NationStates Jolt Archive

Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (# 18)
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing
Proposed by: Kibombwe

Description: We, the people of Kibombwe, propose that every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars. We have polluted the air for too long -- it needs to stop. By passing this resolution we will be able to accompish these three things.

1. Less acid rain. Acid rain a problem that we feel should be stopped. It is especially a problem in the Northeast corner of the U.S.A. The Northeast is a place rich in historical buildings which acid rain damages. We passed a "PROTECT HISTORICAL SITES." This would only furthermore protect historical sites.

2. We wouldn't have to use as much oil. Oil is a nonrenewable resource that we only have so much of. By passing this resolution we would only prolong the time that we have oil on earth.

3. We would have cleaner air. Does anyone remember the days when "fresh air" was actually fresh? When it was a pure thing, without chemicals and other junk mixing in the air. With cleaner air, everyone would live longer, happier lives.

I hope that anyone and everyone who reads this agrees with us. PLEASE MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE!!!

Repealment:
This proposal, #18, needs to be repealed for the fact that it is written with little scientific knowledge behind it.

1. Hydrogen powered vehicles would, yes, reduce acid rain, but the problem is that in order to make hydrogen, you need a sometimes inpractical amount of energy. If this energy was drawn from fossil fuels, acid rain would actually get worse as we make more hydrogen.

2. "We wouldn't have to use as much oil." Considering the point above, energy required to get hydrogen is drawn from either fossil fuels, or unfeasible amounts of other energy sources. Also, the amount of water required to feed a large car economy is somewhere in the trillions of tons, maybe more.

3. There would not be as much clean air as the proposal describes, since mentioned already, the energy to get hydrogen.

Also, to store enough hydrogen for cars to run sufficiently takes much too much space.

The resources spent that would otherwise be wasted on hydrogen vehicles could be used to develop better sources of renewable energy.

What do you think of it?

Will vote against the repeal attempt.

What about using biofuels as an alternative? I know they're currently used to reduce emissions in cars, but I'm trying to research whether biofuels by themselves are an alternative option at present ...
That said, I support the use of alternative fuels because there simply isn't enough oil.

Repealment:
This proposal, #18, needs to be repealed for the fact that it is written with little scientific knowledge behind it.

It's not likely to be repealed. The UN likes it and I no longer use cars.

1. Hydrogen powered vehicles would, yes, reduce acid rain, but the problem is that in order to make hydrogen, you need a sometimes inpractical amount of energy. If this energy was drawn from fossil fuels, acid rain would actually get worse as we make more hydrogen.

Key word: If. If we don't, then that arguement really doesn't have much of an application.

2. "We wouldn't have to use as much oil." Considering the point above, energy required to get hydrogen is drawn from either fossil fuels, or unfeasible amounts of other energy sources. Also, the amount of water required to feed a large car economy is somewhere in the trillions of tons, maybe more.

Once again, depending on an "if." And while a lot of water is needed, do you think Earth is unable to provide? Of course, there will ecological damage, but that's a different type.

3. There would not be as much clean air as the proposal describes, since mentioned already, the energy to get hydrogen.

If fossil fuels are used for extracting the hydrogen.

Also, to store enough hydrogen for cars to run sufficiently takes much too much space.

How much space is too much? Equal to my little finger? Equal to the mass of your average gas giant?

The resources spent that would otherwise be wasted on hydrogen vehicles could be used to develop better sources of renewable energy.

Assuming they would be used for that.

What do you think of it?

It relies too heavily on an "if" and doesn't provide much in the way of an arguement that hasn't mostly been dealt with before. The one new item (relatively, of course) makes a claim but doesn't bother to back it up with figures. So, despite my opposition to this resolution, I cannot support this repeal.

Repealment:
This proposal, #18, needs to be repealed for the fact that it is written with little scientific knowledge behind it.

1. Hydrogen powered vehicles would, yes, reduce acid rain, but the problem is that in order to make hydrogen, you need a sometimes inpractical amount of energy. If this energy was drawn from fossil fuels, acid rain would actually get worse as we make more hydrogen.

2. "We wouldn't have to use as much oil." Considering the point above, energy required to get hydrogen is drawn from either fossil fuels, or unfeasible amounts of other energy sources. Also, the amount of water required to feed a large car economy is somewhere in the trillions of tons, maybe more.

