NationStates Jolt Archive

We, the Infinitely Blissful Land of Ateelatay, have submitted a proposal: Council to End Fossil Fuel Use.
Here it is:

SUBMITTING: that the best way to achieve fossil fuel independence is through the use of viable alternative fuels and increased energy efficiency, as well as through energy conservation programs.

DEFINING: viable alternatives to fossil fuels as those that are renewable and that do little or no long-term damage to the environment.

DEFINING: long-term energy sustainability as the indefinite use of energy sources without damaging the ability of future generations to produce enough energy for their needs.

NOTING: that though many nations view nuclear fission as a good alternative fuel source, it shall not be considered for use by the Council because of some nations' concerns that releasing secrets about nuclear power will lead to its use for weaponry.

NOTING: that though many alternatives to fossil fuel may be good options when projects are small in scale, they may not be good options when projects are too large in scale (i.e. industrial-scale hydro-electric) or too harmful to the environment.

NOTING: that the long-term energy sustainability of all nations far outweighs the need of companies to produce profit at the exclusion of other countries.

BE IT ENACTED: that the UN hereby agrees to set up the Council to End Fossil Fuel Use (Hereafter referred to as "Council").

ARTICLE I

Section A: No UN nation will be forced to join the Council.

Section B: Any UN nation may opt-into the Council at any time.

Section C: To opt-in, a nation must sign a document agreeing to work with all members of the Council to help achieve global energy sustainability. Furthermore, they must agree to divulge to all other members of the Council, all their most advanced information about using viable alternative energy sources to fossil fuel as well as information on improving energy efficiency and promoting energy conservation.

Section D: Once part of the Council, to opt-out, a nation must first have divulged the information discussed in Section C. Refusal to do so will result in the UN granting the ability to Alliance member nations to place energy embargos on the offending nation until the information is divulged.

Section E: Council member nations may send, as their delegation to the Alliance: diplomatic attaches and non-government affiliated scientists and professionals working in the field of energy.

Section F: The Council will not consider using nuclear fission power plants, industrial-scale hydro-electric power plants, or similar-scale power plants that are detrimental to the environment. The Council does NOT, however condemn their use by any nation.

ARTICLE II

Section A: Once the Council reaches a quorum of 10 member nations, its first task shall be to set a realistic time frame for all Council member nations to cease using fossil fuels as an energy source.

Section B: The Council shall work together to assess the best combination of viable alternative fuel sources and the use of increased power efficiency and conservation for each member nation, based on cost and local availability of these fuel sources.

Section C: The Council shall work together to implement these power generators and efficiency and conservation policies in all member nations.

Section D: If member nations are trying to meet the goal, but are having trouble, the other alliance members will discuss the best way to help the nation and then do it, through monetary means or other means that they agree upon.


So, questions, comments, concerns? Let's hear em' all!

SUBMITTING: that the best way to achieve fossil fuel independence is through the use of viable alternative fuels and increased energy efficiency, as well as through energy conservation programs.

DEFINING: viable alternatives to fossil fuels as those that are renewable and that do little or no long-term damage to the environment.

DEFINING: long-term energy sustainability as the indefinite use of energy sources without damaging the ability of future generations to produce enough energy for their needs.

These are questionable. I am curious as to where you will get such a fuel without using a method that damages the environment in some method. Most solutions to the problem require materials that do equal or increased damage as gasoline.

NOTING: that though many nations view nuclear fission as a good alternative fuel source, it shall not be considered for use by the Council because of some nations' concerns that releasing secrets about nuclear power will lead to its use for weaponry.

Which does more damage in the long term if used. Gasoline polution doesn't stick around for hundreds or thousands of years.

NOTING: that though many alternatives to fossil fuel may be good options when projects are small in scale, they may not be good options when projects are too large in scale (i.e. industrial-scale hydro-electric) or too harmful to the environment.

The i.e. section applies to both. Do some research and find the earlier threads on the subject. I suggest you then read them. On one, you'll find an interesting assessment of how much damage hydrogen can do to the environment, based entirely off of scientific evidence gathered over the years. Even the basics makes gasoline look clean.

NOTING: that the long-term energy sustainability of all nations far outweighs the need of companies to produce profit at the exclusion of other countries.

Hmm. Not all nations would agree with this, depending on how they are run. But, this could be a good point.

BE IT ENACTED: that the UN hereby agrees to set up the Council to End Fossil Fuel Use (Hereafter referred to as "Council").

Unfortunately, some members seem to have a dislike of councils and committees.

ARTICLE I

Section A: No UN nation will be forced to join the Council.

Section B: Any UN nation may opt-into the Council at any time.

Section C: To opt-in, a nation must sign a document agreeing to work with all members of the Council to help achieve global energy sustainability. Furthermore, they must agree to divulge to all other members of the Council, all their most advanced information about using viable alternative energy sources to fossil fuel as well as information on improving energy efficiency and promoting energy conservation.

This sounds like a roleplayed council. If so, it is illegal. Ignore the TPP, as the rules under which it was legal no longer apply.

Section D: Once part of the Council, to opt-out, a nation must first have divulged the information discussed in Section C. Refusal to do so will result in the UN granting the ability to Alliance member nations to place energy embargos on the offending nation until the information is divulged.

If they are opting out, I seriously doubt you will be able to convince them using energy embargos. That almost sounds like you will be striking their main energy production centers, which could be costly.

Section E: Council member nations may send, as their delegation to the Alliance: diplomatic attaches and non-government affiliated scientists and professionals working in the field of energy.

Section F: The Council will not consider using nuclear fission power plants, industrial-scale hydro-electric power plants, or similar-scale power plants that are detrimental to the environment. The Council does NOT, however condemn their use by any nation.

Actually, you should consider fission power plants. If you advance the technology in that field, you may find a use for the byproduct that makes it a viable energy source with little actual waste. Also, look into fusion plants, as they could be useful. And, don't be afraid of genetic engineering for this area, as you may be surprised what lifeforms can do.

ARTICLE II

Section A: Once the Council reaches a quorum of 10 member nations, its first task shall be to set a realistic time frame for all Council member nations to cease using fossil fuels as an energy source.

Section B: The Council shall work together to assess the best combination of viable alternative fuel sources and the use of increased power efficiency and conservation for each member nation, based on cost and local availability of these fuel sources.

Section C: The Council shall work together to implement these power generators and efficiency and conservation policies in all member nations.

Section D: If member nations are trying to meet the goal, but are having trouble, the other alliance members will discuss the best way to help the nation and then do it, through monetary means or other means that they agree upon.

All of this seems good.

So, questions, comments, concerns? Let's hear em' all!

In addition to the comments above, I noticed a lack of rules about technology level. You might want to include those. Otherwise, you get a very advanced nation simply sending you blueprints and then jaunting off into the stars to do other things, which ruins the entirety of what you are attempting to do.

No more fossil fuel? What are we going to do with our old peole now?

This Proposal is probably ILLEGAL.

As I understand the rules, proposals must do more than just creating a committee (or council, same thing). They can set laws and then create the committee to enforce those laws, but just a committee isn't allowed.

Also, as was pointed out, this is worded in a way that it sounds like you're role-playing it. Committees have to be staffed by these magical people who pop out of thin air for the sole purpose of running your committee.

I suggest you revise this heavily before submitting it to avoid getting it deleted.

DEFINING Viable Alternative Energy sources as sources that are enviro friendly (as per the original definition) and are capable of meeting the energy requirements that are met by the energy sources they replace and are energy efficient (meaning that we are not using more energy producing them than we do consuming them)

With this thought in mind, I have just eliminated hydrogen cells, ethanol, and pretty much every other supposed replacement for transportation, so I guess we're talking power production.

When it comes to power production, hydro may take a chunk out of your requirements, but you need this crucial item to actually get hydro power: hilly or mountainous terrain. Further, Hydro is limited in its locations so it opportunities for expansion is smaller and there is some form of environmental damage that may or may not meet the criteria you've stated.

Wind is simply not capable of meeting power needs. It helps, but it doesn't do nearly enough.

Pretty much, you are stuck with Fission, Fusion, FT, and Solar.

Solar has questionable power production, has concerns regarding power independance of a nation, has concerns about developement process pollution and already has a resolution in quarom that intends to push its use. Again, it helps, but it isn't a one-time solution.

Fission is an icky subject.... Most are just plain not comfortable with it. Additionally, any radioactive waste is just fun to get rid of

Fusion and FT Power sources are just not obtainable by the majority of nations

So.......

The problem is actually not so much money (though, admittedly, more money does need to go to researching these forms of power so we can correct the problems listed here) but that at this point and time, we are simply incapable of supplying a good form of power source.

Before submitting also take note that the proposal in queue 'Promotion of Solar Panels' includes a clause about getting rid of fossil fuels, so it would be best to see whether the resolution passes or not before submitting this proposal, as it could be deemed as illegal.

Also, note the one on hydrogen-powered cars, which makes this illegal in another fashion.

AND the opt-in/opt-out ability probably makes this yet more illegal.

If another UN resolution is to deal with alternative energy sources, I think it's going to have to accept nuclear fission as part of the solution. The more environmentally friendly renewable technologies are not currently at a stage where they could supply all our energy needs, and as long as it is handled with sufficient care, fission is much safer than is commonly believed.

By Liliths Vengeance: These are questionable. I am curious as to where you will get such a fuel without using a method that damages the environment in some method. Most solutions to the problem require materials that do equal or increased damage as gasoline.

Notice that I didn't imply that there was only one method that could meet all energy needs. I also didn't say that any method would do no damage, just as little as possible and not enough to render future use of any alternative source unusable by future generations.

I don't see how a combination of small scale wind, solar, geo-thermal, ethanol, biodiesel, wave power, tidal power, passive solar convection power, ocean thermal conversion power, while at the same time employing conservation methods, increasing energy efficiency, and using hydrogen for energy storage could possiby do as much damage as releasingall the pollutants as gasoline does.

Quote:
NOTING: that though many nations view nuclear fission as a good alternative fuel source, it shall not be considered for use by the Council because of some nations' concerns that releasing secrets about nuclear power will lead to its use for weaponry.

By Liliths Vengeance: Which does more damage in the long term if used. Gasoline polution doesn't stick around for hundreds or thousands of years.

I'm confused, are you saying that it fission is bad becasue the pollution sticks around for thousands of years, because that would seem to contradict your later statements, or are you saying that other alternativeenergy sources are bad because pollution from these sources would stick around for hundreds or thousands of years?

By Liliths Vengeance: Do some research and find the earlier threads on the subject. I suggest you then read them. On one, you'll find an interesting assessment of how much damage hydrogen can do to the environment, based entirely off of scientific evidence gathered over the years. Even the basics makes gasoline look clean.

If hydrogen is used as a fuel source, yes it is probably more damaging than gas, but when it is just used as an energy storage method, I don't see how this could be.


By Forgottenlands: DEFINING Viable Alternative Energy sources as sources that are enviro friendly (as per the original definition) and are capable of meeting the energy requirements that are met by the energy sources they replace and are energy efficient (meaning that we are not using more energy producing them than we do consuming them)

With this thought in mind, I have just eliminated hydrogen cells, ethanol, and pretty much every other supposed replacement for transportation, so I guess we're talking power production.

Yes, we are talking aobut power production. Hydrogen as a fuel source is not a very good one because the easiest sources of it are fossil fuels. I'm not sure about ethanol, but I do know that biodiesel takesmuch less energy to produce than it puts out.

Starcra II: This proposal wouldn't necessarily conflict with yours, as long as the agreed upon date was within your proposal's time limit.

Many of you are dismayed that I didn't include the use of fission in my proposal. But, as I said in the proposal, including fission would open up all kinds of issues about nuclear arms proliferation. Please note, though, that the proposal does not stop any nation from using fission on their own.

Many of you also think this proposal is illegal. I would say that the proposal does not simply set up a committee to talk about things. For those nations that do join the council there are very clear rules, such as divulging information and setting a date at which they will no longer use fossil fuel and clear enforcement methods. Either way, this is for the mods to decide, and if they deem it unworthy, I will write a new one.

And finally, while I see much criticism of my proposal, which is fine. However, I see very little suggestions on how to improve it. This is my first go at proposal making so any suggestions for improvement would be much appreciated.

Notice that I didn't imply that there was only one method that could meet all energy needs. I also didn't say that any method would do no damage, just as little as possible and not enough to render future use of any alternative source unusable by future generations.

No, but the problem is the current methods are mostly unusable. It will take decades of research to come through on. But, if you are willing to do the necessary time in development and research, then this objection is worthless.

I don't see how a combination of small scale wind, solar, geo-thermal, ethanol, biodiesel, wave power, tidal power, passive solar convection power, ocean thermal conversion power, while at the same time employing conservation methods, increasing energy efficiency, and using hydrogen for energy storage could possiby do as much damage as releasingall the pollutants as gasoline does.

Small scale wind = no real power to speak of.
Solar = Unreliable due to weather conditions in some areas.
Ethanol = It burns. Same problem as gasoline and hundreds of others, even though it is somewhat cleaner.
Biodiesel = Unkno9wn, but most likely unfeasable due to a lack of effort on it.
Wave power = Pollution of the oceans due to the necessary equipment.
Passive Solar Convection Power = Pollution of space if it is what I think you are talking about when those satellites get old, or just unreliable if on Earth due to weather.
Ocean Thermal = See wave power.
Geo-thermal = Potential damage to the Earth due to how deep you have to dig to make this reliable.
Tidal Power = See wave power.
Hydrogen = One of the top three greenhouse gases, plus the potential damage to weather systems over a short term is astronomical compared to gasoline over the long term. It's extremely explosive. As in, you don't want it near anything that could ignite it. To get an idea, it's the main fuel source of stars.

I'm confused, are you saying that it fission is bad becasue the pollution sticks around for thousands of years, because that would seem to contradict your later statements, or are you saying that other alternativeenergy sources are bad because pollution from these sources would stick around for hundreds or thousands of years?

I'm saying fission is currently bad because the materials stay around for thousands of years afterwards. But, I'm also suggesting research into it may yield a solution to this problem.

If hydrogen is used as a fuel source, yes it is probably more damaging than gas, but when it is just used as an energy storage method, I don't see how this could be.

