NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: there is a serious point here, but I'm trying to RP it as much as possible.

The original proposal was as follows:

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!!!

The people and government of Bulgovnia realise that this proposal was written and enacted with the absolute best of intentions, but it is too limited in scope, and rendered obsolete by certain scientific developments at the national laboratories of Bulgovnia.

The original reasons for which this proposal were submitted:

-Less acid rain.
-Reduced consumption of oil.
-Cleaner air.

are all very pertinent today, but foisting hydrogen powered cars upon the civilian population of all UN member countries is not the answer, and statistics show that they have only been introduced in limited numbers anyway. This resolution needs replaced, by one that forces emissions targets specific to vehicles rather than attempting to force one single solution to this problem upon many people. There are numerous alternatives, such as:

Efficient public transport and high road taxes.
Electric cars.
Methanol/clean biofuel cars.
Hydrogen cars.

Electric cars are more suitable in nations with much renewable or nuclear power generation capacity, biofuel cars in nations with much arable farmland, hydrogen cars in nations with neither of these. If this proposal is repealed the Bulgovnian ambassador will submit a new more adaptable and workable piece of legislation in it's place.

please put the proposal in quotes. also if you have an actual repeal there(not just the idea) put it in quotes.

Well I am reluctant to say this but ya I guess it should be repealed. I would first like to note it never says in the proposal everyone has to have one. I also would suggest you point out how there is no specified amount of money in this proposal.

Also your not allowed to argue against it because of any of the rules it broke are you? It is an old proposal and there where none then right?

Also your not allowed to argue against it because of any of the rules it broke are you? It is an old proposal and there where none then right?

No ex post facto. Branding is newer than the Resolution.

If you can write up a repeal, we'd be happy to talk about it. One thing I will say though, however, is that there is nothing at all wrong with a Resolution being narrow in scope. That helps it be concise, and it ensures it's safety, as the broader something is, the more likely problems will be found with one section that jeopardize better sections.

Write an actual repeal, post it in quotes (use [ quote] without the space to open it, and [/quote] to close it). Then we can discuss it.

Note: there is a serious point here, but I'm trying to RP it as much as possible.

The original proposal was as follows:

*snip*

Woah. A repeal author posted the original resolution!

The people and government of Bulgovnia realise that this proposal was written and enacted with the absolute best of intentions, but it is too limited in scope, and rendered obsolete by certain scientific developments at the national laboratories of Bulgovnia.

Wait......Where did your repeal actually start? (Don't quote the original resolution in your repeal, just the thread)

Branding issues.

The original reasons for which this proposal were submitted:

-Less acid rain.
-Reduced consumption of oil.
-Cleaner air.

are all very pertinent today, but foisting hydrogen powered cars upon the civilian population of all UN member countries is not the answer, and statistics show that they have only been introduced in limited numbers anyway. This resolution needs replaced, by one that forces emissions targets specific to vehicles rather than attempting to force one single solution to this problem upon many people. There are numerous alternatives, such as:

Efficient public transport and high road taxes.
Electric cars.
Methanol/clean biofuel cars.
Hydrogen cars.

Not to mention various fuels that most of us won't see for several centuries

Electric cars are more suitable in nations with much renewable or nuclear power generation capacity, biofuel cars in nations with much arable farmland, hydrogen cars in nations with neither of these. If this proposal is repealed the Bulgovnian ambassador will submit a new more adaptable and workable piece of legislation in it's place.

Overall.....WTF?

Overall.....WTF?

As much as it pains me, I must concur with the esteemed representative of Forgottenlands on this one.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Although a real repeal has yet to be drafted, I would like to state my support for a repeal of this resolution. It is in my opinion to narrow in scope, impractical, and, well, stupid. However, we from Dancing Bananaland are quite fond of our environment. Thus, we would support a well written repeal only if the author, or another party could provide a draft of a suitable replacement. (something along the lines of "promoting alternate fuels" or something.)

I... concur with the esteemed representative of Forgottenlands...Mmm... sig-worthy...

Although a real repeal has yet to be drafted, I would like to state my support for a repeal of this resolution. It is in my opinion to narrow in scope, impractical, and, well, stupid. However, we from Dancing Bananaland are quite fond of our environment. Thus, we would support a well written repeal only if the author, or another party could provide a draft of a suitable replacement. (something along the lines of "promoting alternate fuels" or something.)

