NationStates Jolt Archive

Hydrogen Powered Vehicles

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Votes For: 12,533
Votes Against: 3,280

Implemented: Mon Jun 16 2003

Noting the "Less acid rain. Acid rain a problem that we feel should be stopped. It is especially a problem in the Northeast corner of the U.S.A. The Northeast is a place rich in historical buildings which acid rain damages." as a real life reference, which is now illegal.

Proposed Repeal

Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

Description: UN Resolution #18: Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: NOTING that the previous UN Resolution was too specific in its requirements.

REALIZING the importance of renewable energy as a source of power for the future.

ALSO NOTING that electric, solar-powered, hydrogen, biodiesel (product made from plant oil or animal fat), alcohols, and many other types of methods are available for research, to fuel vehicles.

PROPOSING that research for alternative sources in the development of environmentally safe vehicles is produced.

REAFFIRMING the need to repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles” in order to re-address important issues regarding the specifics of the research, while promoting a more broad perspective of the promotion of energy-saving vehicles.

It is proposed that this resolution be struck out, in order to develop more general and more accepting resolution to the United Nations community regarding alternative sources at powering vehicles.

3rd time around is a charm. :)

But there's already such a good one (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=hydrogen) been submitted...

Is there something in the water? Something of a dogpile on environmental resolutions at the moment. Nonetheless, we definitely support this. I would propose adding:
- Something pointing out that, in general, the development of hydrogen fuel is nothing to be discouraged...it's just that there are alternatives. In other words, I would make the 'ALSO NOTING' clause stronger.
- Not every nation has the industrial capacity to produce hydrogen powered cars. Forcing them to do so is dangerous and irresponsible, and counter-productive.
- Under this resolution, nations which produce no cars, or only/predominantly those powered by a non-hydrogen alternate fuel would be required to start producing them. That makes no sense. Such a resolution need only apply to countries already producing significant numbers of petrol cars.

Also, I assume you're not going to mention the RL reference thing: I really wouldn't. It's not fair to judge this by the rules which only came in later, and besides, there's plenty else to hit.

As for your proposal, it's fine, but I would change round the clause order slightly: first AFFIRM etc. the importance of renewable energy, and then point out the over-specificity of HPV.

Finally, and I know nothing here, so feel free to correct me, isn't hydrogen quite...dangerous? I mean, if we're going to encouraging its use, then we should perhaps be putting in some safety checks.

But there's already such a good one (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=hydrogen) been submitted...

Is there something in the water? Something of a dogpile on environmental resolutions at the moment. Nonetheless, we definitely support this. I would propose adding:
- Something pointing out that, in general, the development of hydrogen fuel is nothing to be discouraged...it's just that there are alternatives. In other words, I would make the 'ALSO NOTING' clause stronger.
- Not every nation has the industrial capacity to produce hydrogen powered cars. Forcing them to do so is dangerous and irresponsible, and counter-productive.
- Under this resolution, nations which produce no cars, or only/predominantly those powered by a non-hydrogen alternate fuel would be required to start producing them. That makes no sense. Such a resolution need only apply to countries already producing significant numbers of petrol cars.
Noted and will be adding a few clauses in there to address these issues. The main concern of mine is the fact that people assume that since it's a repeal, it's one that is going against the environment (without actually reading the repeal) when in reality, we need this issue to be clarified.

Also, I assume you're not going to mention the RL reference thing: I really wouldn't. It's not fair to judge this by the rules which only came in later, and besides, there's plenty else to hit.
Goodness, no. Mentioning it in the repeal would be a bad idea.

As for your proposal, it's fine, but I would change round the clause order slightly: first AFFIRM etc. the importance of renewable energy, and then point out the over-specificity of HPV.

Finally, and I know nothing here, so feel free to correct me, isn't hydrogen quite...dangerous? I mean, if we're going to encouraging its use, then we should perhaps be putting in some safety checks.
I honestly couldn't tell you about this one. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of it can comment?

Noted and will be adding a few clauses in there to address these issues. The main concern of mine is the fact that people assume that since it's a repeal, it's one that is going against the environment (without actually reading the repeal) when in reality, we need this issue to be clarified.


Goodness, no. Mentioning it in the repeal would be a bad idea.


I honestly couldn't tell you about this one. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of it can comment?