The energy storage method effectively has the worst problems. You are going to likely unleash the stored energy by combining it with oxygen to create water, which will then likely be used as a waste product. Now, ask yourself: What would happen if you increased the average moister content of the air of New York City by 10%? Keep in mind that water vapor is an extremely potent greenhouse gas.

Yes, we are talking aobut power production. Hydrogen as a fuel source is not a very good one because the easiest sources of it are fossil fuels. I'm not sure about ethanol, but I do know that biodiesel takesmuch less energy to produce than it puts out.

Hmm. Then use it.

Many of you are dismayed that I didn't include the use of fission in my proposal. But, as I said in the proposal, including fission would open up all kinds of issues about nuclear arms proliferation. Please note, though, that the proposal does not stop any nation from using fission on their own.

Have the committee control the fission usage directly. Also, keep in mind you do not have to use a method to produce fusion when nature will do it for you.

Many of you also think this proposal is illegal. I would say that the proposal does not simply set up a committee to talk about things. For those nations that do join the council there are very clear rules, such as divulging information and setting a date at which they will no longer use fossil fuel and clear enforcement methods. Either way, this is for the mods to decide, and if they deem it unworthy, I will write a new one.

It's illegal because nations sit it. That is clearly against the rules stated at the top of the forum. In fact, it specifically states that nations do not sit committees. That's the problem.

And finally, while I see much criticism of my proposal, which is fine. However, I see very little suggestions on how to improve it. This is my first go at proposal making so any suggestions for improvement would be much appreciated.

For one, limit the technology level of those who join. For two, don't entirely rule out nuclear power just yet.

Actually, I don't know entirely if the committee itself would be illegal. However, the optionality of the committee is a pretty obvious one. Illegal

Small scale wind = no real power to speak of.
Solar = Unreliable due to weather conditions in some areas.
Ethanol = It burns. Same problem as gasoline and hundreds of others, even though it is somewhat cleaner.
Biodiesel = Unkno9wn, but most likely unfeasable due to a lack of effort on it.
Wave power = Pollution of the oceans due to the necessary equipment.
Passive Solar Convection Power = Pollution of space if it is what I think you are talking about when those satellites get old, or just unreliable if on Earth due to weather.
Ocean Thermal = See wave power.
Geo-thermal = Potential damage to the Earth due to how deep you have to dig to make this reliable.
Tidal Power = See wave power.
Hydrogen = One of the top three greenhouse gases, plus the potential damage to weather systems over a short term is astronomical compared to gasoline over the long term. It's extremely explosive. As in, you don't want it near anything that could ignite it. To get an idea, it's the main fuel source of stars.



Not necessarily.... "Small scale wind" what about wind power out at sea, wind there is almost always constant.

Solar: providing very large farms of solar energy absorbing panels could provide backup energy for a cloudy day.

Ethanol: no argument

Biodeisel: perhaps with more funding for reasearch it may be productive

Wave power: who says waves must be limited to oceans? could we devise large resevoirs to pump out artificial waves?

Passive solar convection: no arguement

Ocean Thermal: agreed, not clean

Geothermal: not really, fossil fuels are consumed much quicker than geothermal, which actually doesnt take from the earth, but uses what it spews out

Tidal: see wave

Hydrogen: with proper research and perfection, this would be our definite ticket out of fossil fuels

Not necessarily.... "Small scale wind" what about wind power out at sea, wind there is almost always constant.


Too expensive


Solar: providing very large farms of solar energy absorbing panels could provide backup energy for a cloudy day.


What about regions that are almost perpetually cloudy/dark? Not to mention that solar panels tend to generate quite a bit of toxic waste during the construction process.

Not to mention solar power is useless for running any sort of heavy industry.



Wave power: who says waves must be limited to oceans? could we devise large resevoirs to pump out artificial waves?


Too expensive and space consuming, plus would disrupt the environment in a manner similar to how hydroelectric dams do


Geothermal: not really, fossil fuels are consumed much quicker than geothermal, which actually doesnt take from the earth, but uses what it spews out


While geothermal does indeed not damage the Earth, it's only viable in a few locations and thus not suitable for most purposes.

Re the fission complaint-- while the waste may stick around a while, the nastiest stuff actually has the shortest half-life. Most nuclear waste is no more dangerous or difficult to handle than any other industrial byproduct you wouldn't want to touch with your bare hands-- cast it in concrete, chuck it in a salt mine, and forget about it. Whatever waste is generated is LOCALIZED-- it does not present a global pollution threat, thus it is cleaner than fossil fuels will ever be.

Start with more modest goals than complete conversion from fossil fuels.

At the present rate, no one is expecting fossil fuels to be eliminated for probably the next 100 years.

However, over the next century, there will be other forms of energy that will continue to make inroads into the world power market to reduce dependence on fossil fuel use.

Remember that fossil fuels combine production of coal and natural gas.

Less than 1% of U.S. electricity is generated from wind. Most of the country's power comes from coal (over 50%), with nuclear (20%), natural gas (18%), and hydropower (7%) making up most of the rest.
Natural gas will increase over the coming century and replace much of the coal production. Hydroelectric and nuclear power are actually less efficient and higher costs forms of production.

Why not take one or two particular forms of energy and concentrate on encouraging them?

First, start with wind power.

That's what the world is doing.

Wind Power

Presently, modern large wind turbines can produce 500+ kW (some are 600 kW or larger).

Cost per kW-hour has dropped. In 1993, it used to be 7.5 cents to produce. With the newer turbines, it's projected to drop to 3.5 cents.

It's still higher in cost than natural gas plants power plants. Coal costs about 4.3 cents per kW-hour to produce.

Land can be an issue. It takes about 17 acres of area to support enough turbines to produce 1 mw.

It creates virtually no pollution (other than a low frequency noise pollution in the area). It's not affected by the cost of fossil fuels either. The greatest ecological problem is bird deaths from collisions with turbines, usually because they are built at or near ridgelines. There's also a chance of electrical fires, but you always have that with electrical power systems.

Wind power has the problem that it is seasonal, and tempermental. Pick your wind farm site carefully.

Wind is also a worldwide resource. Though the investment in land and turbine setup is not insignificant, it is a good alternative income source for rural farmers. The top countries in the real world in terms of wind power output are Germany, the US, Spain, Denmark and India.

75% of wind production comes from Europe, 16% in the US, but India is aggressively leading in that 'rest of world' category.

It is 1% of overall US power today, but is projected to grow to 6% of overall power provision by 2020. The output is growing 20% per annum as new and more efficient turbines are being made and more projects are being commissioned.

It already is 6% of Germany's overall energy production. In Schleswig-Holstein, it accounts for 25% of regional power (the target date to hit that had been 2010).

It accounts for 4-5% of power in Spain.

Denmark leads the world in percentage of domestic power from wind energy: 20%.

India is developing their own wind power industry, and surprisingly (at least to me) an Indian manufacturer sold its first turbines in the US to a Minnisota project in 2004.

Solar Power

Solar is nowhere near as efficient. A 500 kW system would produce energy at the calculated cost of 21.1 cent per kWh on a sunny day, or 46.5 cents on a cloudy day.

Hence why it's being afforded by consumers or businesses directly. There's little 'industrial solar' industry right now.

It is also pollution-free, but it is expensive. Costs seem to be dropping 4% per annum, but at that rate it will be a long time before it catches other sources in cost-efficiency. It is usually considered 'supplemental', as opposed to a sole (pun intended) power source because of its inefficiency and unreliability (cloudy days).

But there are many 'off-grid' homes being developed.

Few in the US are doing 'industrial solar' power yet on an effective scale. There are many producers, but the cost is still prohibitive. There are 13 plants in California and 2 in Arizona that produce 1 megawatt or more. Instead, it is catching on at the individual residential and single business level. One building at a time.

Residential solar is doing fine, especially in the developing world. It's very difficult to maintain power lines to remote locations.

Japan, until very recently, was leading the world in solar projects. Germany just swooped in and became the leading producer. Then other nations in Europe combined, the US, and the rest of the world.

In Europe during 2003, solar supplied 562 MW of solar power. Europe collectively supplies over 1 GW because of the German huge boost this last year in 2004. Not bad.

At the same time, the EU had an overall energy need of 578.6 GW in 2000, and will need to grow to 951 GW by 2030.

Which means solar power is still less than .2% of overall EU power production. Eep!

In the US, solar power is about a third of wind power.

Another novel thing helping solar is PV shingles -- building photovoltaic cells directly into the roofing material. But then your roof needs to be pitched and oriented properly to catch the sun. Not everyone's home is so favorably oriented.

I suggest strongly that, if you want to make a realistic-sounding prosposal, rather than say "let's all light our homes on dreams and wishes," you set some more modest goals to covert.

Even "aggressive" rewewable energy programs like Germany's are yet to break into the majority of power production.

Plus, it would help to make proposals that do not violate game rules. :)

Remember that all of this is simply for background material. You should avoid mentions of the 'real world' in your proposal.

______

Overview of Wind Energy in California (http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html)

American Wind Energy Association (http://www.awea.org/)

Wind Costs Compared to Other Energy Sources [PDF] (http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Cost2001.PDF)

Economics of Wind Energy[PDF] (http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EconomicsOfWind-Feb2005.pdf)

Global Wind Energy Market Report [PDF] (http://www.awea.org/pubs/documents/globalmarket2004.pdf)

Solar Photovoltaic Electricity Price Index (http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarIndices.htm)

Total installed capacity in Europe (http://www.epia.org/03DataFigures/Stat_Europe_01.htm)

IEA 2003: World Energy Overview (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/overview.html)

Not necessarily.... "Small scale wind" what about wind power out at sea, wind there is almost always constant.

And the landlocked countries?

Solar: providing very large farms of solar energy absorbing panels could provide backup energy for a cloudy day.

Yeah, so how are we storing this energy?

Ethanol: no argument

Biodeisel: perhaps with more funding for reasearch it may be productive

I put down above that we are not in a position TODAY (technologically speaking) to replace all of our fossil-fuel based energy production

Wave power: who says waves must be limited to oceans? could we devise large resevoirs to pump out artificial waves?

*groans* And how much energy would it cost to get waves of considerable size going? Not to mention they would lose a HECK of a lot of energy just getting to the bloody generators

Passive solar convection: no arguement

Ocean Thermal: agreed, not clean

Geothermal: not really, fossil fuels are consumed much quicker than geothermal, which actually doesnt take from the earth, but uses what it spews out

Yeah - sources of geothermal aren't that common unless you actually drill for them - which was LV's point

Tidal: see wave

Hydrogen: with proper research and perfection, this would be our definite ticket out of fossil fuels

Most people fail to realize that the number one most damaging greenhouse gases is the main product of hydrogen cars: WATER VAPOR. Additionally, see my note about timeline. This resolution wants us to replace our current power grid that is based around fossil fuels and wants us to put a combination of all these power sources. Two of them you have said "we can research it further" - NO, that's not what this resolution is asking for. The statement that we are making is that AT THIS TIME, we do NOT have the technology to replace fossil fuels. In 10 years, maybe we will. However, today we do not.

I think many of you are mistakenlythinking that this proposal would make it so all nations would addopt the exact same energy production plans. I refur you to Article II Section B, which clearlystates that the second act of the Council would be to asses each area and determine the best combination of alternative energy sources for that specific area (i.e. sources that will do the least damage while still providing for energy needs and the most readily available energy sources.) Obviously countries above the Arctic Circle aren't going to invest in solar power, but perhaps they will have an abbundance of wind.

Many of you seem to think that this would all happen overnight. I refur you to Article II Section A, which says that the Council will determine a reasonable goal for stopping the use of fossil fuels, this could be ten years, it could be 50.

By Forgottenlands: Most people fail to realize that the number one most damaging greenhouse gases is the main product of hydrogen cars: WATER VAPOR. Additionally, see my note about timeline. This resolution wants us to replace our current power grid that is based around fossil fuels and wants us to put a combination of all these power sources. Two of them you have said "we can research it further" - NO, that's not what this resolution is asking for. The statement that we are making is that AT THIS TIME, we do NOT have the technology to replace fossil fuels. In 10 years, maybe we will. However, today we do not.

This is just erronious thinking. Who says hydrogen cars would be introducing any new water into the atmosphere? Why couldn't the water created by combining hydrogen and oxygen be collected in the vehicle and split again to make hydrogen? And before you say "aha! that means hydrogen wouldn't be putting our any more power than it takes to create it" note that I never said it did, but, being relatively stable, even compared to gas, it makes for a good way to store energy. Looking at it this way, hydrogen could be a good way of storing the energy made only at specific times, like solar or wind, and energy that is often made in remote locations, like wind andhydro-electric.

But all this is beside the point anyway. If the Council were to determine that the use of hydrogen fuel cells would be unsustainable, it would not be used, that goes for any energy source.

I created this proposal because of the severe shortcommings I saw with the Promotion of Solar Panels proposal that is comming up for vote soon. I felt that it was too narrow in promoting solar panels over any other energy source and that it focused too much on the means of alternative energy production rather than on the end goal of eliminating fossil fuels as an energy source. If you all want to debate the merits of any alternative energy source over another, that is the place to do it.

I think many of you are mistakenlythinking that this proposal would make it so all nations would addopt the exact same energy production plans. I refur you to Article II Section B, which clearlystates that the second act of the Council would be to asses each area and determine the best combination of alternative energy sources for that specific area (i.e. sources that will do the least damage while still providing for energy needs and the most readily available energy sources.) Obviously countries above the Arctic Circle aren't going to invest in solar power, but perhaps they will have an abbundance of wind.

Actually - arctic countries would be better off with solar power than countries in costal regions that are often in cloudy, foggy or rainy (basicallly, blocked from the sun when it is up) than the arctic - where cloud cover is rather scarce. The difference in the distance to the sun from the equator or the arctic is insignificantly small considering how far that energy had to travel in the first place, and the actual amount of sunlight is equal (though the balance between december and june is quite a bit different, so again we have a question about stored energy) so it wouldn't be a bad investment.

Many of you seem to think that this would all happen overnight.

Um, how long have you been playing NationStates?

I refur you to Article II Section A, which says that the Council will determine a reasonable goal for stopping the use of fossil fuels, this could be ten years, it could be 50.