3. There would not be as much clean air as the proposal describes, since mentioned already, the energy to get hydrogen.

Also, to store enough hydrogen for cars to run sufficiently takes much too much space.

The resources spent that would otherwise be wasted on hydrogen vehicles could be used to develop better sources of renewable energy.

What do you think of it?

I would have to agree with SNR on this matter. The fact is, alot of non-futuristic nations cannot meet alot of requirements that would be needed in order to produce the amount of hydrogen needed to power a nation's vehicle supply. The best way to produce hydrogen would be using nuclear fuel supplies, that in itself is a risky business. What we need to do is focus on creating fuels less harmful to the environment and that are renewable such as bio-diesel gasses. We need to work on gigantic reductions in fuel needs for automobiles and other miscellaneous machinery.

Also, if we were to switch to a total hydrogen powered economy, we would actually speed up the process of global warming. Hydrogen produces water vapor exhaust, in which floats into the atmosphere, creating greater cloud cover that will increase the amount of heat retained in our atmosphere.

Right now, hydrogen is not a good idea.

Alright, this is the constant mistake of every new nation.

You don't have to repeal legislation to add something else.

If you want to add ethanol cars, biofuels, solar cars, whatever - propose it. There is no reason to repeal functional legislation of this sort.

Repealment:
This proposal, #18, needs to be repealed for the fact that it is written with little scientific knowledge behind it.

1. Hydrogen powered vehicles would, yes, reduce acid rain, but the problem is that in order to make hydrogen, you need a sometimes inpractical amount of energy. If this energy was drawn from fossil fuels, acid rain would actually get worse as we make more hydrogen.

2. "We wouldn't have to use as much oil." Considering the point above, energy required to get hydrogen is drawn from either fossil fuels, or unfeasible amounts of other energy sources. Also, the amount of water required to feed a large car economy is somewhere in the trillions of tons, maybe more.

3. There would not be as much clean air as the proposal describes, since mentioned already, the energy to get hydrogen.

Also, to store enough hydrogen for cars to run sufficiently takes much too much space.

The resources spent that would otherwise be wasted on hydrogen vehicles could be used to develop better sources of renewable energy.

What do you think of it?

NR.1. Can you confirm this?
NR.2. Well if that is what needs to be done then I say go for it. Think of the future.
NR.3. Hydrogen is totally clean and can be made in a clean way.

Like gas stations today we would build the hydro stations with underground sotrage bunkers.

What other clean energy resources do you have in mind?

I think there is nothing wrong with the Hydro Act that passed.

I think the previous Hydro resolution is more than adequate. I was going to suggest a resolution promoting alternative fuels but there already is one - #39.

I would have to agree with SNR on this matter. The fact is, alot of non-futuristic nations cannot meet alot of requirements that would be needed in order to produce the amount of hydrogen needed to power a nation's vehicle supply.

Actually, you only need be post-modern at the most advanced to be able to do this in the necessary amounts.

The best way to produce hydrogen would be using nuclear fuel supplies, that in itself is a risky business.

Most of the danger is human stupidity and carelessness. If people kept them up to date and did not occasionally slack off, you wouldn't have them melting down on you.

What we need to do is focus on creating fuels less harmful to the environment and that are renewable such as bio-diesel gasses. We need to work on gigantic reductions in fuel needs for automobiles and other miscellaneous machinery.

How are you going to do that? Uranium power cells?

Also, if we were to switch to a total hydrogen powered economy, we would actually speed up the process of global warming. Hydrogen produces water vapor exhaust, in which floats into the atmosphere, creating greater cloud cover that will increase the amount of heat retained in our atmosphere.

That arguement has already been presented for this one and, no matter how many times it is used, it cannot seem to shoot down this resolution. It did help shoot down a proposal related to hydrogen. But, that is still an arguement that has been gone over and which has failed.

Right now, hydrogen is not a good idea.

Nor are a lot of things around today.

Also, if we were to switch to a total hydrogen powered economy, we would actually speed up the process of global warming. Hydrogen produces water vapor exhaust, in which floats into the atmosphere, creating greater cloud cover that will increase the amount of heat retained in our atmosphere.

Not nessecarily, the increased cloud cover could actually result in decreased tempatures due to the clouds blocking out the sun.