No. Narrow in scope is not a bad thing. Concise, precise, safe Resolutions are narrow in scope. Try to broaden it and you endanger good, sound parts by diluting them with less popular, poor points.

Edit: Although upon remembering what thread I was posting this in, yeah, the idea of promoting alternative fuels is a lot better.

Short term memory is a bitch...

so would anybody object to a slightly reworded version of the same repeal being submitted?

so would anybody object to a slightly reworded version of the same repeal being submitted?

Show us your new version and we'll tell you our opinions. We don't object if you at least learn from our criticism.

Mmm... sig-worthy...

Might even be history-book-worthy. ;)

so would anybody object to a slightly reworded version of the same repeal being submitted?

I like to see new members trying to do something worthwhile and trying to do it right. Now the representative just has to learn how to do it effectively. Here's what you do:

1. Post the text of your draft repeal on this forum (in this thread). Put the text in a quote block. (See the little gizmo that looks like a cartoon balloon?) Below it, put the text of the original proposal, also in a quote block.

2. Don't submit it! Wait. See what comments and suggestions you get here. Then make whatever changes you think you should. When you're satisfied you've done all you can with it, then submit it. Saves a bunch of hassle.

My government would probably support this repeal. Making 30,000 nations spend money developing one technology is grossly duplicative and wasteful. Good intentions; stupid idea.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

I like to see new members trying to do something worthwhile and trying to do it right. Now the representative just has to learn how to do it effectively. Here's what you do:

1. Post the text of your draft repeal on this forum (in this thread). Put the text in a quote block. (See the little gizmo that looks like a cartoon balloon?) Below it, put the text of the original proposal, also in a quote block.

2. Don't submit it! Wait. See what comments and suggestions you get here. Then make whatever changes you think you should. When you're satisfied you've done all you can with it, then submit it. Saves a bunch of hassle.

My government would probably support this repeal. Making 30,000 nations spend money developing one technology is grossly duplicative and wasteful. Good intentions; stupid idea.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

agreed in full

this is insane hydrogen powered vehicles cause no harm to the environment fossil fuels will not last for ever. It is obvious that this repeal has been put in place by petroluem producing countries who fear that they may have a slight dip in profits if this resolution is not repealed I say vote against repealing it save the environment before its too late

this is insane hydrogen powered vehicles cause no harm to the environment fossil fuels will not last for ever. It is obvious that this repeal has been put in place by petroluem producing countries who fear that they may have a slight dip in profits if this resolution is not repealed I say vote against repealing it save the environment before its too late
Or how about...some people think it's fucking stupid to waste the resources of 30,000 nations on a single energy source, when it'd be much more productive to have them invest in diversity of renewable energy sources.

I have to agree. Not all nations have access to the hydrogen necessary to power hydrogen based vehicles. And those nations that control the supply of hydrogen, have the opportunity to rake in millions and millions by "selling" hydrogen to those nations without it.

I would support the repeal of this resolution, provided that its replacement is already in queue and awaiting voting for ratification.

this is insane hydrogen powered vehicles cause no harm to the environment fossil fuels will not last for ever. It is obvious that this repeal has been put in place by petroluem producing countries who fear that they may have a slight dip in profits if this resolution is not repealed I say vote against repealing it save the environment before its too late

And Hydrogen Gas will be the most effective replacement humanity will ever be able to dream of.:rolleyes:

I believe the delegation from Manussa mis-read the original author's post, and suggest that they re-read it carefully.

And Hydrogen Gas will be the most effective replacement humanity will ever be able to dream of.

While hydrogen fuel celled vehicles are not the only option, they are the cleanest, along with electric celled vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells produce water (H20) as a byproduct. Electric cars produce no emissions, where as biofuels still produce emissions, although nowhere near harmful (if at all) as fossil fueled vehicles.

While hydrogen fuel celled vehicles are not the only option, they are the cleanest, along with electric celled vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells produce water (H20) as a byproduct. Electric cars produce no emissions, where as biofuels still produce emissions, although nowhere near harmful (if at all) as fossil fueled vehicles.