The latter number has the opposite concern, but that's besides the point

This is just erronious thinking. Who says hydrogen cars would be introducing any new water into the atmosphere? Why couldn't the water created by combining hydrogen and oxygen be collected in the vehicle and split again to make hydrogen? And before you say "aha! that means hydrogen wouldn't be putting our any more power than it takes to create it" note that I never said it did, but, being relatively stable, even compared to gas, it makes for a good way to store energy. Looking at it this way, hydrogen could be a good way of storing the energy made only at specific times, like solar or wind, and energy that is often made in remote locations, like wind andhydro-electric.

The current known method of producing hydrogen needs liquid water (to conduct electricity). BTW, you need more voltage to create hydrogen then you get out of the production of hydrogen - sucks, huh. So basically, you are producing water vapor and you lose energy in the process of storing hydrogen

But all this is beside the point anyway. If the Council were to determine that the use of hydrogen fuel cells would be unsustainable, it would not be used, that goes for any energy source.

*groans* We're trying to show you that no matter what combination of sources of energy you have, you can't get the power production you need without using fission with our current technology level.

I created this proposal because of the severe shortcommings I saw with the Promotion of Solar Panels proposal that is comming up for vote soon. I felt that it was too narrow in promoting solar panels over any other energy source and that it focused too much on the means of alternative energy production rather than on the end goal of eliminating fossil fuels as an energy source. If you all want to debate the merits of any alternative energy source over another, that is the place to do it.

Actually, I'm debating them all simultaneously as poor.

You still haven't addressed the illegal component of the resolution: the optionality clause.

Actually - arctic countries would be better off with solar power than countries in costal regions that are often in cloudy, foggy or rainy (basicallly, blocked from the sun when it is up) than the arctic - where cloud cover is rather scarce. The difference in the distance to the sun from the equator or the arctic is insignificantly small considering how far that energy had to travel in the first place, and the actual amount of sunlight is equal (though the balance between december and june is quite a bit different, so again we have a question about stored energy) so it wouldn't be a bad investment.

OK, good point.

Um, how long have you been playing NationStates?

Yes, I realize that in terms of actual game mechanics, it will be implemented overnight, but that's more a shortcoming of the game than my wording.

The current known method of producing hydrogen needs liquid water (to conduct electricity). BTW, you need more voltage to create hydrogen then you get out of the production of hydrogen - sucks, huh. So basically, you are producing water vapor and you lose energy in the process of storing hydrogen

I realize this too, but I still think it is a much more efficient method than sending the electricity throgh cables from the remote plants or storing the energy in a conventional battery. Assuming the hydrogen doesn't leak, it will not loose it's potential for energy creation when stored for a long time.


*groans* We're trying to show you that no matter what combination of sources of energy you have, you can't get the power production you need without using fission with our current technology level.

I have seen no comments to convince me of this, especially when energy conservation and increased efficiency are taken into consideration. None the less, I will not revise my proposal to include fission until nuclear armaments are banned.

You still haven't addressed the illegal component of the resolution: the optionality clause.

Alright then. I undrestand that in actuallity UN nations don't have the option of opting-out. However, in real life, whether a nation opted in or not, their economy and envoronment would still be affected. Their economy would be hurt, especially if they were an oil producing nation and their environment would improve, especially if neighboring countries opted in.

The fact that nations have to comply with resolutions is a double edged sword. On the one hand rogue nations can be brought under control, but on the other, it forces the UN to overstep its jurisdiction by enforcing laws on nations whether they like it or not. I would prefer an opt in/ opt out option on every resolution passed, but I guess that's just wishfil thinking.

Anyway, it looks like my resolution will not reach quorum in time. Thank you all for your comments, I have learned a lot about writing proposals and plan to come back with a stronger one next time, that is unless the promotion of solar panels one passes, which it will since the UN loves warm fuzzy resolutions that either give the UN too much power or do nothing at all.

I realize this too, but I still think it is a much more efficient method than sending the electricity throgh cables from the remote plants or storing the energy in a conventional battery. Assuming the hydrogen doesn't leak, it will not loose it's potential for energy creation when stored for a long time.

Nope. It requires massive amounts of power to be used on any scale, and that power is too massive for the other systems to cover.

I have seen no comments to convince me of this, especially when energy conservation and increased efficiency are taken into consideration. None the less, I will not revise my proposal to include fission until nuclear armaments are banned.

No need. Just include a clause that nonweapons grade materials must be used for the power generation and that the materials used for power generation and anything produced as a result may not be used in weapons of any sort.

Without weapons-grade materials, a nuclear weapon cannot be produced.

Nope. It requires massive amounts of power to be used on any scale, and that power is too massive for the other systems to cover.

The energy required to produce hydrogen via electrolysis is about 32.9 kWh/kg source (http://www.hydrogenus.com/h2-FAQ.asp#required). Wind turbines being manufactured now have power ratings ranging from 250 watts to 1.8 megawatts and A 10-kW wind turbine can generate about 10,000 kWh annually at a site with wind speeds averaging 12 miles per hour source (http://www.awea.org/faq/tutorial/wwt_basics.html#How%20much%20electricity%20can%20one%20wind%20turbine%20generate) . It costs 45 kilowatt hours to produce 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent hydrogen source (http://www.geocities.com/hydrogenpower1/essays/main/hydrogen.html). So no, I believe you are mistaken. Though there will be some power loss in converting water to hydrogen and oxygen, these figures are still quite impressive. And this is just wind, which is usually seen as having the least potential as an alternative energy source.

Um, try percentage lost when trying to return it. Not to mention, you need 45 kWh to make that gallon, um.....how much are you getting out of it? I would guess somewhere between 30-40kWh. That might get my parents house (one) for 2 days. You mentioned issues of consumption? WHERE IN THIS PROPOSAL DO YOU MENTION ISSUES OF CONSUMPTION? Not to mention, even if we dealt with the issue of consumption, we still have two unresolved issues:

1) You just put more energy needed at a given point into the storing of energy, so your consumption increases at the same time the individual user's consumption decreases.
2) You have yet to deal with the problem of expanding amounts of water vapor due to this system. We still don't have a vapor solution for producing hydrogen, so again, this proposal is unfeasable under today's technology.

Um, try percentage lost when trying to return it. Not to mention, you need 45 kWh to make that gallon, um.....how much are you getting out of it? I would guess somewhere between 30-40kWh. That might get my parents house (one) for 2 days. You mentioned issues of consumption? WHERE IN THIS PROPOSAL DO YOU MENTION ISSUES OF CONSUMPTION? Not to mention, even if we dealt with the issue of consumption, we still have two unresolved issues:

This is a modestly sized generator and I was thinking more about for use in transportation. And, as I said, that 45mWh input would produce the equivelent energy of one gallon of gas. This one generator would produce hydrogen that would release the equivelent energy of about 222 gallons of gas per year. This is admittedly not that much, but likely enough for an average family. Used directly, A 10-kW wind turbine can generate about 10,000 kWh annually at a site with wind speeds averaging 12 miles per hour, or about enough to power a typical household source (http://www.awea.org/faq/tutorial/wwt_basics.html#How%20much%20electricity%20can%20one%20wind%20turbine%20generate).
Used to power buildings, the turbines would contribute to the grid directly and only store energy in hydrogen when demands on the grid are low. And 10kWh is on the low end of wind turbine output.

I did mention consumption, in Article II Section B I talked about using conservation and increased efficiency techniques.

1) You just put more energy needed at a given point into the storing of energy, so your consumption increases at the same time the individual user's consumption decreases.
2) You have yet to deal with the problem of expanding amounts of water vapor due to this system. We still don't have a vapor solution for producing hydrogen, so again, this proposal is unfeasable under today's technology.

1) Yes but energy output of hydrogen is more efficient than gas. Also, water is an abundant, surface resource, whereas fossil fuels must be extracted from the earth, often at very remote locations, comparitively. Cities already manage water from wastewater from homes and from stormwater runoff, why couldn't this water be used for hydrogen production? And if local water sources were used to make the hydrogen and then exhausted in that same area, there would be little or no net increase in water vapor.

2) Well, for one thing, I would guess that vapor output from lawn sprinkler systems would be greater than if cars used hydrogen. Also, why does this exhaust water have to be expelled from the vehicle? the water created in combining the hydrogen and oxygen would be pure, clean water. This "exhaust" water could be deposited at the same station as the new hydrogen is added and used to produce more hydrogen ore added to the city's drinking water supply.

This is a modestly sized generator and I was thinking more about for use in transportation. And, as I said, that 45mWh input would produce the equivelent energy of one gallon of gas. This one generator would produce hydrogen that would release the equivelent energy of about 222 gallons of gas per year. This is admittedly not that much, but likely enough for an average family. Used directly, A 10-kW wind turbine can generate about 10,000 kWh annually at a site with wind speeds averaging 12 miles per hour, or about enough to power a typical household source (http://www.awea.org/faq/tutorial/wwt_basics.html#How%20much%20electricity%20can%20one%20wind%20turbine%20generate).
Used to power buildings, the turbines would contribute to the grid directly and only store energy in hydrogen when demands on the grid are low. And 10kWh is on the low end of wind turbine output.

I did mention consumption, in Article II Section B I talked about using conservation and increased efficiency techniques.



1) Yes but energy output of hydrogen is more efficient than gas. Also, water is an abundant, surface resource, whereas fossil fuels must be extracted from the earth, often at very remote locations, comparitively. Cities already manage water from wastewater from homes and from stormwater runoff, why couldn't this water be used for hydrogen production? And if local water sources were used to make the hydrogen and then exhausted in that same area, there would be little or no net increase in water vapor.

2) Well, for one thing, I would guess that vapor output from lawn sprinkler systems would be greater than if cars used hydrogen. Also, why does this exhaust water have to be expelled from the vehicle? the water created in combining the hydrogen and oxygen would be pure, clean water. This "exhaust" water could be deposited at the same station as the new hydrogen is added and used to produce more hydrogen ore added to the city's drinking water supply.


For information on why attempting to contain the exhaust from an engine that burns ANYTHING in a closed system is bad, take a balloon and start blowing it up. Continue blowing it up no matter how big it gets or how much air is in it.

You'll get the idea pretty quick.

The energy required to produce hydrogen via electrolysis is about 32.9 kWh/kg source (http://www.hydrogenus.com/h2-FAQ.asp#required). Wind turbines being manufactured now have power ratings ranging from 250 watts to 1.8 megawatts and A 10-kW wind turbine can generate about 10,000 kWh annually at a site with wind speeds averaging 12 miles per hour source (http://www.awea.org/faq/tutorial/wwt_basics.html#How%20much%20electricity%20can%20one%20wind%20turbine%20generate) . It costs 45 kilowatt hours to produce 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent hydrogen source (http://www.geocities.com/hydrogenpower1/essays/main/hydrogen.html). So no, I believe you are mistaken. Though there will be some power loss in converting water to hydrogen and oxygen, these figures are still quite impressive. And this is just wind, which is usually seen as having the least potential as an alternative energy source.

10k kWh is about what my house uses in five months. My military base uses ten times that amount in half the time. And, stop and take a look at how big those wind turbines are. Trust me, you're not getting good energy usage for the land devoted. You might be able to power a city in France if you exterminated every living thing in Belgium and converted the nation to being wind turbines.

Also, as was pointed out, you forgot to account for the amount of energy to regain the energy from the hydrogen. But, the others are handling this nicely.

This is a modestly sized generator and I was thinking more about for use in transportation. And, as I said, that 45mWh input would produce the equivelent energy of one gallon of gas.

Alright. I want you to remove your concept of what one gallon of gasoline will give you in terms of power. If 45mWh makes one gallon of H gas, then that means that the power you get OUT of that gallon is < 45 mWh. You can't run **** on 45mWh, let alone less than 45 mWh.

I sure as heck hope that's supposed to be MWh

This one generator would produce hydrogen that would release the equivelent energy of about 222 gallons of gas per year.

So at best, this will produce nearly 10 Wh of power a year. Wow that's useless

This is admittedly not that much, but likely enough for an average family.

You wish

Used directly, A 10-kW wind turbine can generate about 10,000 kWh annually at a site with wind speeds averaging 12 miles per hour, or about enough to power a typical household source (http://www.awea.org/faq/tutorial/wwt_basics.html#How%20much%20electricity%20can%20one%20wind%20turbine%20generate).

If we deal with consumption issues. Knowing my parent's power bills, it wouldn't power theirs. Maybe its for European houses.....

Used to power buildings, the turbines would contribute to the grid directly and only store energy in hydrogen when demands on the grid are low. And 10kWh is on the low end of wind turbine output.

Fine

I did mention consumption, in Article II Section B I talked about using conservation and increased efficiency techniques.

Apologies

1) Yes but energy output of hydrogen is more efficient than gas.

*sighs* This means that the percentage of energy released by Hydrogen in its consumption that is collected by the engine using it is higher than that of gasoline (which is sitting below 50% for most modern engines, though I've heard rumors that they intentionally keep them below that mark.

Remember how I was saying your numbers for output were probable 30-40mWh for something that was produced for 45mWh, that's above 50%

Also, water is an abundant, surface resource, whereas fossil fuels must be extracted from the earth, often at very remote locations, comparitively. Cities already manage water from wastewater from homes and from stormwater runoff, why couldn't this water be used for hydrogen production? And if local water sources were used to make the hydrogen and then exhausted in that same area, there would be little or no net increase in water vapor.

Do you have a clue what water vapor is? It's a gas form of water. It's hot. Know what happens to hot water vapor? It rises! It becomes a storm cloud. Alright, the entire planet is releasing more water vapor than usual. More energy is heading to the atmosphere. Oh crap, they aren't cooling down and forming clouds like they normally do. They can't let off their energy fast enough - because all this other water vapor that is also hot is up here. Ok, so now we have MORE water vapor in the atmosphere releasing a HECK of a lot of energy into the atmosphere and screwing up the weather system, making high level clouds, and TRAPPING ENERGY IN. Hello global warming! If you don't go from vapor to vapor, you are releasing more water vapor into the atmosphere than you intended.

2) Well, for one thing, I would guess that vapor output from lawn sprinkler systems would be greater than if cars used hydrogen.

