the hydrogen being fossil fuels, yes, at the beginning that is so. However, it's not necessarily so, nor will it remain so. Processes exist to produce hydrogen, in quantity, from chemical reactions which involve little external energy. That is, there are many ways to "crack" water to produce hydrogen. Applying energy to a system is but one...chemical reactions are another.

But as the proposal is designed...it is to promote the industry as a whole to greater technological achievements.

As you seem unwilling or unable to see the legitimate value of anyone's viewpoint but yours, we'll content ourselves with merely not approving this, and voting against it should it somehow make it to quorum.

Well, a nationstate could move its power grid to supply completely off of hydro-electric and nuclear; this would give it the needed energy for cracking water for hydrogen fuel, which can be used in commercial and transportation uses. Fosil fuels are not completely needed: which I believe is the intent of the proposal. But the objectors are right... our entire system cannot be designed to run from hydrogen combustion alone... Dueterium Extraction for Toroid Fusion on the other hand, is energy effective: Since the system can produce more power than it uses (self-sustaining).

What is it about the concept of "promotion" and "incentive" that some cannot seem to grasp? Antimatter reactors? Um...as soon as you beam back up, let me know when you've successfully tested your first Jeffries Tube. Love the "timelines-as-scientific-fact" angle too.

http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/antimatter.htm

Read those two to learn quite a bit about antimatter. The fact we're currently producing it in increasing quantities and finding better ways to produce it already makes life interesting. This isn't Star Trek, but reality.

The timetables stuff is estimates based on rates of advancement and an estimate on how long it will take to overhaul a system that has taken about a hundred years to design and perfect.

In any event, the proposal is to produce incentives to spur the development of hydrogen as an alternative fuel source. If science in general were to take the tack of the nay-sayers that seem to be roosting on this proposal then we'd all be merrily gnawing on bones in a cave, quite possibly without the benefit of fire. Claiming something cannot be done because it cannot be done today is to loudly proclaim that you have no imagination, cannot envision anyone else having any either, and oh-by-the-way, science never makes progress.

No one is claiming it can't be done. People are pointing out the problems with expense, time, and what it takes to do it right now.

Of course, that's all nonsense and it takes people of vision with clear goals in mind to make things happen. The proposal provides the clear goal and recommends that it be adopted as a goal for the UN and member nations for the solid reasons contained therein.

People with clear minds are not accusing others of nonsense and stating things they have not instead of bothering to listen to what they are saying. You're dealing with people who have seen far better arguements than you are presenting and have shot them down. Try listening to us and taking into consideration what we are saying.

But to continue to ramble about "[i]ntroducing levels of moisture into an area in amounts equal to at least twice that native in the area, with the norm being around ten times" which is, clearly, a product of wishfully pulling bogus stats out of one's backside isn't productive...but it is comedy gold. I love the part where the vast amounts of increased moisture (remarkable since water destroyed = water created, therefore no net new water) account for both increases AND decreases in temperature. Forget the fact that 70% of the planet's surface is covered by water and that the planet has happily been dealing with airborne water (read "fog", "rain", "snow", etc...) for a few billion years. No....THIS will cause ruination to mankind. Good lord.

Logical fallacy. Moisture amounts on Earth are not uniform. That is part of why we have oceans. Also, you have shown you cannot be trusted to take the integrity of the post as written and, instead, alter its words to fit your own arguement in the vain hopes no one will notice. You also have shown a nonworking knowledge of the very basics of weather patterns based on moisture levels.

In fact, I'll quote the part you have reworded with your arguement:

The damage in this case is still the same damage that is the primary complaint about fossil fuels: Climate changes, only with hydrogen you're speeding it up. Introducing levels of moisture into an area in amounts equal to at least twice that native in the area, with the norm being around ten times that in the area, and you're going to have a climate shift happen so fast you won't even have time to see it comming before it's too late to stop it. One of the bad qualities of moisture is how it interacts with heat, so you can expect temperatures in some areas to jump as much as 10 Degrees Celsuis within ten years (assuming the far more dangerous, and also far more likely, side-effect happens). However, the real danger isn't heat. It's the other, and more likely, option.

Another problem you have with so much moisture in the atmosphere is when temperatures start to go down for the year. Moisture isn't exactly going to protect you against freezing; just ask Antarctica about that. What is likely to happen is an accelerated and immensely greater temperature drop accompanied by increased freezing and much more ice than normal -a phenomenon known among scientists as an ice age.

Note the word "likely" used in there, which is a standard English word for stating a possibility, in this case the context being that the author who chose to use it is using it to indicate something they know to be a greater possibility than its opposite. Feel free to feel insulted that I had to point this out.

If you wish examples of how moisture does this, examine the temperature standards of coastal regions and compare them with the temperature standards of noncoastal regions in the same portion of the hemisphere.

As for the energy to produce the hydrogen being fossil fuels, yes, at the beginning that is so. However, it's not necessarily so, nor will it remain so. Processes exist to produce hydrogen, in quantity, from chemical reactions which involve little external energy. That is, there are many ways to "crack" water to produce hydrogen. Applying energy to a system is but one...chemical reactions are another.

You're still using nonrenewable resources for that until after the system has been in place for a couple of decades. It takes time for adjustments.

But as the proposal is designed...it is to promote the industry as a whole to greater technological achievements.

Which has enough problems with it to make it a questionable fuel source at best. You cannot solve the questions of environmental damage and have shown that you are not even willing to consider them, which means what you are proposing is dangerous, not thought out, and not worthy of support.

The Federation of Aligned Planets supports this proposal.

As you seem unwilling or unable to see the legitimate value of anyone's viewpoint but yours, we'll content ourselves with merely not approving this, and voting against it should it somehow make it to quorum.

That is, of course, your right. I admit to some frustration in explaining and re-explaining the concept though. Let me retrace my steps momentarily so you can observe my appreciation for your viewpoint. Previously you suggested:
You're asking for hydrogen power as a viable alternative, but the only way to currently produce it in sufficient quantity (in real world terms) is to burn fossil fuels to generate the power. Whether the smoke comes from a hydrogen-generation plant or the exhaust pipe of a gas-burning automobile, we're still burning non-renewable energy.

I had ginned up a link for you during my last post but decided that explaining it would be preferable...however:
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/06/12/690021_AEC_HydrogenfromWater/

The process does not, of necessity, have to rely upon fossil fuels for initial production. I question the by-products of the catalysing agent...but, the point I make is that this, in itself, is an example of something we know now that we didn't know before that circumvents the use of application of outside energy. I know the catalyst isn't free (in energy terms) but nothing is. I use it as an example to rebut your assertion that the "only way" is to burn fossil fuels. I explained it, but perhaps I lack the veracity of a quoted source.

As for DemonLord...well, I'll do my best to stay civil (and not insulted). I did have a look at the links you provided...all I can say is their inclusion (which pretty much blows your entire "antimatter reactor" pipedream to kingdom come) coupled with the lack of anything supporting the whole "too much water in the air will kill us all" business is a brand new definition of irony.

From CERN (your link):
• How mach antimatter can you make in one accelerator cycle?
Here at CERN we can produce 50 millions antiprotons in each cycle (about once a minute), that allows us to make a few hundred antihydrogen atoms.

The number could be 10 times higher in particular configurations of the accelerator. This sounds a lot, but expressed in grams it is a billionth of a gram in a year.

• How much does it cost to produce antimatter?
If we count on the production CERN has done over the last 10 years (about 1 billionth of a gram), it has cost a few hundred millions Swiss francs.

That's great. It fits so nicely with your self-aggrandising combo of:

You're dealing with people who have seen far better arguements than you are presenting and have shot them down...you have shown you cannot be trusted to take the integrity of the post as written and, instead, alter its words to fit your own arguement in the vain hopes no one will notice.
Pure. Comedic. Gold. Tell you what, this bantering back and forth with you obviously goes nowhere. You claim vastly superior knowledge of weather patterns and antimatter systems when, in fact, your "facts" are rubbish, your self-superior attitude is suffocating and your tedium is well....tedious. I call you on your crap about how increased moisture levels will cause both fatally hot AND cold global climactic changes...and you come back with nothing more than condescension. Sport, I've lived in both Florida and Canada. I've lived on the coast and in the mountains. I think I can speak with confidence about differing amounts of water in the air and extrapolate that to how it works with the weather. Calling you and your self-righteous, never-to-be-questioned-by-mere-mortals pseudo-facts isn't me failing the "DemonLord" test and embarassingly exposing a "nonworking knowledge of the very basics of weather patterns"...it's me calling BS.

And, if you like, you can "feel free to feel insulted that I had to point this out". That's a great line BTW. Skip facts, make stuff up, get called on it...and respond with arrogant condescension. Great stuff. Listen, come back with facts (that don't smell suspiciously of originating from yer ass) and I'll be pleased to debate the merits of said facts. Make crap up and call it fact and expect to get told.

I would still preffer more research go into Fusion, since this is also a widely used FT energy source (and only decades away in MT terms, with ITER chugging away; and hell a freshman at the University of Utah built a small fusion reactor in his basement)... And aquiring Deuterium is easy, especially from ocean water.