Wyldtree will embrace this repeal. My people stand firmly behind enviormental protection and I realize you are quite right about the need to leave other options for alternative fuels open. Regarding the dangers of Hydrogen... that is indeed a concern. Hydrogen is quite unstable (RL - See the Hindenburg). While I understand that hydrogen based fuel has come a long way between just filling up a zeppelin and now it's still not the most viable or safe option in my opinion. There are no cars in my country so it's not of direct effect to Wyldtree, but the global enviornment should be everyone's concern.

Despite all the comments about that, Hydrogen fuel is probably about as dangerous as octane....

1) You nead a spark to set it off (ok.....that's a slight bit more dangerous than octane - octane needs a bit more than a spark to start)
2) Hydrogen needs to be about 55% (I think that's the number, but somewhere around there) composition with air (I think you've got like a 5% varience) for it to actually ignite (Now, once it ignites, there are significant other considerations
3) IIRC, you need to be mixing it with oxygen IN water, so the composition of the two during the reaction is so low that you don't have issues of combustion
4) So the only real other place that the explosion could be generated is near the storage tank and during the refuelling process - both of which would require redesign from the current tank and fuel pump anyways so you can redesign it for safety in the process
5) FYI - The best known Hydrogen explosion - the Hindenburg - was leaking Hydrogen gas when it blew up. The explosion didn't start from the actual tanks itself, but rather the leak at the tanks
6) Because hydrogen is so small, it dissipates into air very quickly, so you'd have to be very close to a source of sparks/fire while it's leaking to be in any danger to begin with.

I'd say.....no

Yeah: hydrogen + flame = Hindenberg. I was a little premature on firing the submit button...but that is an extreme case, but I still wouldn't be too comofortable with cars driving around with pressurized tanks of that stuff. Helium would be much safer considering it's inert.

Despite all the comments about that, Hydrogen fuel is probably about as dangerous as octane....

1) You nead a spark to set it off (ok.....that's a slight bit more dangerous than octane - octane needs a bit more than a spark to start)
2) Hydrogen needs to be about 55% (I think that's the number, but somewhere around there) composition with air (I think you've got like a 5% varience) for it to actually ignite (Now, once it ignites, there are significant other considerations
3) IIRC, you need to be mixing it with oxygen IN water, so the composition of the two during the reaction is so low that you don't have issues of combustion
4) So the only real other place that the explosion could be generated is near the storage tank and during the refuelling process - both of which would require redesign from the current tank and fuel pump anyways so you can redesign it for safety in the process
5) FYI - The best known Hydrogen explosion - the Hindenburg - was leaking Hydrogen gas when it blew up. The explosion didn't start from the actual tanks itself, but rather the leak at the tanks
6) Because hydrogen is so small, it dissipates into air very quickly, so you'd have to be very close to a source of sparks/fire while it's leaking to be in any danger to begin with.

I'd say.....no

I think you're slightly downplaying the difference in how easy hydrogen is to ignite vs gasoline and the severe results of issues with leaks, but I mostly agree. My only point in this matter was that there are other, safer options to be considered in terms of alternative fuel sources. I don't think a resolution just advocating Hydrogen fueled cars is wise and as such Wyldtree will support a repeal of the resolution.

NOTING that the previous UN Resolution was too specific in its requirements.

Hmmm... actually, I think it actually requires close to nothing. Specifically, it only requires that "every nation should start developing hydrogen powered cars." Doesn't putting four wheels together qualify as a start?

REALIZING the importance of renewable energy as a source of power for the future.

Yep.

ALSO NOTING that electric, solar-powered, hydrogen, biodiesel (product made from plant oil or animal fat), alcohols, and many other types of methods are available for research, to fuel vehicles.

"Types of methods" sounds redundant, I would just use "methods." Some of the methods do not need further research, so I would put: "are available, or can be researched, to fuel vehicles."

PROPOSING that research for alternative sources in the development of environmentally safe vehicles is produced.

Does this belong in a repeal? Anyway, all the government can do is "encourage" or "fund" research, it does not "produce" research like that, especially not to satisfy the UN.

REAFFIRMING the need to repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles” in order to re-address important issues regarding the specifics of the research, while promoting a more broad perspective of the promotion of energy-saving vehicles.

"Broader" instead of "more broad"? Also, I think it sounds better as:

REAFFIRMING the need to repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles,” in order to re-address the specifics of said research, while promoting a broader perspective of the promotion of energy-saving vehicles.

It is proposed that this resolution be struck out, in order to develop more general and more accepting resolution to the United Nations community regarding alternative sources at powering vehicles.

Not quite clear.

---

I support the current movement against utopic-ecologic BS. I specially dislike this sort of do-nothing emotional essays. So you have my support.