Yeah, but the power that's used to charge electric cars comes from sources that do have emissions. Best way for humanity to stop fucking up the environment would be to stop using the internal combustion engine. Or at least to the extent that we already do.


No source of energy is 100% renewable, a simple knowledge of physics would show anyone that. Until we realize that, I suppose I'm down for slowing down the ruining of the world. Make a proposal that centers on promoting alternative fuels. Not just hydrogen. And don't make people put money into it. Some of us can't do that.

I believe the delegation from Manussa mis-read the original author's post, and suggest that they re-read it carefully.



While hydrogen fuel celled vehicles are not the only option, they are the cleanest, along with electric celled vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells produce water (H20) as a byproduct. Electric cars produce no emissions, where as biofuels still produce emissions, although nowhere near harmful (if at all) as fossil fueled vehicles.

Actually, Electric cars are a fairly complex organism and just going "it produces no emissions" ignores a very crucial fact:
ELECTRIC CARS ARE CHARGED FROM A DIRECT LINE FROM THE POWER PLANT

Which just might be producing emissions. In fact, in oil-rich Alberta, where I live, it just so happens that it is better for the environment to use gasoline engines than electric cars. Why? Because 90-some percent of our power comes from coal, the dirtiest of all electricity production forms.

Add on that water getting dripped out of the tail pipes of cars isn't necessarily a good thing.

But that's all entirely irrelevant.

YOU MISSED MY POINT.

1) Many nations have already developed hydrogen fuel. They are still being forced to research it.
2) Many nations jumped hydrogen fuel cells and moved on the bigger and better things.

Just because in reality we haven't yet thought of an idea that would produce energy more efficiently than hydrogen fuel cells doesn't mean its the best alternative or even the right alternative. There's an actual significant ecological impact to consider from the production of hydrogen to create these fuel cells (the least of which is the fact that one has to really be concerned about water, which is quickly becoming a precious commodity). I think it's a great idea to look at alternative energy forms. I think it is a ludicrous idea to say "every nation should look at this form". Simply because A) we might already be there and gotten passed it and B) we may already have a better idea sitting around.

Now I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume I know nothing about Hydrogen Cells.

Not to mention that hydrogen tends to... You know... Explode. Car accidents = not fun. Car accidents with hydrogen fuel involved = not fun times like, 4.

Ah, for the good old days... when people still remembered a young Scolopendra crashing the global oil market by (at times literally) dumping oil from asteroid mining operations. Yes, those were good times. Gas for pennies a gallon...

Of course, North Hack Off Shore Drilling went out of business, and thousands of people lost their jobs, but they would have gone under once we switched to fusion cells anyway.

Actually, we might even still have some of that crude in storage somewhere...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

OOC: Yes, that actually happened. Long, long ago... around the time I first started playing.

Despite the numerous complaints about Hydrogen explosions.....it's really hard to argue that one. Hydrogen combusts when it's at about a 45-55% mixture with oxygen - meaning that pretty much your point of combustion would be a section that's leaking.

Now, assuming your Hydrogen tank (which one would hope is well designed) does, by fluke, actually start leaking, the most probably point of leakage is probably the outlet to the water - where you kinda have a different substance ruining your 45-55% mixture - or the valve where you put the Hydrogen into the car - though a good design there (like....y'know.....double valve) probably would work wonders at reducing the liklihood considerably.

Further, you have to have something to burn. Hydrogen kinda dies pretty damn quick. The Hindenberg had lots of cloth to burn. Cars......not so much. Considering the Hindenberg's tanks weren't exactly.....y'know......tough lining, it's also a really poor case study about the liklihood of a car exploding. It's like using Chernobyl to explain why Nuclear Plants are bad - you're talking WORST CASE SCENARIO.

EDIT: BTW - to make that scenario even harder, at the very point of leakage (because if you get very far out, you'll find the Hydrogen has already dissipated - something about being such small molecules makes it so easy for it to vanish rather quickly), you'd need a spark. Good random chance there.

Despite the numerous complaints about Hydrogen explosions.....it's really hard to argue that one. Hydrogen combusts when it's at about a 45-55% mixture with oxygen - meaning that pretty much your point of combustion would be a section that's leaking.