You've got no ****ing clue. The mist from sprinkler systems is not water vapor. Water vapor has a heck of a lot more energy than misted water. Misted water is cool and stays near the ground. Water vapor, as I said above, does not like staying near the ground. Water vapor is only seeable when it condenses together. Know what those are called? CLOUDS.

Also, why does this exhaust water have to be expelled from the vehicle?

Because if you don't, you just fried the engine due to overheating.

the water created in combining the hydrogen and oxygen would be pure, clean water.

No, it's water vapor. That might be pure, but that ain't good.

This "exhaust" water could be deposited at the same station as the new hydrogen is added and used to produce more hydrogen ore added to the city's drinking water supply.

It's becoming more and more clear you don't exactly know how energy works.

Thank you, Listeneisse, for bringing some sense to this debate. There are viable sources of energy which - although not yet ready to replace fossil fuels entirely - will supply an increasing proportion of our energy needs and should be recognised as such.

Wind power in Germany accounts for 3.5% of total energy[1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1765054.stm), and by 2010 it is expected that wind power will supply 12.5% of Germany's power needs. It accounts for 6.5% of Spain's power needs.[2] (http://www.ewea.org/documents/0818_WD_Spain_release.pdf). As both the cost and efficiency of wind power improves, we will definitely see an increase in the use of wind power worldwide.

The myth of 'water vapour effecting the greenhouse effect' must be immediately debunked. Water vapour does occur as a natural greenhouse effect, and including clouds will absord 'between 66% and 85% of all thermal radiation. This will always be the case. However to suggest that burning hydrogen - which creates H20 mostly in the form of water vapour - will increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is naive and ill-informed at best.[3] (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0730-03.htm),[4] (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

Our atmosphere contains an equilibrium level of water vapour at any one moment. Water is constantly evaporating from the oceans at roughly the same rate as rain is falling around the planet. The percentage of water vapour in the atmosphere is roughly constant (it depends only on the temperature of the planet, which will unfortunately increase with continued abuse of fossil fuels). As such, any release of water vapour will simply result in an increased level of condensation and a decreased level of evaporation in order for the atmosphere to return to equilibrium.

Very elementary chemistry.

I've never heard this argument against hydrogen power. Surely it's only held by the most ignorant of fossil fuel supporters.

That sounds like flawed science, but I'll read the sources a bit more thoroughly once I get a bit more time.

Perhaps there is some component of Imperial measurements that I don't understand/know - but how the heck do you create a "gallon" of Hydrogen gas?

The myth of 'water vapour effecting the greenhouse effect' must be immediately debunked. Water vapour does occur as a natural greenhouse effect, and including clouds will absord 'between 66% and 85% of all thermal radiation. This will always be the case. However to suggest that burning hydrogen - which creates H20 mostly in the form of water vapour - will increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is naive and ill-informed at best.[3] (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0730-03.htm),[4] (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

Our atmosphere contains an equilibrium level of water vapour at any one moment. Water is constantly evaporating from the oceans at roughly the same rate as rain is falling around the planet. The percentage of water vapour in the atmosphere is roughly constant (it depends only on the temperature of the planet, which will unfortunately increase with continued abuse of fossil fuels). As such, any release of water vapour will simply result in an increased level of condensation and a decreased level of evaporation in order for the atmosphere to return to equilibrium.

Very elementary chemistry.

I've never heard this argument against hydrogen power. Surely it's only held by the most ignorant of fossil fuel supporters.

Actually, from what I've seen, it's held by respectable scientists. You forgot to take into account one simple fact: The amount of water vapor going into the atmosphere will increase, increasing the amount of present greenhouse gases and increasing overall temperature. This is balanced by rain, which has a cooling effect that will swing in the opposite direction. Thus, the true danger of global warming: The ice age.

Here's some posts based on, and including, actual research someone else did that you want to look into, as she spent several years collecting and correlating the data:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7477451&highlight=hydrogen#post7477451
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7480138&highlight=hydrogen#post7480138
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7570263&highlight=hydrogen#post7570263
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7570449&highlight=hydrogen#post7570449
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7699132&highlight=hydrogen#post7699132
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7706811&highlight=hydrogen#post7706811
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7715250&highlight=hydrogen#post7715250
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7715872&highlight=hydrogen#post7715872
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7717259&highlight=hydrogen#post7717259
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8534619&highlight=hydrogen#post8534619

I know there is a lot there, but if you check you can find her sources as well.

Alright. I want you to remove your concept of what one gallon of gasoline will give you in terms of power. If 45mWh makes one gallon of H gas, then that means that the power you get OUT of that gallon is < 45 mWh. You can't run **** on 45mWh, let alone less than 45 mWh.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am NOT saying that using 45kWh of electricity will produce 1 gallon of hydrogen, it being a gas, that wouldn't make sense. I WAS saying that using 45kWh of electricity would produce hydrogen with the ENERGY EQUIVELENT of one gallon of gasoline.

And no I meant kWh, as I said this turbine is on the low end of production, with the high end being around 1.8 mW

So at best, this will produce nearly 10 Wh of power a year. Wow that's useless

How did you figure this?


If we deal with consumption issues. Knowing my parent's power bills, it wouldn't power theirs. Maybe its for European houses.....

A 250-kW turbine installed at the elementary school in Spirit Lake, Iowa, provides an average of 350,000 kWh of electricity per year, more than is necessary for the 53,000-square-foot school. Excess electricity fed into the local utility system earned the school $25,000 in its first five years of operation. The school uses electricity from the utility at times when the wind does not blow. This project has been so successful that the Spirit Lake school district has since installed a second turbine with a capacity of 750 kW. (For further information on this project, see http://www.greenpowergovs.org/wind/Spirit%20Lake%20case%20study.html .)

Do you have a clue what water vapor is? It's a gas form of water. It's hot. Know what happens to hot water vapor? It rises! It becomes a storm cloud. Alright, the entire planet is releasing more water vapor than usual. More energy is heading to the atmosphere. Oh crap, they aren't cooling down and forming clouds like they normally do. They can't let off their energy fast enough - because all this other water vapor that is also hot is up here. Ok, so now we have MORE water vapor in the atmosphere releasing a HECK of a lot of energy into the atmosphere and screwing up the weather system, making high level clouds, and TRAPPING ENERGY IN. Hello global warming! If you don't go from vapor to vapor, you are releasing more water vapor into the atmosphere than you intended.

i don't think the vapor produced is as hot as you think, but I will have to find that info later, I have to go now. I will answer your other comments later, too.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am NOT saying that using 45kWh of electricity will produce 1 gallon of hydrogen, it being a gas, that wouldn't make sense. I WAS saying that using 45kWh of electricity would produce hydrogen with the ENERGY EQUIVELENT of one gallon of gasoline.

And no I meant kWh, as I said this turbine is on the low end of production, with the high end being around 1.8 mW

Get your sign conventions right, PLEASE.

1kWh = 1 kilo-watt-hour = 1000 Wh
1mWh = 1 milli-watt-hour = 0.001 Wh
1MWh = 1 mega-watt-hour = 1 000 000 Wh

How did you figure this?

222*45mWh = 9990mWh = 9.99 Wh which is around 10Wh. Since you changed the unit (again) to kWh, it would actually be 10MWh, which is a fair bit more useful.


A 250-kW turbine installed at the elementary school in Spirit Lake, Iowa, provides an average of 350,000 kWh of electricity per year, more than is necessary for the 53,000-square-foot school. Excess electricity fed into the local utility system earned the school $25,000 in its first five years of operation. The school uses electricity from the utility at times when the wind does not blow. This project has been so successful that the Spirit Lake school district has since installed a second turbine with a capacity of 750 kW. (For further information on this project, see http://www.greenpowergovs.org/wind/Spirit%20Lake%20case%20study.html .)

Similar projects have been implemented for solar panels and such - with entire neighborhoods getting their own net income for production of power by installing a solar panel on each house. However, solar panels have problems when it comes to production that could be concerning regarding the environment. This (like several other types we have listed so far) would make them unable to be used by this resolution due to that environmental damage during production.

i don't think the vapor produced is as hot as you think, but I will have to find that info later, I have to go now. I will answer your other comments later, too.

*sighs* To even be water vapor, the individual molecule must have the energy of above 100 degrees celcius. If it is around other water molecules and is below that mark, it is liquid water. When it is released by the cars, it is actually much warmer than that. Let's just work from room temperature:

--------------------------

Hydrogen has a molar mass of about 1.01 g/mol. Water is 18.02 g/mol (mol is basically short for "mole of molecules" which is some obscene number that, not being a science major, I don't know off the top of my head). You need two moles of Hydrogen for one mole of water. I'll come back to this point in a second

Specific Heat Capacity is the amount of energy it takes to heat a gram of a specific substance one degree celcius. So, that one mole of water is 18.02 g. Water has a specific heat capacity of ~4.2 J/g*C. We're going from room temperature (20C) to boiling point (100C). So, the total energy is 4.2*18.02 * 80 ~= 6048J ~= 6kJ.

There is also a fair bit of energy in the phase change from water to water vapor, on the order of 40.7kJ/mol. Thrown into this, it means you have 46kJ of energy being sent into the atmosphere by this one mole of Hydrogen.

BTW - that's equivelent to 46kWh.

--------------

Let's pause for a second here. That was for the reaction of just 2 grams of Hydrogen, and obscenely small amount. Considering mass is standardized around kilograms (1000 grams), can you imagine how much energy would be released? This is before we consider the energy of its heat beyond 100C.

Something to think about.

Edit: my math was wrong, fixed.

Get your sign conventions right, PLEASE.

1kWh = 1 kilo-watt-hour = 1000 Wh
1mWh = 1 milli-watt-hour = 0.001 Wh
1MWh = 1 mega-watt-hour = 1 000 000 Wh

I apoligize, I'll go back and make sure I have it straight.



222*45mWh = 9990mWh = 9.99 Wh which is around 10Wh. Since you changed the unit (again) to kWh, it would actually be 10MWh, which is a fair bit more useful.

I will recheck this too.



Similar projects have been implemented for solar panels and such - with entire neighborhoods getting their own net income for production of power by installing a solar panel on each house. However, solar panels have problems when it comes to production that could be concerning regarding the environment. This (like several other types we have listed so far) would make them unable to be used by this resolution due to that environmental damage during production.

I think that solar panels would still be included. Though they are polluting to make, the panels themselves have no moving parts, though are often mounted on rotating parts to keep them angled at the sun. Anyway, the panels themselves are virtually maintenance-free. Since the proposal deals with long-term environmental damage, i think solar could be included, because the short-term production pollution, would be offset by the pollution saved by not having to produce the power with fossil fuel.


*sighs* To even be water vapor, the individual molecule must have the energy of above 100 degrees celcius. If it is around other water molecules and is below that mark, it is liquid water. When it is released by the cars, it is actually much warmer than that. Let's just work from room temperature:

I plan on looking into this more. I don't remember where, but I read that the opperating temp of hydrogen fuel cells is much lower than the opperating temp of combustion engines, I will try to find the source again. I also remember reading a story about a mayor drinking the water produced by a fuel cell, this may be fabrication or the water vapor may have been recondensed for him to do this, I will try to find this again, too.


Let's pause for a second here. That was for the reaction of just 2 grams of Hydrogen, and obscenely small amount. Considering mass is standardized around kilograms (1000 grams), can you imagine how much energy would be released? This is before we consider the energy of its heat beyond 100C.

Something to think about.

I will consider this, thank you, and I plan to look more into energy input to make hydrogen vs. energy output, as well as vapor temp and its possible effects on the environment.

But, and I may be wrong about this, if the vapor is hot and rises quickly, would it not also expand, quickly, lowering its temp? This may be faulty logic, but it was just something I was thinking about. Also, the level at which clouds form is generally much cooler than the ground, correct? Would that not also have a mitigating effect on the vapor temp?

It was probably condensed - though that's hardly surprising. A gram of water is equivelent to about 1mL, and there's about 250mL in a cup (the imperial measurement - I think it's closer to 231 but I can't remember). So as a high number, that's 250 g which (rounded up) is 14 mol of water which is 28 mols (and therefore grams) of hydrogen. Energy in the water vapor: 640 kJ (which brings a different consideration if you even find a way to generate enough cooling to run this all through a condensator).

OK, I checked it. It was as I originally said:
The energy required to produce hydrogen via electrolysis is about 32.9 kWh/kg source. Wind turbines being manufactured now have power ratings ranging from 250 watts to 1.8 megawatts and A 10-kW wind turbine can generate about 10,000 kWh annually at a site with wind speeds averaging 12 miles per hour source . It costs 45 kilowatt hours to produce the hydrogen with the energy equivelent of one gallon of gasoline (my original wording was confusing, sorry). So, over one year, this small turbine would produce an amount of hydrogen with the energy equivelent of 222 gallons of gas.

A 1.6 MW generator produces an average of 5,600,000 kWh of energy a year source (http://www.awea.org/faq/tutorial/wwt_basics.html). This turbine would then annualy produce an amount of hydrogen with the energy equivelent of 124,444 gallons of gas. This is admittedly a drop in the bucket of what the something like 2 billion barrels of oil the US uses annually, but it is just one turbine and using hydrogen will help with increasing fuel efficiency of cars. Because the cars will be electric they can employ the regenerative braking systems that gas/electric hybrids use. The energy output to weight of fuel ratio of hydrogen is better than that of gas, so that would help, too.

On the issue of wind, I found this:
THE TOP TWENTY STATES for Wind Energy Potential
as measured by annual energy potential in the billions of kWh, factoring in environmental and land use exclusions for wind class of 3 and higher.
B kWh/Yr
1. North Dakota 1,210
2. Texas 1,190
3. Kansas 1,070
4. South Dakota 1,030
5. Montana 1,020
6. Nebraska 868
7. Wyoming 747
8. Oklahoma 725
9. Minnesota 657
10. Iowa 551
11. Colorado 481
12. New Mexico 435
13. Idaho 73
14. Michigan 65
15. New York 62
16. Illinois 61
17. California 59
18. Wisconsin 58
19. Maine 56
20. Missouri 52


Source: An Assessment of the Available Windy Land Area and Wind Energy Potential in the Contiguous United States, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, August 1991. PNL-7789.

These figures are a bit outdated, so they are likely much higher today.

Do you have, as a percentage, how much of total production of power that is for the states in question?