As for DemonLord...well, I'll do my best to stay civil (and not insulted). I did have a look at the links you provided...all I can say is their inclusion (which pretty much blows your entire "antimatter reactor" pipedream to kingdom come) coupled with the lack of anything supporting the whole "too much water in the air will kill us all" business is a brand new definition of irony.

From CERN (your link):

Congrats. You're now guilty of what you accused us of. You're only looking at the here-now of antimatter and not bothering to look at the possibility for future developments. That is what we call hypocrisy.

Oh, and I'll save the website links for a bit. I want people to see how you dug your arguement's grave before I start tossing the dirt in.

That's great. It fits so nicely with your self-aggrandising combo of:


Pure. Comedic. Gold. Tell you what, this bantering back and forth with you obviously goes nowhere. You claim vastly superior knowledge of weather patterns and antimatter systems when, in fact, your "facts" are rubbish, your self-superior attitude is suffocating and your tedium is well....tedious. I call you on your crap about how increased moisture levels will cause both fatally hot AND cold global climactic changes...and you come back with nothing more than condescension. Sport, I've lived in both Florida and Canada. I've lived on the coast and in the mountains. I think I can speak with confidence about differing amounts of water in the air and extrapolate that to how it works with the weather. Calling you and your self-righteous, never-to-be-questioned-by-mere-mortals pseudo-facts isn't me failing the "DemonLord" test and embarassingly exposing a "nonworking knowledge of the very basics of weather patterns"...it's me calling BS.

It's you calling a scientific fact BS and not bothering to actually support your own arguements with anything resembling facts. Instead of bothering to actually address the arguements, you have chosen to post flamebait with absolutely no support to back it up other than an undeserved attitude of superiority on a subject you have yet to show any real knowledge of.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html

Here, let me quote the relevant part of it:

As the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere increases, the atmosphere is able to hold more water vapor. The additional water vapor, acting as a greenhouse gas, absorbs energy that would otherwise escape to space and so causes further warming.

Read it and weep.

Also, for the fun of it, read this:

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_keigwin.html

I'm not going to post the quotes from that one, so have fun.

And, if you like, you can "feel free to feel insulted that I had to point this out". That's a great line BTW. Skip facts, make stuff up, get called on it...and respond with arrogant condescension. Great stuff. Listen, come back with facts (that don't smell suspiciously of originating from yer ass) and I'll be pleased to debate the merits of said facts. Make crap up and call it fact and expect to get told.

That's funny. I seem to have scientific evidence to back me. Where's yours? Try showing up with some, as what you have is a bunch of crap not supported by actual scientific evidence.

Oh, I sure hope you enjoyed getting your head handed to you.

Let's all just remain calm. This hasn't descended into a flame-war yet, and with a little civilty and courtesy it has no need to.

Ambisexual Pensivity, I can understand why you might feel the need to be a little defensive. I've had the pleasure to read, and occasionally participate in, a number of threads that DemonLordEnigma has posted in. While I'll admit that the tone of most of those posts can be a bit, well, curt, I'd also be the first to point at that the content has always been intelligent and thought-out. If there seem to be small bits that some might see as less than polite, my advice is to ignore them and focus on the heart of the message. Because it's ussually well worth reading.

At the same time, I can sympathise with any frustration you might be feeling. Since I last viewed this thread, you've made several very good points that have served to alter my viewpoint somewhat. Points that may have been overlooked due to emotional considerations.

While the prospect of antimatter certainly seems to possess a great deal of possible potential - (half a kilo, or about one pound, could potentially power the United States for two days.) - It's current state of development seems unlikely to meet that potential anytime soon. (The current energy efficiency of antimatter production is 0.000 000 01 %) This in no way means that antimatter production could not one day be a viable power source however, as evidenced below:

Recently, Gerald A. Smith of Penn State University and others have begun designing "antimatter traps." The antimatter trap Smith designed is a transportable electromagnetic laboratory, roughly equivalent to a 120-pound Thermos bottle, in which to perform experiments with as many as 10 billion antiprotons.
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/physics/public/star-trek.html

Now comes evidence that a platinum-based catalyst can be used to generate hydrogen by reacting sugars and sugar-based compounds with liquid water at 215 °C.
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/020829/020829-4.html

Rather, antimatter as energy production is in the development phase - just like hydrogen. Now, if we have two people, both arguing about researching and implementing new energy sources, why not simply craft a resolution that calls for further research into both?

There would still be reservations, naturally, about legislating an immediete shut-down of a fossil-fuel based industry in favor of the implementation of either of these alternatives, but surely we can agree that the UN can support research into the development of both?

Nah, I've quit messing with DemonLorgEggnog or whatever. His idiocy about "water-in-the-air" equalling global ruination is easily addressed by something called a condenser (sp?)...but why confuse facts and solutions with myths and ego trips, right?

Anyway, in the interim I've done a bit more reading on other threads and I've concluded to my own satisfaction that he's basically a forum troll. I've yet to see a thread that he participated in wherein he hasn't declared himself to be the pinnacle of knowledge on practically any subject and berated anyone who disagrees with him. As elsewhere, I obey the "Do Not Feed Troll" signs when I see them. The good news is that several other delegates I'v spoken with consider his panning an idea to be an indicator that it's worth a second look in a positive fashion. Considering the current amount of support the proposal currently has, it appears they're right.

The proposal isn't about antimatter, it's about hydrogen and it's piling up enough endorsements at this stage to have a shot at making quorum. So I'll leave this thread as is for now. I can understand some folks disagree with it and will decide to pass on endorsing it...and should it make quorum will decide to vote against it. The nice part is that it's not a debate between hydrogen power and some other futuristic tech so, therein, I don't feel the need to debate the merits of a technology that obviously will not become anywhere close to a real "player" for at least another 50 years. Hydrogen is a player now and I think a shift in thinking and policy toward supporting it versus fossil fuels holds its own on every level.

The benefits are manifest and obvious, the previously stated detractions are either minor or so blown out of proportion by a very small minority as to be considered "sour grapes". It is typical for a detractor to focus on the 1% issue to the disregard of the remaining 99%...and the volume for that detractor tends to increase in shrillness as a product of an increasing unlikeliness that the 1% issue even exists...as well as the detractor's own over-inflated self-image as "know-it-all" becomes irrelevant.

In summary, the proposal is a good idea whose benefits far outweigh it's possible negatives and I hope enough delegates actually look at it and see that it's a better, safer, cleaner alternative to fossil fuels...and the economic stability and impetus it imparts don't hurt either.

(BTW, to my knowledge, the US department of Energy has started up an initative to begin developing Hydrogen power as a viable alternative to their current power system. I'll try and find the link again, but you might want to direct people over there, since it's fairly similar to what you're proposing.

True enough. The state of California has a similar initiative, I believe. Going from memory, it has something to do with establishing hydrogen service stations throughout California by some mandated date.

In fact, now that I think on it, I believe the Governator made some kind of faux pas with this issue in regards to a Hummer he owns...or something like that.

Point is, given that California is one of the more environmentally conscious states in the US, the whole "moister-air-will-kill-us-all" shine-ola has probably already been raised and effectively buried as a valid concern. I'd check but that would take energy I don't have or want to expend. :)

The DOE's hydrogen deployment is part of the larger OSTI/DOE research into D2O (Heavy Water) and Deuterium/Tritium extraction loads for deployment of Fusion power throughout this century... It has nothing to do with combustible hydrogen as it's initiative.... Fusion is around the corner for you MT folks, and the absolute cleanest powersource available, since it takes up less land than Hydro-dynamic, wind, and solar power systems, has massive power production capabilities (reaching present Fission levels or greater), and produces 0 toxic or greenhouse emitions that could effect the enviroment, as well as no radiological waste.

That's fine...but this is about hydrogen power, not fusion. Personally, I believe fusion will become a viable source of power...but I doubt it will be a long time (if ever) before it powers an automobile. There must be other sources of clean energy besides fusion. Hydrogen as an alternative to fossil fuels is one of them.

Nah, I've quit messing with DemonLorgEggnog or whatever. His idiocy about "water-in-the-air" equalling global ruination is easily addressed by something called a condenser (sp?)...but why confuse facts and solutions with myths and ego trips, right?

Anyway, in the interim I've done a bit more reading on other threads and I've concluded to my own satisfaction that he's basically a forum troll. I've yet to see a thread that he participated in wherein he hasn't declared himself to be the pinnacle of knowledge on practically any subject and berated anyone who disagrees with him. As elsewhere, I obey the "Do Not Feed Troll" signs when I see them. The good news is that several other delegates I'v spoken with consider his panning an idea to be an indicator that it's worth a second look in a positive fashion. Considering the current amount of support the proposal currently has, it appears they're right.

The proposal isn't about antimatter, it's about hydrogen and it's piling up enough endorsements at this stage to have a shot at making quorum. So I'll leave this thread as is for now. I can understand some folks disagree with it and will decide to pass on endorsing it...and should it make quorum will decide to vote against it. The nice part is that it's not a debate between hydrogen power and some other futuristic tech so, therein, I don't feel the need to debate the merits of a technology that obviously will not become anywhere close to a real "player" for at least another 50 years. Hydrogen is a player now and I think a shift in thinking and policy toward supporting it versus fossil fuels holds its own on every level.