Now, assuming your Hydrogen tank (which one would hope is well designed) does, by fluke, actually start leaking, the most probably point of leakage is probably the outlet to the water - where you kinda have a different substance ruining your 45-55% mixture - or the valve where you put the Hydrogen into the car - though a good design there (like....y'know.....double valve) probably would work wonders at reducing the liklihood considerably.

Further, you have to have something to burn. Hydrogen kinda dies pretty damn quick. The Hindenberg had lots of cloth to burn. Cars......not so much. Considering the Hindenberg's tanks weren't exactly.....y'know......tough lining, it's also a really poor case study about the liklihood of a car exploding. It's like using Chernobyl to explain why Nuclear Plants are bad - you're talking WORST CASE SCENARIO.


Well I did mention car accidents. Tanks ripping open, bits and pieces of the workings coming apart. The hindenberg's cloth burned, but if you look, there's also a huge ball of flames shooting up into the air. That hydrogen is oxydizing. And beyond that, hydrogen leaks are not hard to get. It's the smallest element which makes it exceptionally easy for it to squeeze through even the smallest of holes. I forgot the name of the property. Sure it's a worst case scenario, but hydrogen is not hard to set on fire, and cars are not hard to crash. I think it's a sight better than using Chernobyl.

EDIT: BTW - to make that scenario even harder, at the very point of leakage (because if you get very far out, you'll find the Hydrogen has already dissipated - something about being such small molecules makes it so easy for it to vanish rather quickly), you'd need a spark. Good random chance there.

Can't forget about air pressure. Hydrogen will move relatively freely, sure, but in an instant? Not likely. If something is burning as the result of a crash, or metal scraping on concrete which causes mucho de sparks, it can catch.

I won't go so far as to say that it's more likely to explode in an accident than gasoline, but I'm willing to bet it's a more dangerous explosion.

Can't forget about air pressure. Hydrogen will move relatively freely, sure, but in an instant? Not likely. If something is burning as the result of a crash, or metal scraping on concrete which causes mucho de sparks, it can catch.

I won't go so far as to say that it's more likely to explode in an accident than gasoline, but I'm willing to bet it's a more dangerous explosion.

It's a more sudden explosion. Gasoline, when it does go off, tends to do so with a lot of pressure and significant after effects. Hydrogen - one burst and you're done.

Also, pressure is merely why the leakage point is a place of concern. However, once out of the nozzel, the pressure will force the hydrogen away in a reverse-conical shape, and it is here that you will find the ratio of hydrogen decrease rapidly and drastically.

I can't remember if its per pound, hydrogen gives off a third the energy or they're about equal, but the amount of energy being released by the explosion is about comparable. The bigger reason why it might be more "dangerous" (I'd prefer powerful because a single explosion that might flip the car that people are inside at the most extreme level and probably not do much secondary damage since it would be below the car so lateral damage would be minimal I'm not convinced is more dangerous than one that burns continually, releasing heat and smoke well after the initial explosion - not to mention water vapor is a bit less dangerous than carbon dioxide) is simply because it does go all at once. You don't have secondary explosions and Hydrogen is piss poor at conserving its bang effect.

Tanks ripping open, bits and pieces of the workings coming apart.Well, typical RL tanks are pretty damn solid and designed to survive crashes. Unlike, say, Pinto gas tanks.

The hindenberg's cloth burned, but if you look, there's also a huge ball of flames shooting up into the air. That hydrogen is oxydizing.Yes, but let's not forget the doping on the skin. That thing was a fucking bomb, and it's a miracle that something like that didn't happen sooner. I mean... encasing an explosively flammable gas in a flammable material that's been coated with a mixture that is occationally used in thermite.

This was not a safe vehicle.

And that fireball was not hydrogen. Hydrogen has an invisible flame.

It's the smallest element which makes it exceptionally easy for it to squeeze through even the smallest of holes.Real simple precaution: round and thick. And store it in metal as opposed to cotton.

Don't get me wrong... there's plenty of reasons to be against hydrogen fuel (like the fact that free rarely occurs in nature), but the safety concerns are typically overstated.

(like the fact that free rarely occurs in nature)

I would like to note that when they talk about Hydrogen fuel in the scientific articles these days, this is the point of consideration - how to create hydrogen. Not how to make a safe tank. Now the danger of explosions. How to create it. There's lots of theories and some that show great promise (again......I have my reservations due to.....water supplies), but I think it is rather worther noting how scientists seem to not be concerned with the safety issues.