Actually, from what I've seen, it's held by respectable scientists. You forgot to take into account one simple fact: The amount of water vapor going into the atmosphere will increase, increasing the amount of present greenhouse gases and increasing overall temperature. This is balanced by rain, which has a cooling effect that will swing in the opposite direction. Thus, the true danger of global warming: The ice age.

I don't understand this statement. If the rain has a balancing effect on the increase temp from increased water vapor, how does this have any net difference on global temp?

Do you have, as a percentage, how much of total production of power that is for the states in question?

I'm sorry my post might have been confusing. These are statistics for potential power generation from wind, taking into account the land use and environmental concerns.

OK, I checked it. It was as I originally said:
The energy required to produce hydrogen via electrolysis is about 32.9 kWh/kg source. Wind turbines being manufactured now have power ratings ranging from 250 watts to 1.8 megawatts and A 10-kW wind turbine can generate about 10,000 kWh annually at a site with wind speeds averaging 12 miles per hour source . It costs 45 kilowatt hours to produce the hydrogen with the energy equivelent of one gallon of gasoline (my original wording was confusing, sorry). So, over one year, this small turbine would produce an amount of hydrogen with the energy equivelent of 222 gallons of gas.

A 1.6 MW generator produces an average of 5,600,000 kWh of energy a year source (http://www.awea.org/faq/tutorial/wwt_basics.html). This turbine would then annualy produce an amount of hydrogen with the energy equivelent of 124,444 gallons of gas. This is admittedly a drop in the bucket of what the something like 2 billion barrels of oil the US uses annually, but it is just one turbine and using hydrogen will help with increasing fuel efficiency of cars. Because the cars will be electric they can employ the regenerative braking systems that gas/electric hybrids use. The energy output to weight of fuel ratio of hydrogen is better than that of gas, so that would help, too.

On the issue of wind, I found this:
THE TOP TWENTY STATES for Wind Energy Potential
as measured by annual energy potential in the billions of kWh, factoring in environmental and land use exclusions for wind class of 3 and higher.
B kWh/Yr
1. North Dakota 1,210
2. Texas 1,190 2400
3. Kansas 1,070 3470
4. South Dakota 1,030 4500
5. Montana 1,020 5520
6. Nebraska 868 6388
7. Wyoming 747 7135
8. Oklahoma 725 7860
9. Minnesota 657 8517
10. Iowa 551 9068
11. Colorado 481 9549
12. New Mexico 435 9984
13. Idaho 73 10057
14. Michigan 65 10122
15. New York 62 10184
16. Illinois 61 10245
17. California 59 10304
18. Wisconsin 58 10362
19. Maine 56 10418
20. Missouri 52 10470


Source: An Assessment of the Available Windy Land Area and Wind Energy Potential in the Contiguous United States, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, August 1991. PNL-7789.

These figures are a bit outdated, so they are likely much higher today.

the added numbers are total nation wide - the calculations are there so anyone can check my math. So:

10 470 000 000 kWh which is about equivelent to 232 666 667 galleons of gas.

Someone posted that we have 700 million cars on this planet - which seems fairly reasonable, perhaps even small. If we were to assume that each car filled up only once a week and that they took only 10 galleons when they filled up - which I think we can all tell just by eyeballing, is impossibly small assumptions, you wouldn't even have enough to last you until 6am. Maybe 9am since everyone is asleep for a lot of that.

But wait.....car manufacturing produces only the second most amount of pollutants.

And, I note, the US is the 4th largest country in the world. While the US and Canada might be able to develope excellent levels of wind power, I shudder to think that Japan could supply their 125 million people with enough power on their little islands, or Hong Kong successfully supply its 3 million people. Hell, I doubt either can supply a whole percent.

THE TOP TWENTY STATES for Wind Energy Potential
as measured by annual energy potential in the billions of kWh, factoring in environmental and land use exclusions for wind class of 3 and higher.
B kWh/Yr
1. North Dakota 1,210
2. Texas 1,190
3. Kansas 1,070
4. South Dakota 1,030
5. Montana 1,020
6. Nebraska 868
7. Wyoming 747
8. Oklahoma 725
9. Minnesota 657
10. Iowa 551
11. Colorado 481
12. New Mexico 435
13. Idaho 73
14. Michigan 65
15. New York 62
16. Illinois 61
17. California 59
18. Wisconsin 58
19. Maine 56
20. Missouri 52

Please excuse me for this, but only an idiot would put wind turbines in those states. Most of them are in Tornado Alley, while the rest either have problems with extreme freezing that requires extra work to keep the turbines from being worn out after only a couple of years or requires the turbines to be reinforced against other disasters. Oh, the New York one is false. The reason is that most of the wind potential is generated by the skycrapers, which means the turbines literally have to be built in the streets.

I don't understand this statement. If the rain has a balancing effect on the increase temp from increased water vapor, how does this have any net difference on global temp?

For the same reason that scientists can accurately discount it from counteracting global warming without causing an even worse disaster. You see, the problem is that rain is not a true balancer. If it was, we could poison this planet as much as we want and never have any potential of worrying about global warming. The rain would simply counteract it. Bet they never bothered to teach you that when they were handing out the "hydrogen power is good" flyers, eh?

Go back to the previous page, where I posted a bunch of links, and read the linked posts. And I mean all of them. And, check out the links the author provides.

more facts about hydrogen from http://www.hydrogenus.com/hydrogen-basics.asp :

Typically, a gasoline internal combustion engine (ICE) is 18-20% efficient (S&TR); hydrogen ICEs are about 25% efficient (Automotive Fleet); methanol fuel cells are about 38% efficient (AMI); and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles like Toyota’s FCHV-4 are 60% efficient—3 times better than today’s gasoline fueled engines. (Toyota)

The amount of energy produced by hydrogen per unit weight of fuel is about 3 times the amount of energy contained in an equal weight of gasoline, and almost 7 times that of coal. (FSEC)

Hydrogen energy density per volume is quite low at standard temperature and pressure. Volumetric energy density can be increased by storing the hydrogen under increased pressure or storing it at extremely low temperatures as a liquid. (DOE)

Production
The U.S. hydrogen industry currently produces 9 million tons of hydrogen per year (enough to power 20-30 million cars or 5-8 million homes) for use in:
* Chemicals production
* Petroleum refining
* Metals treating
* Electrical applications. (DOE)

Steam methane reforming accounts for 95% of the hydrogen produced in the U.S. (DOE)

I'll get to your links in a minute, Lilith. Your statement on New York seems hard to believe. Skyscrapers don't generate wind, they only channelize it and the tops of the buildings would be fine places for turbines.

more facts about hydrogen from http://www.hydrogenus.com/hydrogen-basics.asp :

Typically, a gasoline internal combustion engine (ICE) is 18-20% efficient (S&TR); hydrogen ICEs are about 25% efficient (Automotive Fleet); methanol fuel cells are about 38% efficient (AMI); and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles like Toyota’s FCHV-4 are 60% efficient—3 times better than today’s gasoline fueled engines. (Toyota)

I do believe we've already agreed to this fact (you'll recall that on the previous page iirc, I actually stated the same thing - only using relative to 50%

The amount of energy produced by hydrogen per unit weight of fuel is about 3 times the amount of energy contained in an equal weight of gasoline, and almost 7 times that of coal. (FSEC)

Wow Hydrogen is rather pathetic (yes I am using pathetic). Gasoline has, per mol, (96.08 + 18.18) 114.26 g of mass. Coal is condensed carbon and is highly inefficient in its process of burning (which is why it is such a major pollutant when used). Honestly, you are telling me absolutely nothing I already know, nor am I impressed. A 60L tank probably doesn't weigh more than 100kg (at worst), compared to the car which is over a ton. Rate of consumption for Hydrogen is actually more interesting - since it is actually.....constant as long as the switch is closed. On the other hand, fuel you can increase your power if you step on the gas a bit harder. This also has a reverse effect when you're at, say, a stop light with the engine running.

Hydrogen energy density per volume is quite low at standard temperature and pressure. Volumetric energy density can be increased by storing the hydrogen under increased pressure or storing it at extremely low temperatures as a liquid. (DOE)

Energy density per volume being low is not exactly a "bonus". It's actually a con.

As a LIQUID[U]? Do you know how ****ing ludicrous that is. Hydrogen has a condensation point of like -200C. Even pressurized. And increasing pressure (though that is going to happen regardless) has its own problems - from refuelling your car (actually, there's a ****load of problems when your trying to refuel a pressurized area) to....just the inherent danger of it (as in, "boom")

How much chemistry have you taken?

Production
The U.S. hydrogen industry currently produces 9 million tons of hydrogen per year (enough to power 20-30 million cars or 5-8 million homes) for use in:
* Chemicals production
* Petroleum refining
* Metals treating
* Electrical applications. (DOE)

Steam methane reforming accounts for 95% of the hydrogen produced in the U.S. (DOE)

Haven't heard of the Steam methane reforming process, link?

Regardless, 9 million tons powers 20-30 million cars. Let's see..... that's almost half a million tons per car. Wow, that's pretty freaking scary.

I'll get to your links in a minute, Lilith. Your statement on New York seems hard to believe. Skyscrapers don't generate wind, they only channelize it and the tops of the buildings would be fine places for turbines.

Actually, it's not so much that they "generate" wind as they generate "wind density" which basically makes it so the wind is higher. The reason is that you're trying to squeeze the same amount of air through a smaller space - and thus it's trying to get more air through the same unit of volume between the skyscrapers than outside the skyscrapers. Because its trying to keep pressure even, this means it moves quicker between instead. A similar theory works for river speeds: wider sections are slower while narrower sections are much much faster.

Please excuse me for this, but only an idiot would put wind turbines in those states. Most of them are in Tornado Alley, while the rest either have problems with extreme freezing that requires extra work to keep the turbines from being worn out after only a couple of years or requires the turbines to be reinforced against other disasters. Oh, the New York one is false. The reason is that most of the wind potential is generated by the skycrapers, which means the turbines literally have to be built in the streets.



For the same reason that scientists can accurately discount it from counteracting global warming without causing an even worse disaster. You see, the problem is that rain is not a true balancer. If it was, we could poison this planet as much as we want and never have any potential of worrying about global warming. The rain would simply counteract it. Bet they never bothered to teach you that when they were handing out the "hydrogen power is good" flyers, eh?

Go back to the previous page, where I posted a bunch of links, and read the linked posts. And I mean all of them. And, check out the links the author provides.

i'm sorry but I read about three or four of your links and I have yet to see a linked fact, just a bunch of people making matter-of-fact statements and trying to outdo eachothers' disses. All this tells me is that people who frequent this forum are more concerned with bashing each other's ideas than with trying to actually educate each other and work together to create something that is "worthy" of consideration by the UN. DemonLordEnigma's posts might have been more helpful if the info he based tham on were linked to, but I didn't notice any time that they were. I have been trying to build a case for what I believe in by sourcing the facts I use, that others might be educated. I don't claim to know everything about alternative energy and am never above learning, but calling my thinking idiotic and linking to other threads af similar bashings does me no good. A constant theme in the criticism is that the water vapor released would have a detrimental effect on global temperature. If this has some credibility, I would like to see an actual link to a credible source that says so.

On a related note, I don't see how it would be "idiotic" to build turbines in Tornado Alley. They must have power plants there, why would wind power be affected so much more?

9. Minnesota 657


BUAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

On a yearly basis, Minnesota suffers ALL of the following calamities:

-Tornadoes
-Blizzards
-Extreme cold
-Torrential rain
-Severe thunderstorms
-Floods

This state has the greatest temp variations during a year of any state in the United States, and you think wind turbines would work well here!? In the summer, the temp can be comparable to that of a desert, and in the winter it's so cold that the US Army uses this state for it's cold weather training.

Minnesota has enough trouble keeping ROADS in working order. Something like a wind turbine would be a horrible idea here.

I'll get to your links in a minute, Lilith. Your statement on New York seems hard to believe. Skyscrapers don't generate wind, they only channelize it and the tops of the buildings would be fine places for turbines.

Quick question: Have you ever actually been to New York City? Better yet, have you even been to Kansas City? The skycrapers, as you say, channelize the wind. They also provide a path with little resistance against said wind. In effect, you end up with massive wind tunnels, where the wind reaches speeds it normally wouldn't. It is the combination of channels and a lack of overall resistance that causes this, as you are focusing the winds into smaller areas and not providing sufficient resistance to drain their energy. Sticking the turbines on top of the skyscrapers is pointless, as most of the wind will be travelling between them.

i'm sorry but I read about three or four of your links and I have yet to see a linked fact, just a bunch of people making matter-of-fact statements and trying to outdo eachothers' disses. All this tells me is that people who frequent this forum are more concerned with bashing each other's ideas than with trying to actually educate each other and work together to create something that is "worthy" of consideration by the UN.

Keep reading. It's not in the first four, but later on. The reason I linked her posts is that I know she actually researched her information. Later on, you'll find her links.

Don't let those posts fool you about the forums. She was always a firebrand, whether pulling pranks on her commanding officers, fighting for her life, or simply discussing which color is best.

DemonLordEnigma's posts might have been more helpful if the info he based tham on were linked to, but I didn't notice any time that they were. I have been trying to build a case for what I believe in by sourcing the facts I use, that others might be educated. I don't claim to know everything about alternative energy and am never above learning, but calling my thinking idiotic and linking to other threads af similar bashings does me no good. A constant theme in the criticism is that the water vapor released would have a detrimental effect on global temperature. If this has some credibility, I would like to see an actual link to a credible source that says so.

Like I said, keep reading. I don't view most of what you have said as idiotic. I just view it as based on inaccurate information. And, yes, DLE did provide her links at one point. I don't think she included all of them.

On a related note, I don't see how it would be "idiotic" to build turbines in Tornado Alley. They must have power plants there, why would wind power be affected so much more?