The benefits are manifest and obvious, the previously stated detractions are either minor or so blown out of proportion by a very small minority as to be considered "sour grapes". It is typical for a detractor to focus on the 1% issue to the disregard of the remaining 99%...and the volume for that detractor tends to increase in shrillness as a product of an increasing unlikeliness that the 1% issue even exists...as well as the detractor's own over-inflated self-image as "know-it-all" becomes irrelevant.

In summary, the proposal is a good idea whose benefits far outweigh it's possible negatives and I hope enough delegates actually look at it and see that it's a better, safer, cleaner alternative to fossil fuels...and the economic stability and impetus it imparts don't hurt either.

So rather than be bothered to actually address my arguements, you result to flaming and can't be bothered to post anything to back up your claims? Congrats. You have proven you are incapable of proving your arguement and that any case of someone posting an arguement that points out the holes in yours using science will be ignored by you. As such, I must conclude what you are attempting is unscientific and stand behind my statement that it is too dangerous when one reads the evidence actually posted to risk.

With regards to the danger of excessive moisture in the earths atmosphere, that's sort of a true & false statement.

It's very accurate to say that introducing large quantities of evaporated moisture into the air would have a substantial effect upon the earth's climate and environment. Water is the driving force of the earth's environment: it shapes wind patterns, erodes landforms, controls temperature, and is the foundation of life. If we were to somehow place astronomical amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, all life on earth would be drastically affected. That's indisputable.

However, like I said, there is a 'false' element here as well. The current techniques of creating Hydrogen power do not, and do not have to, vent massive quantities of evaporated H20. It would be quite easy to trap and collect almost all of the water generated by a hypothetical Hydrogen plant. What then, you ask?

Well, greenhouse gas emissions aren't the only environmental problem we're facing today. (Surprising, I know. :eek: ) Coincidentally, we also have a massive problem with the shortage of clean water. Now, I'm not going to insult the intelligence of this body by drawing out a diagram, I'm sure you can all make the logical leap yourselves. But needless to say, what could be a 'problem' with Hydrogen power can quite easily turn into a way to fell two birds with one stone.

With regards to the danger of excessive moisture in the earths atmosphere, that's sort of a true & false statement.

It's very accurate to say that introducing large quantities of evaporated moisture into the air would have a substantial effect upon the earth's climate and environment. Water is the driving force of the earth's environment: it shapes wind patterns, erodes landforms, controls temperature, and is the foundation of life. If we were to somehow place astronomical amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, all life on earth would be drastically affected. That's indisputable.

The problem here is not that you are introducing it, but that you are moving it from areas where it is naturally to other areas and increasing it there.

However, like I said, there is a 'false' element here as well. The current techniques of creating Hydrogen power do not, and do not have to, vent massive quantities of evaporated H20. It would be quite easy to trap and collect almost all of the water generated by a hypothetical Hydrogen plant. What then, you ask?

Well, greenhouse gas emissions aren't the only environmental problem we're facing today. (Surprising, I know. :eek: ) Coincidentally, we also have a massive problem with the shortage of clean water. Now, I'm not going to insult the intelligence of this body by drawing out a diagram, I'm sure you can all make the logical leap yourselves. But needless to say, what could be a 'problem' with Hydrogen power can quite easily turn into a way to fell two birds with one stone.

Actually, it can't without a lot of work. For one thing, you're producing far more drinkable water than the nation using hydrogen would use. You can export this, but no matter how you look at it we still have leftover water to dispose of. The reason this is amounts to a realistic problem: You're not going to give water to a nation you wish to see fall. You can try dumping it back into the oceans, but that is a system and set of transportation relays that will take at least a decade, if not more, to actually set up on enough of a scale to make hydrogen even seem viable. Then there are questions of how this will impact the environment, as you have to work out how the water vapors will spread and if they will be making it back to the oceans in sufficient levels to prevent salination (keep in mind humanity has a problem with using renewable resources in a way that actually keeps them renewable).

And, even after all of that is in place, you have questions of how safe it is to drink that will inevitably be raised. So, you have to find some way to address that as well.

The problems with that idea solve some of the main ones presented, but present their own problems that would require a host of scientists to even begin to guess at the results.

>sigh!< ...and I promised myself I wouldn't feed you.

I've addressed your "arguments". They're bunk. Got that? Bunk.

But, since I know you won't stop with your "I-know-better-than-anyone-else" crap, how about you actually argue with the scientists? C'mon...won't it be fun to tell THOSE idiots that they also don't have the IQ to carry the jockstrap that swings your mighty, self-granted, omniscience to and fro? Surely a giant of your intellectual fantasy-world would be sporting tremendous mental wood after you vanquish those armchair scientists and Nobel Prize winners with your globe-spanning encyclopedic knowledge of "everything-ever-thought-discovered-or-contemplated-by-mortal-man". If that doesn't work, try some slight-of-hand with your antimatter reactor theories...that should do the trick.

Here's the links for you:
This one has the word "facts" in it...that should piss you off (http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/facts/facts.htm)
This one is from the National Academy of Science...the imbeciles! (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/)
Yet another from those dunderheads at the US DOE...the suicidal fools! (http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/)

Once you conquer those wastrels and other undesirables feel free to come back here and I'll give you lots more. These people NEED your guidance before they all destroy my world (not your world...your world will survive because it's imaginery)! They simply CRAVE your stern scientific hand at the tiller DemonLoadEggNog! You might try tossing the terms "bumpkin", "simpleton" and "ignoramus" around as with their shakey scientific foundations for their heretical notions they might be vulnerable to such wily sci-speak trickery.

Have a good time! Don't forget to write...er...actually...never mind that last part.

BTW, in case I forgot to say it: "Bunk"...well that and "buh-bye".

How about a re-working;

A proposal to increase research and funding into extraction and purification techniques for Deuterium Oxide (D2O/Heavy Water), Deuterium, Tritium and Hydrogen from existing water supplies, and further recommended research funding into the deployment of Hydrogen Combustion and Hydrogen-Isotropic Fusion Techniques in Private, Commercial and Governmental transportation and Power-Generation schemes.... With a goal of the complete removal of reliance upon fosil-fuel and fission based power-generation and trasportation schemes over the next 60 years.

You know, that's not a bad idea but the proposal is awfully far along at this point...and Lord knows...I've had to defend this item vigorously on just the hydrogen power issue. I can't imagine the idiocy that would spring from a fusion issue (especially if you juxtaposed it against something obvious like nuclear fission).

If you like, draft it and send it to me in a message. It seems to be more your bailiwick than mine but I'd be happy to offer ideas on it. It sounds like a good idea to me in concept and since it's your idea it ought to carry your name.

You know, that's not a bad idea but the proposal is awfully far along at this point...and Lord knows...I've had to defend this item vigorously on just the hydrogen power issue. I can't imagine the idiocy that would spring from a fusion issue (especially if you juxtaposed it against something obvious like nuclear fission).

If you like, draft it and send it to me in a message. It seems to be more your bailiwick than mine but I'd be happy to offer ideas on it. It sounds like a good idea to me in concept and since it's your idea it ought to carry your name.

Keep it in mind for now, in even the present fails.

And I seriously doubt fusion reactor plants (and possible weapons applications) would be much of a threat against present nuke fission supporters... Most of the previous disparagy has been from the out-right banning of fission with no applicable viable and equivalent replacement strategy... So I seriously doubt there would be much contention against it. Not to mention, it can be hinted that all the U suppliers can use their present profits in U sales to begin the deployment of D2O, Deuterium and Tritium extraction plants to take control of the market before competitors (and turn even better profits).

>sigh!< ...and I promised myself I wouldn't feed you.
I've addressed your "arguments". They're bunk. Got that? Bunk.

1) "Arguement" is spelled correctly in my posts. Try looking the word up on here and stopping at the topic that discusses the variances between US and Brit spelling.

2) Is "bunk" the only word you have for that idea? I seem to recall a lack of you using others.

But, since I know you won't stop with your "I-know-better-than-anyone-else" crap, how about you actually argue with the scientists? C'mon...won't it be fun to tell THOSE idiots that they also don't have the IQ to carry the jockstrap that swings your mighty, self-granted, omniscience to and fro? Surely a giant of your intellectual fantasy-world would be sporting tremendous mental wood after you vanquish those armchair scientists and Nobel Prize winners with your globe-spanning encyclopedic knowledge of "everything-ever-thought-discovered-or-contemplated-by-mortal-man". If that doesn't work, try some slight-of-hand with your antimatter reactor theories...that should do the trick.

Uh huh. Obviously, the work of someone who didn't bother to read the post where I posted my evidence. The fact I had to challenge you twice to post yours says something.

Oh, and try not to accuse others of what you are also guilty of. We tend to get tired of pots talking about the color of kettles.

Here's the links for you:
This one has the word "facts" in it...that should piss you off (http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/facts/facts.htm)

This will annoy you:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7214085

The fire characteristics of hydrogen, methane and gasoline, while different, do not largely favor the preferred use of any one of the three fuels; however, the threat of fuel-air explosions in confined spaces is greatest for hydrogen.