As a side note, I hate it when some bloody bureaucrats decide they should order scientists to do work on such a specific topic. The authors of the resolution would not even dream of what a hydrogen powered vehicle is, if those scientists had not developed the theory beforehand. I am always in favour of a goal-oriented policy (eg. fund research into eco-friendly transportation, or whatever) and leave the rest to the wonders of human creativity.

I did forget to say that I would support this repeal. It's well written compared to the unspecific writing of the original resolution.

Yeah: hydrogen + flame = Hindenberg. I was a little premature on firing the submit button...but that is an extreme case, but I still wouldn't be too comofortable with cars driving around with pressurized tanks of that stuff. Helium would be much safer considering it's inert.

Yeah - but Helium, being inert, doesn't do so hot with generating electricity....or energy really. It works much better as a by-product of reactions (nuclear, mainly)

I think you're slightly downplaying the difference in how easy hydrogen is to ignite vs gasoline and the severe results of issues with leaks, but I mostly agree. My only point in this matter was that there are other, safer options to be considered in terms of alternative fuel sources. I don't think a resolution just advocating Hydrogen fueled cars is wise and as such Wyldtree will support a repeal of the resolution.

Not really. The only real place of ignition would be at the very source of the leak (just where it would mix with air). Hydrogen dissipates so fast normally that any other point wouldn't be an issue.If you make the outter shell of the tank strong enough, it could probably survive the vast majority of impacts without issue. Heck, you could have the entire engine - including the tank - inside a shell with just wires, the exhaust and possibly even the fueling unit (though I personally could see a possible design where the latter two are one and the same or use the same hole). If you break the tank, you get the hydrogen dissolved in water before it frees itself into air - lowering the concentration it leaves at.

That said - I should not claim to be an expert and I have absolutely no sources. I'm just trying to think of possible solutions using my first-year Uni chem knowledge......not the safest grounding.

Regardless, I agree with your arguments for the repeal.

The government of St Edmund will support this repeal: Most of our own land vehicles already use either alcohol-based fuels or biodiesel...

The people of Cluichstan support the proposed repeal and are heartened by recent efforts to eliminate some of these more absurd resolutions.

WHats wrong with Hydrogen powered Vehicles? I mean, come'on, it can't be that bad....geeze, next thing you know, they'll be banning the Hydrogen bomb *SIGH* Man....

Anywho, Anagonia remains neutral. The UN Does not concern us, especially since we decide which resolutions to enforce on ourselves. *laughs evily*

WHats wrong with Hydrogen powered Vehicles? I mean, come'on, it can't be that bad....

Nothing. The question this repeal posits is not "what's wrong with HPV", but "what's wrong with biodiesel, alcohol, electric cars, etc.?"

geeze, next thing you know, they'll be banning the Hydrogen bomb *SIGH* Man....

No, no we won't. We're not banning hydrogen cars. And any attempt to ban a hydrogen bomb would be met with fairly stiff resistance (assuming, anyway, it's legal - Nuclear Armaments?).

Anywho, Anagonia remains neutral. The UN Does not concern us, especially since we decide which resolutions to enforce on ourselves.

Not if you're in the UN, you don't. Which, I see, you are.

Nothing. The question this repeal posits is not "what's wrong with HPV", but "what's wrong with biodiesel, alcohol, electric cars, etc.?"



No, no we won't. We're not banning hydrogen cars. And any attempt to ban a hydrogen bomb would be met with fairly stiff resistance (assuming, anyway, it's legal - Nuclear Armaments?).



Not if you're in the UN, you don't. Which, I see, you are.

*Ahem*

The only thing that was SERIOUS about my previous statement is thtat I am neutral on this.

Upon inspection..I'm with it. I was kinda out of it earlier.

Yes, yes, I know....we need new represenitives.

Yeah - but Helium, being inert, doesn't do so hot with generating electricity....or energy really. It works much better as a by-product of reactions (nuclear, mainly)


Actually, thermoacoustics uses vibrations to vibrate a tank which heats up liquid inside of it, thus producing steam which can power and engine (like a nuclear reactor, just no radioactive waste and all of that jazz). Inert materials (like Helium) are used to prevent any kind of an explosion if there is too much heat being produced or there is some kind of malfunction. Granted, there is a little more involved with this, but Helium could be quite useful when coupled with this technology. I know in RL it is quite expensive to make and maintain, being used only in large companies, but there are smaller, more manageable ones that are being used in more RL type of uses (such as cars).