Son, have you ever seen what an F1 does to a house? I have. Tornado Alley does not have a single wind turbine for a very good reason. That reason is the tornados have a bad habit of ripping apart buildings made of stone, steel, and other durable materials. Keep in mind we're talking about a place where seeing a flying firetruck is a sign you should be running for a storm shelter, not a sign of a insanity. Try researching tornado disasters. Missouri in particular has at least one house destroyed by tornados every year, and I know the other states in that section are worse. All that will happen is the wind turbines will focus the wind and will probably end up being destroyed every year.

i'm sorry but I read about three or four of your links and I have yet to see a linked fact, just a bunch of people making matter-of-fact statements and trying to outdo eachothers' disses. All this tells me is that people who frequent this forum are more concerned with bashing each other's ideas than with trying to actually educate each other and work together to create something that is "worthy" of consideration by the UN.

*groans* A lot of the arguments you'll find on these forums aren't linked to sources because we're trying to use previous knowledge and pure logic to debate things with you. Heck, half of my arguments on this thread I'm working through in a logical manner when I think of the actual concerns of each problem. To some extent, I'm probably reinventing the wheel. The only thing I pulled a source for was I double checked my facts on actual numerical data (the heat of water vapor calculation) and the reaction of Hydrogen fuel cell, and that was from an offline source.

DemonLordEnigma's posts might have been more helpful if the info he based tham on were linked to, but I didn't notice any time that they were. I have been trying to build a case for what I believe in by sourcing the facts I use, that others might be educated.

I noticed. However, it feels like I'm arguing with a person who never asked (I'm guessing) himself "does this seem reasonable" or "what does this mean" as you went through. Perhaps this was simply from a lack of background in chemisty (hence my previous question) or just plain laziness. I've spent most of this thread trying to use chemistry and logic along with various data to dispel the evidence you've posted.

The claim I have held all along is that we are not there yet. When you see that, you see this resolution fails. We have discussed a few dozen issues with this resolution and the individual power generation methods and their inherent flaws. We acknowledge when you make a good point, but you have failed to acknowledge dozens of points of ours that have come across as proving flaws in your energy sources - and merely move on to prove other good things about these energy sources (half the time, we come back questioning whether that data is good or putting it into context to show just how bad the picture is). Yes you have a lot of data, but your failure to consider flaws that we have noted just by plain logic and hammering out data makes your position look really weak, and makes this feel like we're trying to educate someone who doesn't know the science behind all of this. The thing is that politicians and scientists can only address a handful of points at a time - either due to lack of interest or a variety of other issues. In this thread alone, we have brought up water vapor concerns, water liquid concerns, heat loss concerns, extra rain concerns, energy loss, platinum supplies, sheer size of the problem, energy required to produce hydrogen, consumption of hydrogen, etc. Of these, heat loss concerns is unknown, we don't have proof that it'll be water vapor or water liquid that comes out - but there's a serious issue about it either way, and the energy loss issue needs to be addressed. I know of at least one other argument (and last night I did have an online source for it, but I didn't want to get into an extensive debate on platinum) that brings forth sustainability of hydrogen fuel cells.

I don't claim to know everything about alternative energy and am never above learning, but calling my thinking idiotic and linking to other threads af similar bashings does me no good. A constant theme in the criticism is that the water vapor released would have a detrimental effect on global temperature. If this has some credibility, I would like to see an actual link to a credible source that says so.

Think it through.

On a related note, I don't see how it would be "idiotic" to build turbines in Tornado Alley. They must have power plants there, why would wind power be affected so much more?

Power plants: concrete. Fares fairly well against high winds
Wind Generators: steel. Ouch that'll hurt.

On a yearly basis, Minnesota suffers ALL of the following calamities:

-Tornadoes
-Blizzards
-Extreme cold
-Torrential rain
-Severe thunderstorms
-Floods

This state has the greatest temp variations during a year of any state in the United States, and you think wind turbines would work well here!? In the summer, the temp can be comparable to that of a desert, and in the winter it's so cold that the US Army uses this state for it's cold weather training.

Minnesota has enough trouble keeping ROADS in working order. Something like a wind turbine would be a horrible idea here.

I live in Minnesota, there are wind turbnes here and plans to make more. Tornados are not a huge problem and the last one that did major damage that I can think of is the one that hit St. Peter, but they have rebuilt and are fine now. Flooding does happen, but not usually on a huge scale and almost never in the best spots for turbines, the tops of ridges. Turbines can withstand thunderstorms and even torrential rain, the blades can be stopped and then it acts like any other building. Blizzards shouldn't affect turbines any more then normal power plants, unless the snow is sticky and builds up on the blades, but I'm sure this problem can be dealt with. The summer tempin MN usually gets to the 90s or 100s F for about five days to a week and a half a year, but even still, how would this affect turbines specially? Though there are still a few cold snaps during the winter where temps are extremely low, these only last a week at a time and winters have been getting milder over the last 6 or so years.

Lilith's Vengence: OK I see your point about buildings ceating more wind density, though I would hope the ones doing the research would not include data from places where turbines could not be put. NY does have mountains and probably plenty of good places for turbines there, too. And even though there might be more wind potential between skyscrapers, I would think that the tops would still have enough constant wind to sustain a turbine.

The point about tornado alley is a good one too, though I don't know what you mean by turbines focusing wind. One idea though: palm trees often survive hurricanes by being very flexible in high wind, maybe turbines in higher risk areas could be built to give, like sky scrapers do in the wind, and increase there likelyhood of surviving a tornado. This may seem outrageous, but I'm sure the idea of building a skyscraper that can withstand an earthquake seemed outrageous before it was done. But anyway, tornado alley has power plants and buildings that survive tornados, there must be some way to get turbines to do the same. I don't know why so many proponents of wind power would want to have them in tornado alley if they thought it too risky, they have a lot to lose if many turbines get destroyed and make people even more unsure about windpower. And I find it hard to believe that tornado alley has absolutely no turbines.

by Forgottenlands: Power plants: concrete. Fares fairly well against high winds

Wind turbines can be made form the same building materials of any power plant.

Forgottenlands: I understand that not all arguements need to be backed up with sources, but when you make a claim as strong as something to the effect of "using hydrogen fuel cells will accelerate global warming more than using fossil fuels," that is something that needs to have some kind of backing. I am trying to use logic when assesing the problems you bring up, it soesn't make logical sense that vapor emmited from fuel cell cars would retain enough heat to form clouds that didn't condense fast enough and would increase global warming. It also doesn't make sense that the vapor added to the atmosphere would have more effect than the vapor added through evaporation from irrigation, which has been going on for thousands of years, or people watering their lawn.

In a way I also disagree with your statement that we are not there yet. I think it is reasonable to say that we have the technology to replace enough fossil fuel energy with clean, renewable sources to maintain a comfortable level of existence. We may not be able to enjoy the same level of comfort we do today, but that may be the case no matter what energy source we use. It may be that in order to achieve energy sustainability, we need to drastically re-assess what we need and what we want but would be to damaging to have. It may be that we will not be able to have as many pieces of clothing per reson, street lights that stay on all night, air conditioning for not food or medical purposes, food shipped from halfway around the world, or many other luxaries we enjoy today, but considering the alternative of riding this runaway oil train untill it wrecks, I think most people would choose the first option. Conservation will also play a huge part in energy sustainability, but as we can see with car companies reluctance in increasing fuel efficiency because of the interests of iol companies, personal profit can get in the way of moving toward energy sustainability.

But also, one of the main things my proposal was attempting to address was the fact that if we want to have a comperable level of existence, we need to put aside personal gain and work together to make sure we do get there, that technology does advance enough to get us all there before oil peaks in production worldwide. Oil production will peak whether technology improves or not, and this will mean that after that point oil production wil go down and prices will go up even further. So instead of sitting around and saying that with current technology alternative fuels will not meet energy demands of today, it's time to start acting and doing all we can to meet as much of the need as we can with clean renewable sources in the time we have left. I am willing to concede that we may need fission power to help us get there and/or buy enough time to last past peak oil, but it must be remembered that fission can only ever be an inerim power source because it relys on finite resources, just like energy from fossil fuels does.

I hope that even if you disagree with my arguments for one power source or another, you still see the need to get off of fossil fuel use. If that is the case then let's all work together to make a proposal that seems realistic, workable, and effective to us all.

In other words, not this proposal.

I live in MN too, you know, and deploying wind power on a large scale is just not feasible here.

edit: You know what else uses fossil fuels? Plastics.

Banning all use of all fossil fuel would bring modern society to a screeching halt.

Wind turbines can be made form the same building materials of any power plant.

The blades, which move in open air, are metal. They can't be made out of concrete (for weight reasons), and the fact that they are moving instantly makes them more susceptable (sp?) to failure (I have never seen a stat on this, but every single engineering class that starts talking about reliability mentions whether there is a moving part and then goes and says "which makes it more (if not moving)/less(otherwise) reliable"). Additional issues come in the freeze/thaw concerns which have destroyed so many things in history, it isn't funny. Cracked pavement is thanks to this very problem, and bridges have come off their sides and fallen into rivers from this problem. I know of at least one town that just over a hundred years ago was buried under a mountain after freeze/thaw caused the mountain to collapse on its coal mine and start an avalanche (which are almost always caused by a combination of extra weight, and freeze/thaw concerns weakening the support). Here in Alberta, they actually pulled apart a wind farm of about 100-150 generators - most likely due to the harsh environment that they would've gone through (they would've been thawed and frozen a few dozen times a year thanks to chinooks coming over the mountains - lots of wind, lots of damage)

Forgottenlands: I understand that not all arguements need to be backed up with sources, but when you make a claim as strong as something to the effect of "using hydrogen fuel cells will accelerate global warming more than using fossil fuels,"

Didn't say that. I said it would still continue to be creating atmospheric gases so we are in a situation where we still have global warming

that is something that needs to have some kind of backing. I am trying to use logic when assesing the problems you bring up, it soesn't make logical sense that vapor emmited from fuel cell cars would retain enough heat to form clouds

I'll try to see if I can get some numbers that would relate to my earlier post regarding the amount of energy in water vapor

that didn't condense fast enough and would increase global warming. It also doesn't make sense that the vapor added to the atmosphere would have more effect than the vapor added through evaporation from irrigation,

Where is this vapor coming from? Irrigation has no energy attached to the water. It might myst the water, but that has little energy, stays relatively close to the surface, and sure as heck isn't water vapor (it's closer to water particulate).

which has been going on for thousands of years, or people watering their lawn.

In a way I also disagree with your statement that we are not there yet. I think it is reasonable to say that we have the technology to replace enough fossil fuel energy with clean, renewable sources to maintain a comfortable level of existence. We may not be able to enjoy the same level of comfort we do today, but that may be the case no matter what energy source we use.

Perhaps, but that level of comfort you speak of would not include that computer you're using. Or the TV that's nearby, or most of the lights in your house, perhaps not even your stove, washer or dryer. Electric garage doors, nope. Microwaves...probably not.

The numbers we've estimated so far are fractions of percentages of the numbers we need to hit. Anything that uses a lot of energy would pretty much have to go, one way or the other. Everything from computers to running water is at risk. Do we need to develope the alternate energy sources - heck yes. But to say that we can replace fossil fuels is foolhardy at this point and time.

It may be that in order to achieve energy sustainability, we need to drastically re-assess what we need and what we want but would be to damaging to have. It may be that we will not be able to have as many pieces of clothing per reson, street lights that stay on all night, air conditioning for not food or medical purposes, food shipped from halfway around the world, or many other luxaries we enjoy today, but considering the alternative of riding this runaway oil train untill it wrecks, I think most people would choose the first option.

No. If most people realized what they were sacrificing, they would not. The proof I use is the fact that everyone bitches every time the gas prices goes up another 10 cents. I want gas prices to hit $5 and that extra money get reinvested into research for alternative energy - but that SURE as heck isn't going to happen. Entire governments would be tossed out. Heck, high gas prices is starting to hit the top ten policy issues in elections these days

Conservation will also play a huge part in energy sustainability, but as we can see with car companies reluctance in increasing fuel efficiency because of the interests of iol companies, personal profit can get in the way of moving toward energy sustainability.

Agreed.

But also, one of the main things my proposal was attempting to address was the fact that if we want to have a comperable level of existence, we need to put aside personal gain and work together to make sure we do get there, that technology does advance enough to get us all there before oil peaks in production worldwide. Oil production will peak whether technology improves or not, and this will mean that after that point oil production wil go down and prices will go up even further. So instead of sitting around and saying that with current technology alternative fuels will not meet energy demands of today, it's time to start acting and doing all we can to meet as much of the need as we can with clean renewable sources in the time we have left.

*Points to resolutions 17 and 39

I would love to see a similar research resolution to those, only for all forms of power production and reducing global dependancy on fossil fuels. I support resolutions that push for more alternative energy sources. However, I don't support resolutions that require a full replacement of all fossil fuels.

I am willing to concede that we may need fission power to help us get there and/or buy enough time to last past peak oil, but it must be remembered that fission can only ever be an inerim power source because it relys on finite resources, just like energy from fossil fuels does.

True

I hope that even if you disagree with my arguments for one power source or another, you still see the need to get off of fossil fuel use.

You haven't been reading closely enough. However, I've drilled it in enough over the course of this post

If that is the case then let's all work together to make a proposal that seems realistic, workable, and effective to us all.

1) Don't set a timeline for going off fossil fuel use. We don't yet have the technology to actually replace fossil fuels, so setting a timeline based upon research, the most instable area when it comes to doing timelines, is foolhardy
2) I don't care which version you use - urge or mandates - but push nations into developing as far as they reasonably can a system of alternative energy sources that are not reliant upon finite resources. Also, make a clause to consider environmental damage (but to refuse it means that we can't really use anything).
3) Heavy investment into research of alternative energy sources.

Lilith's Vengence: OK I see your point about buildings ceating more wind density, though I would hope the ones doing the research would not include data from places where turbines could not be put. NY does have mountains and probably plenty of good places for turbines there, too. And even though there might be more wind potential between skyscrapers, I would think that the tops would still have enough constant wind to sustain a turbine.

Nope. Most of the tops of those skyscrapers are high enough that the amount of wind is down by the general atmospheric density. The reason why you don't see the top floors of those skyscrapers knocked of by wind is the simple fact the atmophere is thin enough the winds can't get enough total strength to do it. You want your turbines much closer to the ground than that. Unless, of course, you are going to make them out of paper, in which case higher would be better.

The point about tornado alley is a good one too, though I don't know what you mean by turbines focusing wind.