However, that is 1976. So, let's find one more up to date.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6760785

The hydrogen can ignite or even form an explosive mixture with air.

That is about how to treat water-reactive wastes. But maybe you want one where you can review the whole text.

http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/hydrogen.pdf#search='hydrogen%20explosive

Hydrogen is a flammable, colorless, odorless, compressed gas packaged in cylinders at high pressure.

INHALATION: Asphyxiant. It should be noted that before suffocation could occur, the lower flammability limit of hydrogen in air would be exceeded possibly causing both an oxygen-deficient and explosive atmosphere. Exposure to moderate concentrations may cause dizziness, headache, nausea and unconsciousness. Exposure to atmospheres containing 8-10% or less oxygen will quickly bring about unconsciousness without warning leaving individuals unable to protect themselves. Lack of sufficient oxygen may cause serious injury or death.

Hydrogen is easily ignited with low-ignition energy, including static electricity.

You beginning to see a pattern? Maybe you want one from this year.

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r614/r614-004.htm

Moisture reacts with powdered metals and generates hydrogen gas which is highly explosive.

Now, why do they keep calling it explosive? Did you note the places where they said it can kill you?

Also, your site is slightly biased in favor of hydrogen due to its goal being the proliferation of hydrogen fuel cells, but that we can gloss over. And, one of the reports it has seems to try to say it is nontoxic and not likely to explode, yet calls for sensors in all areas that use hydrogen fuel.

Because hydrogen flames are invisible and hydrogen itself has no odor, hydrogen sensors must be employed to detect leaks in cars, stations and anywhere hydrogen is used or stored.

Hmm.

This one is from the National Academy of Science...the imbeciles! (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/)

From your own source:

hydrogen presents unique challenges because of its high diffusivity, its extremely low density as a gas and liquid, and its broad flammability range relative to hydrocarbons and low-molecular-weight alcohols.

However, much of the text is not clear due to it being an uncorrected copy. You'll need a more complete copy in order to actually be able to say that truly supports what you are saying, as it could be going on to totally disprove your arguement in the missing portions.

Yet another from those dunderheads at the US DOE...the suicidal fools! (http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/)

From your own source:

Purging hydrogen systems with an inert gas such as nitrogen is required to avoid the formation of flammable hydrogen/oxygen mixtures

Okay, what have we proven?

1) Hydrogen is explosive or flammable.

2) Hydrogen is dangerous to human life.

3) Most of those are glossing over the potential dangers of water vapor that can be released as a result of this.

Once you conquer those wastrels and other undesirables feel free to come back here and I'll give you lots more. These people NEED your guidance before they all destroy my world (not your world...your world will survive because it's imaginery)! They simply CRAVE your stern scientific hand at the tiller DemonLoadEggNog! You might try tossing the terms "bumpkin", "simpleton" and "ignoramus" around as with their shakey scientific foundations for their heretical notions they might be vulnerable to such wily sci-speak trickery.

Have a good time! Don't forget to write...er...actually...never mind that last part.

BTW, in case I forgot to say it: "Bunk"...well that and "buh-bye".

And yet, you simply cannot resist the hallmark of trolling with your flamebait. Ironically, I've disproven or shot down the majority of your arguement using a combination of your own sources and other government sources. Oops.

So...you've managed to prove that hydrogen is flammable. Congrats. Wanna cookie? Or is that biscuit for you? Oh snap...gasoline is flammable too. Perhaps we ought not use it either, eh? Gimme back the cookie you poser.

Just so you know, I did, in fact, give up reading your long-winded posts. The irony of the whole bias, kettle colors and whatnot is impressive. I'm curious, do they still have those nifty mirror thingys in your world?

Your arguments (I'll spell it how I damn well please, thanks) have been debunked (I notice you've departed you old mainstay "water-is-the-world-killer" to sidle up to your new "hydrogen-burns-you-know---well-it-does") your method is tedious and single-tracked. You argued antimatter toasters (or whatever, I've mercifully forgotten) and got it shoved back...you argued hydrogen burning = water vapor = DEATH TO US ALL, AAIGGH! and gotten it returned to sender (postage and IQ insufficient). Now it's the fact that hydrogen is a flammable material.

Let me introduce that "arguement" (gad that felt all wrong) to a quaint Americanism: "no sh*t". Egad, you buffoon, of course it's flammable! Not much use a fuel if it wasn't. What the hell do they teach in schools over there anyway? Take the same tack and we could all go about merrily poo-poohing gasoline, kerosene, natural gas, oil, and pretty much every other fuel commonly used today.

If this is the best of what you have left, keep going...you're making support for hydrogen look pretty smart. And since you're a great lover of irony, the only thing you've managed to disprove is your claim to have any kind of sense...common or otherwise. As for shooting things, check yourself Jackson...methinks you've sprung a leak. Pulling a single sentence about minor issues out of the entirety of the rest of the article and then claiming...wait, I've already made the 99%-1% observation.

So far, you've refuted zip and gotten your "arguements" (feels like kissing your mom...just wrong) handed back to you in a body bag. The best part is, you're not debating me....you're telling a fair chunk of the scientific establishment they're all wrong. THAT is pure comedic gold.

And I thought ya'll's sense of humor was dry and sublime...silly me.

To recap:

Hydrogen
- made from water via energy or catalytic processes
- burns clean producing water, energy
- no environmental damage through either collection or burning
- water byproduct easily handled via absorption, condensation, collection (pick any) therefore no silly "end-of-the-world" crap
- does indeed burn, hence, it's use as a fuel therefore must be handled properly (like say...gasoline)
- frees world economies from monopoly producers
- new hydrogen production industry = more jobs, increased tax revenues
- trade deficits due to current energy importation ease dramatically
- relevant today...not 50-100 years from now
- mass of science supports implementation and further research (ironically what proposal...uh...proposes)


Your points to date against:
- it produces water vapor which would overwhelm planetary weather to exacerbate greenhouse effect (forgetting it's replacing a much worse greenhouse exacerbator...but let's skip gaily around that, shall we?) to produce either really hot or cold conditions (not sure which, probably both) [handled via condensers and other currently existing tech - status: DISPATCHED]
- it burns, has a low vapor point, and it's really, really bad when breathed in more than normal quantities...uh...kinda like gasoline, alcohol, and other really, really dangerous stuff [managed via responsible handling of material - status: STUPID AND DISPATCHED]
- it's not anti-matter [status IT'S NOT A PUPPY EITHER...WHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING?]

I've addressed you, your detractions and even your inane antimatter fappery...my stance is still solid and backed by echelons of science. Your points have been considered, discussed, disproven and discarded. What more?

Oh...and if you have an issue with "flamebait" then perhaps you ought to keep your pithy comments to yourself. You seem quite comfortable with the flaming as long as it's you doing it. Don't like it? Don't start it.

There's really no need for any of this. You're both reasonably intelligent people, and this is a scientific debate, not a subjective one. You both have different opinions on the subject of power generation, which is not surprising. It’s an area that’s currently being hotly debated topic in many venues. However, it's one in which opinions have no sway, and only facts are relevant.

All you need to do is present the various information and theories that support your claim, and let the information do the talking. If you feel like the other person isn't listening, that's fine. The data speaks for itself, and anyone who comes to look at it can draw their own conclusions. That's really all you can ever ask for.

Any kind of petty bickering simply degrades us all.

Now, to address some of the actual points that have been raised.

Yes, Hydrogen can be combustible with air. The simple definition of combustion is just an exothermic redox reaction between a substance and a gas (which is usually Oxygen, but can be others, such as Chlorine). Most combustion we use today involves the reaction of a substance with the oxygen in the air to produce the heat (which is what we were aiming for - that's how we get the energy) along with the unnecessary byproducts of water, carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide, partially reacted fuel, and carbon. Air (specifically the oxygen in the air) is a necessary part of most energy generation we use today already.

What you've said about Hydrogen being extremely flammable is very true. It has to be really, if the oxidization of Hydrogen was endothermic it would be useless as a fuel source to us. After all, why would Antimatter be such a valuable resource if we could produce it in large enough quantities? Because it's so extremely exothermic. Pure hydrogen does instantaneously combust when combined with oxygen, which makes pure Hydrogen very hazardous. The good news? Pure Hydrogen does not occur naturally on earth. Which means in a power plant, we'd have to create the Pure Hydrogen right there. That means when it's created, it's when we want it to combust.

Also, although fresh drinking water is in very short supply in many countries, what's in even shorter supply is water for agriculture in a wide variety oNow, to address some of the actual points that have been raised.

A problem with Hydrogen power that was raised earlier, and still hasn't been addressed, is the problem of developing nations. (The ones that would need the water, coincidentally.) Not only are they unlikely to have the infrastructure necessary to implement a Hydrogen Power scheme, even if they did, there could be large safety concerns. Now, I'm not saying it would be a danger anywhere nearly equal to Nuclear Power Plants, but the example of Nuclear Power illustrates the points. Developed nations are likely to have the facilities, technology, and trained personal to run one safely, but if a third-world nation were to attempt it, and cut corners, there would be a very real danger of a 'meltdown'-like explosion.f areas. (OoC: For example, Africa is in dire need of water for irrigating crops) In fact, even if all nations were to convert to a solely Hydrogen based power system, we'd probably still need water. It's the single most essential factor in supporting human life, and our population is continually growing.