I would like to note that when they talk about Hydrogen fuel in the scientific articles these days, this is the point of consideration - how to create hydrogen. Not how to make a safe tank. Now the danger of explosions. How to create it. There's lots of theories and some that show great promise (again......I have my reservations due to.....water supplies), but I think it is rather worther noting how scientists seem to not be concerned with the safety issues.

Well, aside from getting pwned, I wanna point out that safety issues can't be addressed until you know for sure what they'll be. Until the technology is actually developed, there won't be any easy way to deal with how to make the technology safe.

Well, aside from getting pwned, I wanna point out that safety issues can't be addressed until you know for sure what they'll be. Until the technology is actually developed, there won't be any easy way to deal with how to make the technology safe.They have made fuel cells ;)

They just have poor range and there's no infrastructure to support them.

Well, that and they're hella expensive.

They have made fuel cells ;)

They just have poor range and there's no infrastructure to support them.

Well, that and they're hella expensive.

Well then there really isn't anything aside me being pwned then.

I concede.

Doesn't it also take significant energy to electrolyse water to obtain hydrogen?

Couldn't the power for electric cars or the electrolysis plants come from renewable energy or modern cleaner nuclear sources? It is only as dirty as the power generation grid in that country.

Doesn't it also take significant energy to electrolyse water to obtain hydrogen?

No. That's just the best way we have developed SO FAR.

Seperating water like that is clearly not a preferable method - they want to move to an energy conversion that would be energy efficient. The leading theory is bacteria - converting solar energy into Hydrogen.

But as I said, it is so far just a theory.

Couldn't the power for electric cars or the electrolysis plants come from renewable energy or modern cleaner nuclear sources? It is only as dirty as the power generation grid in that country.

1) Nuclear plants aren't exactly clean
2) You don't always get to choose your form of electricity generation.

No. That's just the best way we have developed SO FAR.Well, technically, yes. Last I read, though, it still costs (in money and pollution) more to create the hydrogen then to use gasoline. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, but with someone taking a cut in the middle (all hail strained analogies).

Seperating water like that is clearly not a preferable method - they want to move to an energy conversion that would be energy efficient. The leading theory is bacteria - converting solar energy into Hydrogen.Actually, a bit more than a theory. Unfortunately, my source (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050917/note15.asp) is for subscribers only, but here's the meat of it:

Mahdi Abu-Omar of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., says that he and his team weren't looking to produce hydrogen in their fundamental studies of a catalyst made of the metal rhenium. In one set of experiments with a solution of water and an organic liquid called organosilane, however, hydrogen started to bubble up from the fluid soon after the researchers added a small piece of rhenium to the mixture. The solution was at room temperature and of neutral pH, conditions that normally wouldn't have produced hydrogen.Of course, they don't know if it'll work on a large enough scale, and (apparently) organosilane is prohibatively expensive.

I know, not bacteria, but still. Also, they are making progress with other methods (using membranes, from ethonal, from an organic crystal(!)), so I think it certainly is possible, it just needs more research.

Hm. I might even be in favor of a well written, properly categorized replacement for this thing. Who'd've guessed?

1) Nuclear plants aren't exactly cleanBah. Hippy. ;)

Quote:
1) Nuclear plants aren't exactly clean
Bah. Hippy.


Actually he has a point, although much cleaner then fossil fuels, nuclear power requires the disposal of nuclear waste, and used fuel rods. These toxic materials are far more difficult and dangerous to dispose of than anything else on the planet (except nuclear weapons and some biological agents). Although technically renewable, eventually the problem of storing nuclear waste will make nuclear power, in it's current form, infeasible.

Actually he has a point, although much cleaner then fossil fuels, nuclear power requires the disposal of nuclear waste, and used fuel rods. These toxic materials are far more difficult and dangerous to dispose of than anything else on the planet (except nuclear weapons and some biological agents). Although technically renewable, eventually the problem of storing nuclear waste will make nuclear power, in it's current form, infeasible.

Smilies do mean things - such as "I'm ribbing ya"

(Yes..... your statements are correct, but I'm sure Hack is well aware of those facts)