Simple. The wind that flows through the turbines comes out behind them in focused gusts. The more turbines, the more the wind behind them is focused. As you create this focus, you cause a minor shift in wind patterns, similar to that faced by cities. The reason why focused winds are bad is the simple fact tornados are sometimes attracted by them. Tornados mostly don't bother the skyscrapers because those are big enough to not be torn apart while at the same time focus enough wind to create an effective barrier around themselves. However, your turbines won't have that protection.

One idea though: palm trees often survive hurricanes by being very flexible in high wind, maybe turbines in higher risk areas could be built to give, like sky scrapers do in the wind, and increase there likelyhood of surviving a tornado.

Palm trees are also frequently ripped out of the ground by hurricanes. All building your turbines to give will do is allow the tornado greater ease in twisting it into a little knot before launching it through someone's house.

This may seem outrageous, but I'm sure the idea of building a skyscraper that can withstand an earthquake seemed outrageous before it was done.

Actually, it didn't. You can reinforce skyscrapers much more than they already are without sacrificing function. Wind turbines start losing function the moment you start necessary reinforcements.

But anyway, tornado alley has power plants and buildings that survive tornados, there must be some way to get turbines to do the same.

In most cases, they are not destroyed because they are built to withstand large explosions or because the tornados simply decide not to bother them. My house is no where near capable of withstanding an F3, but one has never destroyed it. To understand a tornado and get it to do exactly what you want without extreme landscape alterations (such as skyscrapers) requires being a god.

I don't know why so many proponents of wind power would want to have them in tornado alley if they thought it too risky, they have a lot to lose if many turbines get destroyed and make people even more unsure about windpower. And I find it hard to believe that tornado alley has absolutely no turbines.

People occasionally build one and put it in their front yard, but in most cases I have seen that's actually as an early warning system instead of for power generation. Keep in mind that the typical F4 is capable of ripping up roads and throwing them at you. And, no, I'm not joking or exaggerating. The F5 is even worse, and has no upper limit on its strength. Those are also the suckers that can get to a mile wide at the base or bigger.

The reason why behind not building wind turbines is the simple fact you can't make them to both generate power and resist a tornado. In fact, you probably can't do the second, considering that some tornados are powerful enough to rip apart concrete.

Want to get an idea what they are like? Rent the movie Twister and watch it. Now, remember that the tornados they show may be fictional, but tornados reaching that size in real life are not and do happen from time to time. Watch the kind of devastation a single tornado can do in minutes. A hurricane may be big and massive, but they do not match a tornado when it comes to sheer destructive efficiency.

Wind turbines can be made form the same building materials of any power plant.

Concrete wind turbines don't turn when hit by wind.

The previously supplied links to posts by DemonLordEnigma contained only a single reference, which itself contained no relevant or credible information. The original posts seemed much the same as the posts here - ideologically driven and without backing.

Consider the following:

* 1g of hydrogen creates 142kJ of energy, and 1g of gasoline (octane) creates 45kJ of energy. [1] (http://itl.chem.ufl.edu/2045_s00/lectures/lec_8.html)
* Since 2H + O => H2O, and 1g of hydrogen is 1 mol hydrogen, to burn 1g of hydrogen will create 0.5 moles of water.
* 1g of octane is 8.77x10^-3 moles of octane (as 1 mole is 114g), and 2C8H18 + 25O2 => 16CO2 + 18H2O [2] (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/issues/issue1pre98.html), so 1g of octane produces 0.0789 moles of water. (8.77X10^-3 x 18 / 2)
* to create 142kJ of energ, in order to compare to hydrogen, we need 3.16g of gasoline / octane.
* 3.16g of octane will produce 0.249 moles of water.

The crux is that when generating the same amount of energy, hydrogen will produce almost exactly twice as much water as gasoline/octane does. As far as I am aware, there are no current complaints about the 'water vapour' problem caused by current usage of gasoline.

The trade off is that by increasing the 'water vapour' - in effect we would be doubling it rather than introducing a non-existent material into the equation - we are able to halt carbon dioxide emissions from all hydrogen burning motors. From the second link above, see that we are producing 18 lbs of carbon dioxide produced for each gallon of gasoline used (because 1 mole octane = 114 g; 1 mole CO2 = 44 g; and each mole of octane burnt creates 8 moles of CO2).

Now I pose the question: do you believe that the 'water vapour' problem being created by burning hydrogen, ie doubling the amount of water vapour we already create, is significant? If so, what evidence of problems being caused by the current level of water vapour can you provide?

Do you further believe that this increase in water vapour levels is not a minor trade-off compared to the benefits of carbon dioxide-free motors? That is, we could cease all carbon dioxide production in exchange for a doubling of water vapour levels. Would this be desirable or undesirable?

Simple. The wind that flows through the turbines comes out behind them in focused gusts. The more turbines, the more the wind behind them is focused. As you create this focus, you cause a minor shift in wind patterns, similar to that faced by cities. The reason why focused winds are bad is the simple fact tornados are sometimes attracted by them. Tornados mostly don't bother the skyscrapers because those are big enough to not be torn apart while at the same time focus enough wind to create an effective barrier around themselves. However, your turbines won't have that protection.Reference, please. I can't find any mention of this on any anti-wind power websites, and this 'focused wind' theory seems dubious at best. Yes, the turbines interfere with the wind. So do trees and mountains.

One of the major complaints against wind turbines is bird fatalities. You should stick to the serious issues rather than 'wind focus' problems.

Reference, please. I can't find any mention of this on any anti-wind power websites, and this 'focused wind' theory seems dubious at best. Yes, the turbines interfere with the wind. So do trees and mountains.

One of the major complaints against wind turbines is bird fatalities. You should stick to the serious issues rather than 'wind focus' problems.

Yeah, I was wondering about that one myself. Wind tunnels existing within cities is well acknowleged, wind being focused behind turbines seems plain illogical.

edit: You know what else uses fossil fuels? Plastics.

Banning all use of all fossil fuel would bring modern society to a screeching halt.

My proposal was very specifically worded to only stop the use of fossil fuel as an energy source.

But anyway, thank you all for your comments. I have a much better idea for rewriting my proposal. I will start soon on a new one. If any of you would like to help, another nation and a puppet of mine are meeting in the region Delta to work out a proposal, all are free to join.

On a related note, I went to a presentation about the Natural Step Framework this weekend. The Natural Step is basically about how communities and businesses can work toward environmental, social, and economic sustainability. You can read about it here:The Natural Step (http://www.naturalstep.org). Form what I learned at the presentation are a: as you all have said, our current clean renewable technology is indeed not at the level to replace fossil fuel and b: according to the theories behind The Natural Step, as long as we keep taking from the lithosphere (on the scale we are now) substances that are not generally found on the surface or are found only in much smaller concentrations, we will never achieve sustainability, which is quite scarry if true because there would go all synthetic material and most metal and basically civilization as we have known it for quite some time. It doesn't predict a time frame for catastrophe, but instead says that it doesn't really matter and that we should be concerned more with heading toward following the framework, which is laid out quite simply, though nearly impossible to completely follow at this time.

The previously supplied links to posts by DemonLordEnigma contained only a single reference, which itself contained no relevant or credible information. The original posts seemed much the same as the posts here - ideologically driven and without backing.

You, sir, are a liar. And if not a liar, then dishonest enough to not read the posts and to fabricate something as a fact. The evidence.

The post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7715872&highlight=hydrogen#post7715872

The links:

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7214085
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6760785
http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/hydrogen.pdf#search='hydrogen%20explosive (does not appear to function, but does work if copied and pasted.)
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r614/r614-004.htm

The post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7717259&highlight=hydrogen#post7717259

The links:

http://ecdl.fpp.edu/~fdimc/zanimivosti/sci%20week%20zanimivosti/Pojav%20tople%20grede%20izmerjen.txt
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html

It is clear to me that, either way, you refused to acknowledge what the posts actually contain and decided that a policy outside of fact is the best method of dealing with the posts.

Consider the following:

* 1g of hydrogen creates 142kJ of energy, and 1g of gasoline (octane) creates 45kJ of energy. [1] (http://itl.chem.ufl.edu/2045_s00/lectures/lec_8.html)
* Since 2H + O => H2O, and 1g of hydrogen is 1 mol hydrogen, to burn 1g of hydrogen will create 0.5 moles of water.
* 1g of octane is 8.77x10^-3 moles of octane (as 1 mole is 114g), and 2C8H18 + 25O2 => 16CO2 + 18H2O [2] (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/issues/issue1pre98.html), so 1g of octane produces 0.0789 moles of water. (8.77X10^-3 x 18 / 2)
* to create 142kJ of energ, in order to compare to hydrogen, we need 3.16g of gasoline / octane.
* 3.16g of octane will produce 0.249 moles of water.

The crux is that when generating the same amount of energy, hydrogen will produce almost exactly twice as much water as gasoline/octane does. As far as I am aware, there are no current complaints about the 'water vapour' problem caused by current usage of gasoline.

The trade off is that by increasing the 'water vapour' - in effect we would be doubling it rather than introducing a non-existent material into the equation - we are able to halt carbon dioxide emissions from all hydrogen burning motors. From the second link above, see that we are producing 18 lbs of carbon dioxide produced for each gallon of gasoline used (because 1 mole octane = 114 g; 1 mole CO2 = 44 g; and each mole of octane burnt creates 8 moles of CO2).

Now I pose the question: do you believe that the 'water vapour' problem being created by burning hydrogen, ie doubling the amount of water vapour we already create, is significant? If so, what evidence of problems being caused by the current level of water vapour can you provide?

Another post to consider: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7707866&postcount=23

And, since I cannot trust you to be honest enough to actually read it, the links:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_keigwin.html

Do you further believe that this increase in water vapour levels is not a minor trade-off compared to the benefits of carbon dioxide-free motors? That is, we could cease all carbon dioxide production in exchange for a doubling of water vapour levels. Would this be desirable or undesirable?

Undesireable. Read the information presented.

Reference, please. I can't find any mention of this on any anti-wind power websites, and this 'focused wind' theory seems dubious at best. Yes, the turbines interfere with the wind. So do trees and mountains.

One of the major complaints against wind turbines is bird fatalities. You should stick to the serious issues rather than 'wind focus' problems.

Why should I present you with further links? You have already proven to me you cannot be honest about links I already posted. I will not post further links for you simply because I cannot trust you to not lie or "misinterpret" what they say. You will get no further links simply because you are dishonest.

Yeah, I was wondering about that one myself. Wind tunnels existing within cities is well acknowleged, wind being focused behind turbines seems plain illogical.

I assume "behind" to be the direction the wind is blowing from and "in front of" being the direction the wind is blowing. Thus, it would be concentrated behind a wind turbine, but simply because it is forcing against something and having to use more energy to get past it than it would if it wasn't there. The focus is really not that much.

I assume "behind" to be the direction the wind is blowing from and "in front of" being the direction the wind is blowing. Thus, it would be concentrated behind a wind turbine, but simply because it is forcing against something and having to use more energy to get past it than it would if it wasn't there. The focus is really not that much.

Hmm..... I can certainly see a density and concentration, but I don't see one that's significant enough to actually promote Tornados extensive enough to be sitting bullseyes as you implied.

Hmm..... I can certainly see a density and concentration, but I don't see one that's significant enough to actually promote Tornados extensive enough to be sitting bullseyes as you implied.

Actually, I don't think it will make them create tornados, just encourage tornados to hit them. I don't have much scientific fact to prove this, mainly because how tornados choose targets is mostly unknown. But, I'm going on a theory I overheard a fellow soldier reference about tornados being attracted to wind flows with unequal densities when attacking houses. In any case, no matter what the wind turbines will affect the paths of tornados near them, as they are by all appearance affected by minute things more than by big changes.

Actually, I don't think it will make them create tornados, just encourage tornados to hit them. I don't have much scientific fact to prove this, mainly because how tornados choose targets is mostly unknown. But, I'm going on a theory I overheard a fellow soldier reference about tornados being attracted to wind flows with unequal densities when attacking houses. In any case, no matter what the wind turbines will affect the paths of tornados near them, as they are by all appearance affected by minute things more than by big changes.

Yeah, that was closer to the conclusion I had hit.

You, sir, are a liar. And if not a liar, then dishonest enough to not read the posts and to fabricate something as a fact.I apologise for the confusion regarding the 'references' you provided. I am not a liar, at least not on this forum. The posts which you linked to contained some links to completely irrelevent topics - particularly the explosive nature of hydrogen, something I have no dispute over - which I read but I do not consider to be 'references' to our discussion. Given their completely irrelevant nature I believe that it would be dishonest to consider them as referring to the matter of water vapour as a greenhouse gas.

Apart from the links discussing the explosive nature of hydrogen, I also followed the Stanford (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html) link which, while again discussing the use of hydrogen as a fuel, fails to mention anything about water vapor or it's potential damage as a greenhouse gas.

The final link, ecdl.fpp (http://ecdl.fpp.edu/~fdimc/zanimivosti/sci%20week%20zanimivosti/Pojav%20tople%20grede%20izmerjen.txt), was the single reference to which I referred. Note that it does actually refer to water vapor, hence my use of the term 'reference'. Your original poster introduced it thusly: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: The text document to which the original poster linked mentions water vapor as a greenhouse gas - something which I readily accept - and also mentions the positive feedback loop caused if the temperature were to raise, but ventures no further:In this context, the term "hydrologic cycle" refers in
general to the continuous circulation of water between the
oceans, atmosphere, and land, with water evaporating from the
surface to become water vapor in the atmosphere, and then
condensing and precipitating as water back to the surface. 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.I won't deny that you have plenty of information on hand. Unfortunately, however, none of the information supports your difference in this argument, and in my opinion actually disproves it. My argument is this: the levels of water vapor in the atmosphere will only be altered if the temperature of the planet is altered. The positive feedback loop is true - if the earth's temperate were to increase by five degrees, then more water vapor would be able to exist in the atmosphere. But burning any water-creating substance will not change the level of water vapour in the air, because that level is determined by a chemical equilibrium between the air and the oceans which cover the majority of this planet. If we were to boil water continuously across the planet, we would simply see far less water evaporate from the oceans. The chemistry of equilibrium is quite simple.But, I'm going on a theory I overheard a fellow soldier reference about tornados being attracted to wind flows with unequal densities when attacking houses. In any case, no matter what the wind turbines will affect the paths of tornados near them, as they are by all appearance affected by minute things more than by big changes.An overheard theory from a soldier. Hmm. Perhaps the turbines might 'attract' the tornado away from a house or small town. In that case, I'd say the turbines have done a great service.