So...you've managed to prove that hydrogen is flammable. Congrats. Wanna cookie? Or is that biscuit for you? Oh snap...gasoline is flammable too. Perhaps we ought not use it either, eh? Gimme back the cookie you poser.

The arguement I made: Hydrogen is more explosive than gasoline. In this case, it's proven it has a greater tendency to explode in the pure form.

[/quote]Just so you know, I did, in fact, give up reading your long-winded posts. The irony of the whole bias, kettle colors and whatnot is impressive. I'm curious, do they still have those nifty mirror thingys in your world?[/quote]

I'm not the one who started the whole mess of flamebait and flaming and then started accusing the other party of it. In fact, I can prove it with three simple posts. Have you noticed how people are mostly refusing to argue with you? It's not because of agreement.

Your arguments (I'll spell it how I damn well please, thanks) have been debunked (I notice you've departed you old mainstay "water-is-the-world-killer" to sidle up to your new "hydrogen-burns-you-know---well-it-does") your method is tedious and single-tracked. You argued antimatter toasters (or whatever, I've mercifully forgotten) and got it shoved back...you argued hydrogen burning = water vapor = DEATH TO US ALL, AAIGGH! and gotten it returned to sender (postage and IQ insufficient). Now it's the fact that hydrogen is a flammable material.

You never debunked the idea hydrogen will cause environmental damage, as you have repeatedly failed to produce any evidence. I have produced evidence that shows water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and we all know how that enters the atmosphere. You have yet to prove your idea will prevent damage any more than staying with fossil fuels (which have already been phased out of cars by the UN) will.

Let me introduce that "arguement" (gad that felt all wrong) to a quaint Americanism: "no sh*t". Egad, you buffoon, of course it's flammable! Not much use a fuel if it wasn't. What the hell do they teach in schools over there anyway? Take the same tack and we could all go about merrily poo-poohing gasoline, kerosene, natural gas, oil, and pretty much every other fuel commonly used today.

Of course, you are ignoring the post I made ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7699132&postcount=7 ) where I called it flammable. In fact, you ignored that part.

If this is the best of what you have left, keep going...you're making support for hydrogen look pretty smart. And since you're a great lover of irony, the only thing you've managed to disprove is your claim to have any kind of sense...common or otherwise. As for shooting things, check yourself Jackson...methinks you've sprung a leak. Pulling a single sentence about minor issues out of the entirety of the rest of the article and then claiming...wait, I've already made the 99%-1% observation.

Gee, that's weird. I see you once again failed to provide evidence, this time from any sources available through links, to back up what you are saying. Must mean you can't.

And, once again, posting flames. Just one more.

So far, you've refuted zip and gotten your "arguements" (feels like kissing your mom...just wrong) handed back to you in a body bag. The best part is, you're not debating me....you're telling a fair chunk of the scientific establishment they're all wrong. THAT is pure comedic gold.

Little piece of history: The majority of science used to believe giant squids did not exist.

Also, there is this series of articles about scientists who are providing evidence, and their conclusions, that go more for the idea of water vapor beings a big problem:

http://ecdl.fpp.edu/~fdimc/zanimivosti/sci%20week%20zanimivosti/Pojav%20tople%20grede%20izmerjen.txt

Since water-vapor is an important greenhouse gas, changes in the hydrologic cycle can alter the greenhouse effect, in some cases by a positive feedback loop that accelerates changes in both phenomena.

The authors, however, argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases such as chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and N(sub2)O, and not by the products of fossil fuel burning, carbon dioxide, and *aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting.

Now, that's arguements among scientists as to what is fact and what is fiction. I'm just pointing out problems with a suggested solution.

And I thought ya'll's sense of humor was dry and sublime...silly me.

It is. I've been laughing since page two.

To recap:

Hydrogen
- made from water via energy or catalytic processes
- burns clean producing water, energy
- no environmental damage through either collection or burning
- water byproduct easily handled via absorption, condensation, collection (pick any) therefore no silly "end-of-the-world" crap
- does indeed burn, hence, it's use as a fuel therefore must be handled properly (like say...gasoline)
- frees world economies from monopoly producers
- new hydrogen production industry = more jobs, increased tax revenues
- trade deficits due to current energy importation ease dramatically
- relevant today...not 50-100 years from now
- mass of science supports implementation and further research (ironically what proposal...uh...proposes)

No proof it will not cause environmental damage. In fact, the following article from a sight that supports it suggests it may leak:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html

Since the insulation can't be perfect, the hydrogen will gradually evaporate, typically 1.7 percent per day.

There's also this problem, seen argued on frequently online:

"We need better storage systems, more efficient storage systems, and we need a certain infrastructure in order to get started," said Wagner, who teaches courses on renewable energy.

You need to build infrastructure, which is not a fast thing.

Your points to date against:
- it produces water vapor which would overwhelm planetary weather to exacerbate greenhouse effect (forgetting it's replacing a much worse greenhouse exacerbator...but let's skip gaily around that, shall we?) to produce either really hot or cold conditions (not sure which, probably both) [handled via condensers and other currently existing tech - status: DISPATCHED]

Status: Not disproven due to insufficient evidence hydrogen won't leak on a daily basis and that the disposal of the water will actually be effective.

- it burns, has a low vapor point, and it's really, really bad when breathed in more than normal quantities...uh...kinda like gasoline, alcohol, and other really, really dangerous stuff [managed via responsible handling of material - status: STUPID AND DISPATCHED]

Arguement posted: It is more explosive than gasoline. Status: Pretty much proven by evidence.

- it's not anti-matter [status IT'S NOT A PUPPY EITHER...WHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING?]

Try this quote from me:

Nuclear and antimatter are cleaner, more efficient, and the second can actually provide something that can be a secondary power source as waste.

Reality of statement: Offering of something the author feels to be superior to the offered solution in this proposal. Status: Not defeated, but moved away from in arguements.

I've addressed you, your detractions and even your inane antimatter fappery...my stance is still solid and backed by echelons of science. Your points have been considered, discussed, disproven and discarded. What more?

Oh...and if you have an issue with "flamebait" then perhaps you ought to keep your pithy comments to yourself. You seem quite comfortable with the flaming as long as it's you doing it. Don't like it? Don't start it.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7703688&postcount=9

That is when the flaming started. I'll post the comment.

I won't address the patent lunacy of the claim "[h]ydrogen power is about as cloase to clean and safe on the environment as toxic waste". Can't debate those who won't agree to play in the arena of reality.

My post before that comment:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7699132&postcount=7

Status of claim: Disproven by evidence.

There's really no need for any of this. You're both reasonably intelligent people, and this is a scientific debate, not a subjective one. You both have different opinions on the subject of power generation, which is not surprising. It’s an area that’s currently being hotly debated topic in many venues. However, it's one in which opinions have no sway, and only facts are relevant.

All you need to do is present the various information and theories that support your claim, and let the information do the talking. If you feel like the other person isn't listening, that's fine. The data speaks for itself, and anyone who comes to look at it can draw their own conclusions. That's really all you can ever ask for.

Any kind of petty bickering simply degrades us all.

He's been trolling since this post on the first page:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7703688&postcount=9

That was when people turned hostile and he got ignored by the majority of the regulars.

You just don't give up. I clicked on a single link you had in that long, long, long post...and indeed the word water did show up. Too bad it was only in the first 20 lines...and completely ignored in the next 400 or so.

I have no doubt you are possessed of elite Google skills and can find any obscure (and that link was truly obscure) reference you like to support your claims. I'm not going to waste anyone's time with a "link war" with you that even you know you would get buried in. I provide ample and most definitely not exhausted links to buttress my position, you come back with a pieced together piece of 5 year old HTML and go "ta-da" and seriously (I assume you're serious) believe that exonerates the stupidity of saying things like comparing the by-product of hydrogen burning (aka "water") to being as "clean and safe on the environment as toxic waste". Sorry if it offends you but saying crap like that is plainly off the deep end. I just call it as I see it.

You want to keep harping on the water vapor angle...it's been addressed but you ignore it. Fine. I understand that ignoring the answer to your inanity keeps this going for you but...it has been addressed.

You want to run yap about how the tech isn't there for this yet...to that I say "no kidding". What do you think the proposal is for? You want to question leaky tanks...and then segue to a conversation of a scientific concept that isn't even in the same universe as the tech that hydrogen possesses in the here and now. Please. Do you seriously not see the massive flaw in that line of "thought"? You criticize a facet of the concept (which ought not even be in play in the first place) and then whip out anti-matter which, concurrently, can only be produced in the most incredibly minute amounts, which last for billionths of a second, which costs astronomical amounts of money to produce, which cannot currently even be stored reliably because of it's absolute instability...and you whine about "leaky insulation"?!? When I mentioned the "arena of reality" it was meant as a very minor dig...unfortunately you have moved it a lot further away from the minor humor it was intended as.

You may indeed be a "regular" (congrats on that) but that doesn't magically make your arrogant, dismissive manner any more palatable. If you considered my "arena of reality" flamebait (which, it has obviously been revealed to be a lot closer to the truth) how do you feel about "feel free to feel insulted"? I was reigned in for the most part until that bomb. After that, yes, I decided you were an ass and I'm not all that good at denying what sits directly before me. My bad. From this point forward, I repent. Let me start anew.

You feel the point about water vapor hasn't been addressed, I do. And others do as well. You can keep on and on and on about it...but repeating it doesn't make it any more valid. It's been addressed and put to bed. Let's move on.

You feel your point about it's flammable nature hasn't been addressed. Fine. Let me reiterate for the upteenth time: the proposal is to guide, direct and promote the development of new tech. It apparently HAS been addressed by a great many people to a level of safety that is deemed adequate enough for governments to allow hydrogen powered automobiles to drive freely amongst us. While I won't claim to know all (I leave that to others) I have never been made aware of a catastrophic hydrogen disaster involving automobiles. I'll say the word first so it doesn't get said again...let's not mention the Hindenberg okay? I'm talking something recent. If it exists, then it does nothing to disprove the proposal...since the proposal is for the impetus to develop new and better tech to make a hydrogen-based economy a reality. So, flammability isn't an issue either because the safety angle is precisely what the proposal is aimed at.

Now, we've covered water vapor and the fact that it burns. Repetition is the easiest means to education so I'll say it once again...given that this proposal is to spur the development of tech for hydrogen production and energy generation...what other objections do you have with hydrogen in specific? Please, don't mention antimatter, fusion, fission, perpetual motion designs, and millions of hamsters on little wheels hooked to a dynamo. Stick to the subject at hand.

I didn't introduce the proposal as a venue to discuss subjects that the proposal does not address. I know your position on that (that there are, to your mind, better alternatives). If you think so, please produce a proposal of your own touting the obvious benefits of whatever you think is better and give it the venue and spotlight it deserves. It doesn't apply to what I've proposed so my end of discussing it ends here with what I said earlier as my position on why that comparison fails.

So, no more rants about water vapor induced global catastrophe because that's what the proposal is aimed at solving with new tech. No more dire dramatics about leaking tanks leading to armageddon. Once again, the proposal is about encouraging the development of the tech to address things like that.

Perhaps that has been the problem all along. I thought I made clear that the proposal was a technical impetus with an embedded goal. One working with the other. If it's possible you missed that then that goes a ways to explaining what I've been responding to. Anyway, flame off from me. The proposal stays, the support for it continues to accrue and while it may or may not make quorum the childishness that has been my contribution to this thread ends here and now.

With that episode (hopefully) over, maybe we can get back to the proposal. There's still a lot I don't like about it, but it could be improved. I've taken the liberty of assigning values to each sentence to make for easier description.
(a) RECOGNIZING that the current global economy is powered by petroleum, coal and other fossil fuels of finite supply

(b) AND these fuels, when consumed, create pollution that has the effect of degrading the environment and creating by-products that are a hazard to human health

(c.) AND that location of petroleum supplies (in particular) means that some nations, acting in unison, have the ability to hold the rest of the world's economies hostage via embargo

(d) AND that hydrogen is derived from a simple chemical reaction using ordinary water as a source

(e) AND that the burning of hydrogen produces only water as a by-product

(f) AND that hydrogen combustion engines would be designed to be more efficient than existing fossil fuel combustion engines:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1./ The United Nations promote and urge member promotion of development of hydrogen power as a replacement energy source for fossil fuels.

2./ Knowledge and technology for the production of hydrogen as an energy source be freely shared and distributed for adoption by all nations at their determination.

CONCLUSION:
(g) Converting the world's economies from a reliance on a finite supply of inefficient and polluting fossil fuels would create a cleaner, healthier environment and would necessarily curtail the environmental destruction associated with oil drilling, coal mining, etc.

(h) Each nation would have the ability to become energy independent. No nation would be able to hold hostage any other nation over their source of energy. Domestic energy production would be an entirely new industry and create jobs and tax revenues and would reduce trade deficits for current net energy importers.
Let's start with (d). It's misleading. I say scrap it, or change it substantially to say that there are 'promising technologies' possible. Right now, it's not there, so let the resolution reflect that.

(e) is technically correct, but also misleading, as the generation power to make the hydrogen is usually a pollutant as well. It could be phrased to reflect that.

(f) is every researcher's fervent wish, but that doesn't make it so. If it's provable, replace 'would be' with 'are'. If not, scrap it.

1./ is my real sticking point with this. Hydrogen isn't a replacement for fossil fuels, it's a replacement for fossil fuels in mobile engines. Equally important is the static power generation and industrial use. This really needs to be addressed in this proposal by expanding the remit or by reducing the claim.

2./ needs to be expanded as well. Ultimately, this is the heart of the UN's interest in this entire concept - how the information is shared on a global stage. My corporate oligarchs aren't going to want to give this to our anarchist neighbors, and probably vice versa. A clearinghouse or other UN-administered mechanism should be part of this resolution.

(g) With the word "necessarily" included, my objections from [1./] apply again.

(h) is panacea pie-in-the-sky. Doesn't add anything, and reduces my confidence in the author's ability to present his case. After reading much of this thread, that is obviously unfounded. Make the proposal reflect that.

With that episode (hopefully) over, maybe we can get back to the proposal. There's still a lot I don't like about it, but it could be improved. I've taken the liberty of assigning values to each sentence to make for easier description.
(a) RECOGNIZING that the current global economy is powered by petroleum, coal and other fossil fuels of finite supply

(b) AND these fuels, when consumed, create pollution that has the effect of degrading the environment and creating by-products that are a hazard to human health

(c.) AND that location of petroleum supplies (in particular) means that some nations, acting in unison, have the ability to hold the rest of the world's economies hostage via embargo

(d) AND that hydrogen is derived from a simple chemical reaction using ordinary water as a source

(e) AND that the burning of hydrogen produces only water as a by-product

(f) AND that hydrogen combustion engines would be designed to be more efficient than existing fossil fuel combustion engines:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1./ The United Nations promote and urge member promotion of development of hydrogen power as a replacement energy source for fossil fuels.

2./ Knowledge and technology for the production of hydrogen as an energy source be freely shared and distributed for adoption by all nations at their determination.

CONCLUSION:
(g) Converting the world's economies from a reliance on a finite supply of inefficient and polluting fossil fuels would create a cleaner, healthier environment and would necessarily curtail the environmental destruction associated with oil drilling, coal mining, etc.

(h) Each nation would have the ability to become energy independent. No nation would be able to hold hostage any other nation over their source of energy. Domestic energy production would be an entirely new industry and create jobs and tax revenues and would reduce trade deficits for current net energy importers.
Let's start with (d). It's misleading. I say scrap it, or change it substantially to say that there are 'promising technologies' possible. Right now, it's not there, so let the resolution reflect that.

(e) is technically correct, but also misleading, as the generation power to make the hydrogen is usually a pollutant as well. It could be phrased to reflect that.

(f) is every researcher's fervent wish, but that doesn't make it so. If it's provable, replace 'would be' with 'are'. If not, scrap it.

1./ is my real sticking point with this. Hydrogen isn't a replacement for fossil fuels, it's a replacement for fossil fuels in mobile engines. Equally important is the static power generation and industrial use. This really needs to be addressed in this proposal by expanding the remit or by reducing the claim.

2./ needs to be expanded as well. Ultimately, this is the heart of the UN's interest in this entire concept - how the information is shared on a global stage. My corporate oligarchs aren't going to want to give this to our anarchist neighbors, and probably vice versa. A clearinghouse or other UN-administered mechanism should be part of this resolution.

(g) With the word "necessarily" included, my objections from [1./] apply again. Even without it, I can't agree entirely.

(h) is panacea pie-in-the-sky. Doesn't add anything, and reduces my confidence in the author's ability to present his case. After reading much of this thread, that is obviously unfounded. Make the proposal reflect that.


That's my twenty-two cents. Wanna do something with this potentially decent proposal, or argue some more?

Note: I've edited these quote's slightly. I don't think we need to read anything inflammatory more than once.
I clicked on a single link you had in that long, long, long post

I actually read all of those links, and while it did take me some time, I would suggest other people do as well, because there's actually a lot of relevant information there, and personally I believe it could help remove some of the flaws in the proposal and create a smoother draft.

.... comparing the by-product of hydrogen burning (aka "water") to being as "clean and safe on the environment as toxic waste". [...]

[...] the water vapor angle...it's been addressed [...]

It really hasn't been addressed though. it's very easy for people to look at Hydrogen combustion, see only water produced as a byproduct, and then assume that means it has no harmful side effects. It's just water, right?

As I mentioned earlier, water is the driving force behind the world's entire environment. Which means anything that causes even a small change in the Earth's water cycle will have huge ramifications for everything on the planet. We proposed using this water for drinking, and for growing crops in arid areas, but in all honesty, those aren't really solutions so much as they are something to do with the water.

For every two molecules of Hydrogen, we're going to get one molecule of Water. That means we're looking at a 2:1 molar ratio of fuel to byproduct. Now, I've yet to see a figure that would provide a reasonable estimate as to how much hydrogen a nation would need to implement this proposal. Knowing exactly how much excess water we're talking about could really put some perspective on this concern.