I apologise for the confusion regarding the 'references' you provided. I am not a liar, at least not on this forum. The posts which you linked to contained some links to completely irrelevent topics - particularly the explosive nature of hydrogen, something I have no dispute over - which I read but I do not consider to be 'references' to our discussion. Given their completely irrelevant nature I believe that it would be dishonest to consider them as referring to the matter of water vapour as a greenhouse gas.

No, but that was not my entire point for referencing them. My entire point is the total dangers of hydrogen. If I was just linking any post she made involving the word "hydrogen" in it, we would have too many posts on nuclear physics, antimatter, and the posts on topics about hydrogen that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Apart from the links discussing the explosive nature of hydrogen, I also followed the Stanford (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html) link which, while again discussing the use of hydrogen as a fuel, fails to mention anything about water vapor or it's potential damage as a greenhouse gas.

The final link, ecdl.fpp (http://ecdl.fpp.edu/~fdimc/zanimivosti/sci%20week%20zanimivosti/Pojav%20tople%20grede%20izmerjen.txt), was the single reference to which I referred. Note that it does actually refer to water vapor, hence my use of the term 'reference'. Your original poster introduced it thusly: The text document to which the original poster linked mentions water vapor as a greenhouse gas - something which I readily accept - and also mentions the positive feedback loop caused if the temperature were to raise, but ventures no further:I won't deny that you have plenty of information on hand. Unfortunately, however, none of the information supports your difference in this argument, and in my opinion actually disproves it. My argument is this: the levels of water vapor in the atmosphere will only be altered if the temperature of the planet is altered. The positive feedback loop is true - if the earth's temperate were to increase by five degrees, then more water vapor would be able to exist in the atmosphere. But burning any water-creating substance will not change the level of water vapour in the air, because that level is determined by a chemical equilibrium between the air and the oceans which cover the majority of this planet. If we were to boil water continuously across the planet, we would simply see far less water evaporate from the oceans. The chemistry of equilibrium is quite simple.

The chemistry of equilibrium also assumes both sides of the equation stay equal and that at least one side is willing to work towards equilibrium if they get unequal. Your problem here is that they are not. Here, let's provide a relevant quote for you.

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.

That's from your own post, using a quote of the provided sources. Now, I ask you: Where did it specify the changes must be only to temperature? If anything, this suggests that increasing the amount of water vapor also causes the positive feedback loop. Now, what do you think the 7+ million cars in your average nation are going to do for water vapor? They're certainly not going to decrease it.

Now, you wish the backing? Let's use simple greenhouse gas logic. A greenhouse gas is called such because it causes a greenhouse effect. If you increase the amount of the gas, you increase the greenhouse effect. If you decrease the gas, you decrease the effect. Are all of those statements true? Most enviros would say yes. So, what happens when you increase water vapor, a known greenhouse gas?

An overheard theory from a soldier. Hmm. Perhaps the turbines might 'attract' the tornado away from a house or small town. In that case, I'd say the turbines have done a great service.

Hey, I'm paid to kill people in the name of my government. In any case, if that is all they are going to be for, then they are a waste of money. You end up replacing them too often for them to be of any real service otherwise and they won't actually prevent a tornado from ripping apart an entire community for the sheer joy of it.

I have a really hard time with the claim that more water vapor from cars will mean less water vapor from oceans, etc. The problem I have is that the Hydrogen we are burning is using the energy we pumped into it to make it Hydrogen gas, while the energy given to rives/lakes/oceans/etc to create water vapor comes from the sun. At best, the equilibrium will only balance itself insofar as rain will increase (so rather than an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, we get more exchange between the two), but that still leaves the question about the energy that created that water vapor (and is lost when the water vapor turns to rain) out in the open. This, of course, leaves a possible concern about LV's comment regarding Ice age. At worst, the equilibrium theory is wrong and Human input into the system isn't cleared as fast as we like and we're pumping a heck of a lot of water vapor into the ozone that will increase global warming and melting the skin off our backs.

I have a really hard time with the claim that more water vapor from cars will mean less water vapor from oceans, etc. The problem I have is that the Hydrogen we are burning is using the energy we pumped into it to make it Hydrogen gas, while the energy given to rives/lakes/oceans/etc to create water vapor comes from the sun. At best, the equilibrium will only balance itself insofar as rain will increase (so rather than an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, we get more exchange between the two), but that still leaves the question about the energy that created that water vapor (and is lost when the water vapor turns to rain) out in the open. This, of course, leaves a possible concern about LV's comment regarding Ice age. At worst, the equilibrium theory is wrong and Human input into the system isn't cleared as fast as we like and we're pumping a heck of a lot of water vapor into the ozone that will increase global warming and melting the skin off our backs.You might think that the sun simply evaporates water, but that evaporation is merely a balancing of the equilbrium. For example, at room temperature the air has an ideal (or equilibrium) density of water vapour. If the actual density is lower, then evaporation can occur to equalise it. If the actual density is higher, condensation will occur to equalise it. If they are equal, nothing happens.

This is very simplistic, because in reality there is constant evaporation and condensation. This is occurring on a molecular scale. The 'battle' against the two separate reactions is what chemists called equilibrium. For example, on a hot day there may be 10 molecules being condensed for every 11 being evaporated. To the simple observer it appears that there is 'just evaporation', but the reality is a complex equilibrium taking place. Later that day, on a cold night, for every 10 being evaporated there may be 11 being condensed, thereby lowering the water density.

Chemical equilibrium occurs on a molecular scale moreso than on a physical scale. It's not a 'cause and effect' type of reaction, but an almost instantaneous balance. This (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00016.htm) link provides a better description of the chemistry of equilibriium, as well as declaring that:The capacity of air to hold water vapor is a
function only of the temperature of the air
(a reflection of the kinetic energy of the
molecules and atoms in the air).
In relation to the actual greenhouse effect,
The chemistry of equilibrium also assumes both sides of the equation stay equal and that at least one side is willing to work towards equilibrium if they get unequal. Your problem here is that they are not. Here, let's provide a relevant quote for you.

Quote:
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.


That's from your own post, using a quote of the provided sources. Now, I ask you: Where did it specify the changes must be only to temperature? If anything, this suggests that increasing the amount of water vapor also causes the positive feedback loop. Now, what do you think the 7+ million cars in your average nation are going to do for water vapor? They're certainly not going to decrease it.
I feel this was also a relevant part of the original quote:
In this context, the term "hydrologic cycle" refers in
general to the continuous circulation of water between the
oceans, atmosphere, and land, with water evaporating from the
surface to become water vapor in the atmosphere, and then
condensing and precipitating as water back to the surface.My interpretation is that burning hydrogen would not affect the ongoing circulation of water, nor would it affect the equilibrium level of water vapor in the atmosphere. Therefore it is not really affecting the hydrological cycle - it is contributing to it, but is not changing it.

Water vapor equilibrium is determined primarily by temperature. Therefore, only changes to the temperature can effect changes in the levels of water vapor in the atmosphere. Yes, the 'greenhouse effect' will increase levels of water vapor, but the positive feedback loop is not an endless feedback cycle, otherwise we would not be able to live on the planet. There is more water vapor in the air today than there was 100 years ago, but this is because of the greenhouse effect, not the huge amounts of water vapor that we are releasing through burning.

For mine, I would much rather an engine that releases 100 units of water vapor than one that releases 50 of water vapor and 50 of CO2, plus various other 'dirty' elements found in gasoline. Water vapor will reach equilibrium much quicker than CO2 - there are far more oceans in the world than rainforests or tree farms - and the equilibrium is a true chemical equilibrium rather than a physical one relying on photosynthesis, hence far more efficient. We will also reduce the occurance of acid rain and other environmental hazards caused by CO2 and CO in the atmosphere.

Your viewpoint is ideological, or at best based on a coverup of the water vapor problem. Any simple google for 'enhanced greenhouse effect' (which is the increase in the greenhouse effect caused by human activity) will yield results stating carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and all the usual suspects as the main contributors. I challenge you to find a source stating that water vapor is part of the enhanced greenhouse effect, rather than an after-effect through the feedback loop. If the water vapor effect is true, then it would already be an existing effect - as part of the enhanced greenhouse effect - and should be documented as such. Remember that we are merely doubling the amount of water vapor. If the current level of water vapor being released isn't listed as a cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect then it would be completely within reason to assume that doubling the water vapor level should have precisely double the effect, ie negligible.

I'm not sure where or why this strange water vapor argument came from, but it's a blantant pro-gasoline argument that you've misconstrued into something more legitimate.

I'm not sure where or why this strange water vapor argument came from, but it's a blantant pro-gasoline argument that you've misconstrued into something more legitimate.

That's what happens when you run on a "reinvent the wheel" argument, sometimes, you don't realize a factor and **** up. I haven't even heard of "enhanced greenhouse effect" so I'm obviously the junior when it comes to environmental knowledge.

I certainly accept the argument that 2 parts water is better than 1 part water and 1 part CO2. I am withdrawing that argument.

Regardless, you ignored my argument about the exchange increasing. I don't debate the science of equilibriums, but if you have input into the system from somewhere, that alters the equilibrium and thus increasing the exchange to reachieve balance. The exchange increases - not slows down elsewhere - so that this equilibrium can be reachieved.

You might think that the sun simply evaporates water, but that evaporation is merely a balancing of the equilbrium. For example, at room temperature the air has an ideal (or equilibrium) density of water vapour. If the actual density is lower, then evaporation can occur to equalise it. If the actual density is higher, condensation will occur to equalise it. If they are equal, nothing happens.

This is very simplistic, because in reality there is constant evaporation and condensation. This is occurring on a molecular scale. The 'battle' against the two separate reactions is what chemists called equilibrium. For example, on a hot day there may be 10 molecules being condensed for every 11 being evaporated. To the simple observer it appears that there is 'just evaporation', but the reality is a complex equilibrium taking place. Later that day, on a cold night, for every 10 being evaporated there may be 11 being condensed, thereby lowering the water density.

Chemical equilibrium occurs on a molecular scale moreso than on a physical scale. It's not a 'cause and effect' type of reaction, but an almost instantaneous balance. This (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00016.htm) link provides a better description of the chemistry of equilibriium, as well as declaring that:
In relation to the actual greenhouse effect,

I feel this was also a relevant part of the original quote:
My interpretation is that burning hydrogen would not affect the ongoing circulation of water, nor would it affect the equilibrium level of water vapor in the atmosphere. Therefore it is not really affecting the hydrological cycle - it is contributing to it, but is not changing it.

Water vapor equilibrium is determined primarily by temperature. Therefore, only changes to the temperature can effect changes in the levels of water vapor in the atmosphere. Yes, the 'greenhouse effect' will increase levels of water vapor, but the positive feedback loop is not an endless feedback cycle, otherwise we would not be able to live on the planet. There is more water vapor in the air today than there was 100 years ago, but this is because of the greenhouse effect, not the huge amounts of water vapor that we are releasing through burning.

For mine, I would much rather an engine that releases 100 units of water vapor than one that releases 50 of water vapor and 50 of CO2, plus various other 'dirty' elements found in gasoline. Water vapor will reach equilibrium much quicker than CO2 - there are far more oceans in the world than rainforests or tree farms - and the equilibrium is a true chemical equilibrium rather than a physical one relying on photosynthesis, hence far more efficient. We will also reduce the occurance of acid rain and other environmental hazards caused by CO2 and CO in the atmosphere.

Your viewpoint is ideological, or at best based on a coverup of the water vapor problem. Any simple google for 'enhanced greenhouse effect' (which is the increase in the greenhouse effect caused by human activity) will yield results stating carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and all the usual suspects as the main contributors. I challenge you to find a source stating that water vapor is part of the enhanced greenhouse effect, rather than an after-effect through the feedback loop. If the water vapor effect is true, then it would already be an existing effect - as part of the enhanced greenhouse effect - and should be documented as such. Remember that we are merely doubling the amount of water vapor. If the current level of water vapor being released isn't listed as a cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect then it would be completely within reason to assume that doubling the water vapor level should have precisely double the effect, ie negligible.

I'm not sure where or why this strange water vapor argument came from, but it's a blantant pro-gasoline argument that you've misconstrued into something more legitimate.

Actually, it's not a pro-gasoline argument. It's an argument that is against increased environmental damage percieved as comming from the same source that is supposed to be the solution. The main argument I have seen against hydrogen is that it damages as much or more as gasoline.

I do not have the knowledge to continue this fight, and the research is something I am still doing a lot of to catch up. I don't have the libraries on hand to deal with it myself.

What I can say is that water vapor is listed as a greenhouse gas under current levels. Go back to this quote:

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 problem with your interpretation of the evidence presented is you have no facts to back it. None of us do, because that level of water vapor released has never been done before. This is something that would literally take decades of testing. And, we don't want to rush into a solution where we are not sure if the solution will cause worse environmental damage and actually have no evidence to state it doesn't. What we do have are facts that suggest that it will actually do worse damage, and all of those are in links already presented. So far, I have not seen anything to the contrary that doesn't simply amount to "Well, you don't know that for fact." The problem with those replies is that the opposite has even less support.

It's not a case of pro-gasoline, but from learning from our mistakes. Gasoline was a rush-job solution due to the failure of electricity in cars and was never intended to be used longer than 50 years. It certainly was never intended to be used for over 100. The reason it was is because it worked. And knowing how hard humans resist change, we need to make sure the solution chosen today is something we can use for longer than 50 years, which means we may need to do 100 testing it. Considering we no longer have that amount of time to test every solution, we have to choose one where the dangers and pollutions are known, and that means that hydrogen is not the solution because we simply do not know all of the dangers yet.

The only solution we do know all of the dangers of is nuclear. Plutonium can, if done right, last for 80 years. And, since we already have 60 years of dealing with nuclear technology, we already know all of the safety procedures and have the technology necessary to make it viable for cars. Is it dangerous? Yes. But, it can last us at least a century, which the antinuke group will find to be more than enough time to find a better solution.