[...] antimatter which, concurrently, can only be produced in the most incredibly minute amounts, which last for billionths of a second, which costs astronomical amounts of money to produce, which cannot currently even be stored reliably because of it's absolute instability

It's true that it can only be artificially produced in minute amounts right now, but that's not necessarily relevant. Several of the web sites contained information on research groups who are currently examining the presence of existing antimatter in the universe (which they have found, even in our very own solar system), and ways in which we can attempt to capture it.
Also, the fact that it is difficult to produce right now does not necessarily rule it out as a potential future resource. After all, Hydrogen does not naturally occur in it's pure form anywhere on earth, and there was a time when it took us great effort to produce it as well.

You feel your point about it's flammable nature hasn't been addressed. Fine. [...] the proposal is to guide, direct and promote the development of new tech. It apparently HAS been addressed by a great many people to a level of safety that is deemed adequate enough for governments to allow hydrogen powered automobiles to drive freely amongst us. [...] I have never been made aware of a catastrophic hydrogen disaster involving automobiles.

My only concern is that this proposal does not deal simply with automobiles, but rather with the replacement of all fossil fuels. We currently use oil, gasoline, and natural gas for a myriad of purposes in our daily lives, and I haven't seen any information to date stating that the use of Hydrogen in all these different situations is safe in any regard. Personally, I would currently only encourage use of Hydrogen power in an industrial regard, because that's the only environment our government currently considers capable of handling it safely.

I'll say the word first so it doesn't get said again...let's not mention the Hindenberg okay?

It really doesn't matter whether the Hindenberg crashed in 1937, or in 1997. It's not really relevant to the issue. It's generally understood now that the fire was caused by the use of powdered Aluminum in the paint, and atmospheric electrical activity. If you watch the footage of the crash, you can see fairly easily that it is very uncharacteristic of Hydrogen combustion, and very characteristic of an Aluminum fire. If you want to read about, check out this link, or pick up the May issue of 'Air and Space' for '97, published by the Smithsonian.
http://www.hydrogenus.com/advocate/ad22zepp.htm


So, flammability isn't an issue either because the safety angle is precisely what the proposal is aimed at.

I understand that this proposal is intended to increase research into the area, not to mandate the immediate manufacture of a Hydrogen Power Station on every block. (And a car in every garage! ;)) I still don't think that in itself can dismiss the issue. Perhaps if it wasn't for '1./' (Hey, that does make it easier!) I wouldn't have any concerns, as it would then be a purely research orientated resolution. But as long as that's in there, I have to remain concerned about the safety issue.

Anyway, flame off from me.
I hope so, because this is a fairly important issue, and if we can all manage to keep our heads then there's a chance we might be able to really move it forward. I'd feel a lot more comfortable about that if you hadn't insisted on those last little digs though.

Ambisexual, when you are ready to address my arguements with the willingness to actually provide proof that has not already been disputed and a willingness to actually prove your claims about what I posted instead of making wild, and totally unsupported claims, let me know. Until then, all I can see of your post is someone trying to cover the fact he cannot support his arguement and must rely entirely upon attacking the opposition. Also, it would help if you bothered to read the posts to see exactly what it was I was saying instead of just putting words into my mouth.

Until then, your arguement is not supported enough to be valid and, as such, I must consider it disproven.

Ha! Found your other computer!

I am amazed. The two, so similar. Like looking at DLE then and DLE now. Exact same patterns. No wonder he annoys.

More than halfway to quorum with much of the day left to go.

I promised I would not flame so, despite your tone and oblivious nature Eggnog, I will refrain. I will merely make two points then excuse myself from your presence as it wears on me.

Point 1: It is indeed fortunate that I do not derive the value of my points nor seek validation for them from you. You argue against promotion of an idea to make a decent idea better, safer and more affordable. That in itself allows me to dismiss your vitriole disguised as debate.

Point 2: With the amount of support this proposal has received it will one day, if not later today, go from proposal to resolution. Your voice, no matter how much importance you attach to it, is but one among thousands. In other words, unless you deem yourself the most perceptive intelligent person about, others who may be more perceptive and intelligent find this proposal favorable enough to vote for it.

More than halfway to quorum with much of the day left to go.
If it doesn't make it this time, I hope you'll address the points I raised in post 45 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7718454&postcount=45) above before resubmitting. There's nothing wrong with your intent, I just have problems with the presentation.

I read #45. Can't say I agree on every point but there is enough convergence to merit a closer re-write of the proposal on some points if it fails to reach quorum this time.

The challenge is writing the proposal in such a fashion as to get the main ideas across but to do it in as succinct yet precise fashion as possible. Yes, the proposal could be more detailed but every extra detail adds length and excessive length drives the casual reader away.

That and this was my second attempt at a proposal. :)

BTW: thanks for the constructive criticism

More than halfway to quorum with much of the day left to go.

I promised I would not flame so, despite your tone and oblivious nature Eggnog, I will refrain. I will merely make two points then excuse myself from your presence as it wears on me.

Point 1: It is indeed fortunate that I do not derive the value of my points nor seek validation for them from you. You argue against promotion of an idea to make a decent idea better, safer and more affordable. That in itself allows me to dismiss your vitriole disguised as debate.

Point 2: With the amount of support this proposal has received it will one day, if not later today, go from proposal to resolution. Your voice, no matter how much importance you attach to it, is but one among thousands. In other words, unless you deem yourself the most perceptive intelligent person about, others who may be more perceptive and intelligent find this proposal favorable enough to vote for it.

Innitiating test of statement validity.

Statement to be tested: I promised I would not flame so, despite your tone and oblivious nature Eggnog, I will refrain.

Statement validity test by evidence examination.

Evidence 1: I promised I would not flame so, despite your tone and oblivious nature Eggnog, I will refrain.

Evidence 2: That in itself allows me to dismiss your vitriole disguised as debate.

Evidence 3: others who may be more perceptive and intelligent find this proposal favorable enough to vote for it.

Examination of history of test subject,

Evidence 1: I won't address the patent lunacy of the claim "[h]ydrogen power is about as cloase to clean and safe on the environment as toxic waste". Can't debate those who won't agree to play in the arena of reality.

Evidence 2: What is it about the concept of "promotion" and "incentive" that some cannot seem to grasp? Antimatter reactors? Um...as soon as you beam back up, let me know when you've successfully tested your first Jeffries Tube. Love the "timelines-as-scientific-fact" angle too.

Evidence 3: But to continue to ramble about "[i]ntroducing levels of moisture into an area in amounts equal to at least twice that native in the area, with the norm being around ten times" which is, clearly, a product of wishfully pulling bogus stats out of one's backside isn't productive...but it is comedy gold. I love the part where the vast amounts of increased moisture (remarkable since water destroyed = water created, therefore no net new water) account for both increases AND decreases in temperature. Forget the fact that 70% of the planet's surface is covered by water and that the planet has happily been dealing with airborne water (read "fog", "rain", "snow", etc...) for a few billion years. No....THIS will cause ruination to mankind. Good lord.

Evidence 4: Pure. Comedic. Gold. Tell you what, this bantering back and forth with you obviously goes nowhere. You claim vastly superior knowledge of weather patterns and antimatter systems when, in fact, your "facts" are rubbish, your self-superior attitude is suffocating and your tedium is well....tedious. I call you on your crap about how increased moisture levels will cause both fatally hot AND cold global climactic changes...and you come back with nothing more than condescension. Sport, I've lived in both Florida and Canada. I've lived on the coast and in the mountains. I think I can speak with confidence about differing amounts of water in the air and extrapolate that to how it works with the weather. Calling you and your self-righteous, never-to-be-questioned-by-mere-mortals pseudo-facts isn't me failing the "DemonLord" test and embarassingly exposing a "nonworking knowledge of the very basics of weather patterns"...it's me calling BS.

Evidence 5: And, if you like, you can "feel free to feel insulted that I had to point this out". That's a great line BTW. Skip facts, make stuff up, get called on it...and respond with arrogant condescension. Great stuff. Listen, come back with facts (that don't smell suspiciously of originating from yer ass) and I'll be pleased to debate the merits of said facts. Make crap up and call it fact and expect to get told.

Evidence 6: Nah, I've quit messing with DemonLorgEggnog or whatever. His idiocy about "water-in-the-air" equalling global ruination is easily addressed by something called a condenser (sp?)...but why confuse facts and solutions with myths and ego trips, right?

Evidence 7: Anyway, in the interim I've done a bit more reading on other threads and I've concluded to my own satisfaction that he's basically a forum troll. I've yet to see a thread that he participated in wherein he hasn't declared himself to be the pinnacle of knowledge on practically any subject and berated anyone who disagrees with him. As elsewhere, I obey the "Do Not Feed Troll" signs when I see them.

Evidence 8: The benefits are manifest and obvious, the previously stated detractions are either minor or so blown out of proportion by a very small minority as to be considered "sour grapes". It is typical for a detractor to focus on the 1% issue to the disregard of the remaining 99%...and the volume for that detractor tends to increase in shrillness as a product of an increasing unlikeliness that the 1% issue even exists...as well as the detractor's own over-inflated self-image as "know-it-all" becomes irrelevant.

Evidence 9: But, since I know you won't stop with your "I-know-better-than-anyone-else" crap, how about you actually argue with the scientists? C'mon...won't it be fun to tell THOSE idiots that they also don't have the IQ to carry the jockstrap that swings your mighty, self-granted, omniscience to and fro? Surely a giant of your intellectual fantasy-world would be sporting tremendous mental wood after you vanquish those armchair scientists and Nobel Prize winners with your globe-spanning encyclopedic knowledge of "everything-ever-thought-discovered-or-contemplated-by-mortal-man". If that doesn't work, try some slight-of-hand with your antimatter reactor theories...that should do the trick.

Evidence 10: Once you conquer those wastrels and other undesirables feel free to come back here and I'll give you lots more. These people NEED your guidance before they all destroy my world (not your world...your world will survive because it's imaginery)! They simply CRAVE your stern scientific hand at the tiller DemonLoadEggNog! You might try tossing the terms "bumpkin", "simpleton" and "ignoramus" around as with their shakey scientific foundations for their heretical notions they might be vulnerable to such wily sci-speak trickery.

Evidence 11: Just so you know, I did, in fact, give up reading your long-winded posts. The irony of the whole bias, kettle colors and whatnot is impressive. I'm curious, do they still have those nifty mirror thingys in your world?

Evidence 12: Egad, you buffoon, of course it's flammable!

Evidence 13: If this is the best of what you have left, keep going...you're making support for hydrogen look pretty smart. And since you're a great lover of irony, the only thing you've managed to disprove is your claim to have any kind of sense...common or otherwise.

Evidence 14: [managed via responsible handling of material - status: STUPID AND DISPATCHED]

Evidence 15: I've addressed you, your detractions and even your inane antimatter fappery...my stance is still solid and backed by echelons of science.

Evidence 16: Oh...and if you have an issue with "flamebait" then perhaps you ought to keep your pithy comments to yourself. You seem quite comfortable with the flaming as long as it's you doing it. Don't like it? Don't start it.

Conclusion

Troll. Do not feed, isolate, and report to mods immediately.

Edit

Type

NestroEmichae Model 1. Created by mixing following types.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame2.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame45.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame57.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame34.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame16.html

babble
Aren't you DemonLordEnigma'sLittleAnnoyingCousin or something? Posting this once in Moderation was enough ... possibly even too much.

Move on, please.

EDIT: Actually, this last twist has me really unsure whether I want to do this. Very uncool move....unexpected but not remotely cool in the least. I didn't much care for a lot of what I read but it never crossed my mind to run off and "tattle". Man up...if there's a next time.

The proposal fails, it may come back but probably not. If anyone read what i said before the edit...please disregard.

I see I need to have a talk with someone about nettiquette again. That is part of why I don't want her on here.

Ambisexual- The only way a proposal can pass is if it reaches the final day with at least 100 endorsements. Don't ask me why that is, but that is simply the pattern. Reword it a bit, prepare an arguement for when others try the same as has been tried on here that relies a bit less on insults, and try a telegramming campaign.

Before you submit, spend a couple days TGing people to see who will support it that hasn't yet and resubmit it. Try hitting the regional delegates of the newbie regions to see if they know of anyone who would support it that hasn't. You have two styles to choose from on here, but Mik's is the one that requires the least organization and doesn't require an actual group involved, so his may be your best bet in most cases.

Edit:

To be honest, it takes a bit to get me to turn a person in, depending on what they are doing and my mood. I doubt you'll see me bother to turn someone in for one post unless it is the most offensive stuff I have ever read, and that'll take a lot of effort to write on their part. Then again, I'm not unknown for turning myself in as well. The mods won't be looking at just one side when they start checking the posts on this one.

But to continue to ramble about "ntroducing levels of moisture into an area in amounts equal to at least twice that native in the area, with the norm being around ten times" which is, clearly, a product of wishfully pulling bogus stats out of one's backside isn't productive...but it is comedy gold. I love the part where the vast amounts of increased moisture (remarkable since water destroyed = water created, therefore no net new water) account for both increases AND decreases in temperature. Forget the fact that 70% of the planet's surface is covered by water and that the planet has happily been dealing with airborne water (read "fog", "rain", "snow", etc...) for a few billion years. No....THIS will cause ruination to mankind. Good lord.

Evidence 4: Pure. Comedic. Gold. Tell you what, this bantering back and forth with you obviously goes nowhere. You claim vastly superior knowledge of weather patterns and antimatter systems when, in fact, your "facts" are rubbish, your self-superior attitude is suffocating and your tedium is well....tedious. I call you on your crap about how increased moisture levels will cause both fatally hot AND cold global climactic changes...and you come back with nothing more than condescension. Sport, I've lived in both Florida and Canada. I've lived on the coast and in the mountains. I think I can speak with confidence about differing amounts of water in the air and extrapolate that to how it works with the weather. Calling you and your self-righteous, never-to-be-questioned-by-mere-mortals pseudo-facts isn't me failing the "DemonLord" test and embarassingly exposing a "nonworking knowledge of the very basics of weather patterns"...it's me calling BS.

Evidence 6: Nah, I've quit messing with DemonLorgEggnog or whatever. His idiocy about "water-in-the-air" equalling global ruination is easily addressed by something called a condenser (sp?)...but why confuse facts and solutions with myths and ego trips, right?

Evidence 8: The benefits are manifest and obvious, the previously stated detractions are either minor or so blown out of proportion by a very small minority as to be considered "sour grapes". It is typical for a detractor to focus on the 1% issue to the disregard of the remaining 99%...and the volume for that detractor tends to increase in shrillness as a product of an increasing unlikeliness that the 1% issue even exists...as well as the detractor's own over-inflated self-image as "know-it-all" becomes irrelevant.

Evidence 12: Egad, you buffoon, of course it's flammable!

Evidence 13: If this is the best of what you have left, keep going...you're making support for hydrogen look pretty smart. And since you're a great lover of irony, the only thing you've managed to disprove is your claim to have any kind of sense...common or otherwise.

Evidence 14: [managed via responsible handling of material - status: STUPID AND DISPATCHED]

Despite their relative scarcity, the so-called greenhouse gases play an important role in the regulation of the Earth's energy balance. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap infrared heat energy trying to escape back to space. In doing so they raise the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface in contact with it. This warming process is called the natural greenhouse effect, but during the last 200 years, mankind's pollution of the atmosphere with extra greenhouse gases has enhanced this natural greenhouse effect that may be contributing to global warming.

Greenhouse gases include any gas in the atmosphere that is capable, as a result of its particular molecular structure, of absorbing infrared radiation or heat. They are called greenhouse gases because they behave like glass in a greenhouse gas, allowing sunlight to pass through but trapping the heat formed and preventing it from escaping, thereby causing a rise in temperature. Natural greenhouse gases include water vapour or moisture, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and even ozone, which is more commonly associated with the ozone layer and ultraviolet radiation.

Water vapour, the most abundant and influential greenhouse, will also increase with global warming, as warmer temperatures would cause more evaporation and increase the atmosphere's ability to hold moisture.

This, in turn, increases the rate of increasing temperature and increased evaporation. Until freshwater changes composition of the ocean, and an ice age occurs.

However, the Capacity to hold moisture is not linear with the amount of Natural Evaporation that will occur with increased temperatures resulting from increased carbon dioxide levels. Alternatively, capacity will be greater than the supply.

Effect of moisture producing Hydrogen Fueled Vehicles. As capacity has increased, but the natural source of moisture is not sufficient to meet that capacity (a natural buffer so to speak), the cycle will not proceed at maximum efficiency. Enter the fuel cell driven car. A device that will emit a new source of water vapour independant of the current water supply, into an atmosphere with the capacity to contain it. This will increase temperature change at a rate greater than carbon dioxide.

In either event, water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The effects of unnaturally increasing its amount are worse, and experienced faster, than carbon dioxide.

OOC: Citations ommitted, so as to maintain some sense of this still being a game.

I like the idea of hydro power and it is true that the world would be better off if we united in this effort. North Island will support this resolution, it's the only thing we can do to save our nations and the world from further destuction and pollution. I am FOR.

I like the idea of hydro power
Just to clarify, this proposal is about Hydrogen power.

Hydro power typically refers to hydro-electric power generation, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this proposal.

I noted the proposal did not pass into a vote as a resolution which meant it failed.

Is there any way to get a final count of the support votes and a listing of who did vote for it? I'm considering re-introducing it with better, more precise wording...and I'd like to thank those who did take the time to support it the first time.

Is there any way to get a final count of the support votes and a listing of who did vote for it?
Unless some supporter grabbed a copy, nope. You should always grab the latest version before you head to bed on the final day, as the game engine doesn't preserve that info. Sorry.

Unless some supporter grabbed a copy, nope. You should always grab the latest version before you head to bed on the final day, as the game engine doesn't preserve that info. Sorry.

:(

Damn, I *almost* grabbed a copy for my own evil purposes when I noticed that the proposal was about 40 endorsements shy of reaching qurorum last night.