NationStates Jolt Archive

Regarding UN Resolution #18: As I currently do not have the endorsements required to make repeal proposals, I've decided to make my case within the forum. So here goes...

Research suggests that with the current technologies available to most nations, the cost and amount of energy needed to produce hydrogen for fuel purposes is prohibitive.

While hydrogen burns very cleanly - the only by-products from combustion is water - the cost of electrolysis (the process used to generate hydrogen) is thousands of U.S. dollars per kilowatt. One must consider how much petroleum and other fossil fuel products are used in this process. One most also consider the fact that indirect utilization of energy in general is highly inefficient.

Of course, technology is attempting to rapidly keep pace with the demands for new alternative fuel sources. There is a new process in the works to reduce the cost of hydrogen production to something comparable to the cost of gasoline, but this new technology is still being developed and not available to most consumers.

While hydrogen power will improve air quality when the fuel itself is produced under ideal circumstances, oil (and lots of it) is still part of the equation. At this point in time, hydrogen fuel technology creates a net energy loss and cannot yet be implemented at a mass scale until the production technologies are vastly improved.

At this time, I urge the UN member states to REPEAL resolution #18 until such time as hydrogen technology becomes a more viable alternative to gasoline. In the mean time, I would urge nation states to increase means of conservation, consider ways to revise our current transportation and fuel supply-chain infrastructure, and continue to investigate and develop multiple alternative sources of energy that do not create a net loss of energy, while being more compatible with the current energy-grid infrastructure, i.e. solar, wind, biodiesel, and vegetable-based ethanol technologies.

We should continue to work together in making this world a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable home for our citizens, while considering the most practical solutions available at the present time.

For more information, check the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://www.fi.edu/inquirer/hydrocar.html

Finally an intelligent member of the UN. I support this one.

PASS IT THROUGH!

First off, the Hydrogen Powered Vehicles resolution only requires us to research them, not actually produce them. Having said that, I'll also point out that I'll fully support any and all attempts to repeal that resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I Think Its A Great Idea
I Rule A Small Nation But It Has A Large Forest And I Want To Keep It That Way And I Will Support Your Every Move
And It Will Be Much Cheaper When The Research Is Finnished

Priminister Of Nakark
And Un Delegate

I Think Its A Great Idea
I Rule A Small Nation But It Has A Large Forest And I Want To Keep It That Way And I Will Support Your Every Move
And It Will Be Much Cheaper When The Research Is Finnished

Priminister Of Nakark
And Un Delegate


Just a friendly reminder: In English, only proper nouns and Really Important Words (Like those) are capitalized, unless they start a sentence.

Unless that's the title of a book.

L. Pendankr
Ambassador

Unless that's the title of a book.

L. Pendankr
Ambassador

If it is a book title, it sure sounds boring.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well, first off that's a really good for a first post. (I wonder what my first post was like)

Well, first off that's a really good for a first post. (I wonder what my first post was like)

Yes of course this does need to be repealed. But I would like to note that because it is badly made and does not specify the amount that needs to be researched it is just a stupid resolution not a harmfull one.

I'm sure if you make an intelligent repeal on this topic you can find someone to submit it for you.(If that was done I would submit it I guess) Though if you can I'd try to submit it yourself.

"The Commonwealth will support such an effort. Research has shown that, while hydrogen fuel-cells are a nice thought, they simply aren't practical. I've read that in order to get the same distance per refuel as you do with gas, you'd need a hydrogen storage tank the size of the vehicle."

This wouldn't work because different nations would use different technologies.

Us, for example, have cars powered only by Ethanol Gas, which is just as environmentally sound. We also have the technology to allow for alcohol fueled cars.

This would be better as a research mandate.

This wouldn't work because different nations would use different technologies.

Us, for example, have cars powered only by Ethanol Gas, which is just as environmentally sound. We also have the technology to allow for alcohol fueled cars.

This would be better as a research mandate.
Interesting argument against repealing the resolution, that.

And hi.
|
|
v

This wouldn't work because different nations would use different technologies.

Us, for example, have cars powered only by Ethanol Gas, which is just as environmentally sound. We also have the technology to allow for alcohol fueled cars.

This would be better as a research mandate.

Perhaps you should read the entire thread. No-one here, including the originator of the thread, wants this. We want to repeal it. Please, PLEASE read the entire thread when you post in one, or at least the last page or two.

Oh, hello, Gruenberg.

I am grateful for the support I have received on this issue. While I believe this resolution ought to be repealed, I believe the resolution itself brings up some important points:

1. There is a need to decrease dependence on finite resources (through conservation).
2. There is a need to increase research initiatives on cleaner and sustainable fuel technology.
3. There is the need to consider that many nations rely on different types of technology to power their respective energy grids, and one solution does not fit all situations.

To those of you who reside in the Region of Equilism, I am eagerly seeking your endorsements to make my case at the United Nations. In the mean time, let us consider a resolution, if at all possible, that will uphold principles of sustainability and conservation, as well as continued research on this issue.

I think the UN has already done that, through its Resolutions #39, "Alternative Fuels" and #71, "Sustainable Energy Sources". I see little need for a replacement - there are already two in place.

Thank you for the update, Gruenberg. You are correct about Resolutions #39 and #71. The presence of these resolutions further validates the argument to repeal #18.

At our PMT stage we have an infrastructure that can support hydrogen fuel fairly easily. We use solar powered electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Instead of standard solar panels we use solar concentrators which are more efficient for electrolysis of water. There is very little waste and if scaled, it is fairly easy to produce an efficient renewable base for producing hydrogen fuel from water.

We further have augmented our system with wind power which can also be used for electrolysis. The solar energy and wind power are fed into a regenerative hydrogen fuel cell system. Our system while the initial cost may be high, pays for itself over time and is an excellent system for building a long term infrastructure of fueling stations for hydrogen powered vehicles. A set of solar panels for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is fed into a pump. There it is used to fuel the vehicles.


Because we are an ocean going civilization, hydrogen power is more efficient in boats. It is very easy to produce hydrogen fuel from sea water with the proper filtration systems. It is both easier to use and cleaner than diesel fuel.

The mandatory research is helpful for us.

The mandatory research is helpful for us.Why? If you already have the infrastructure in place, it sounds like you're largely done with the research phase. Furthermore, you could perform said research without this resolution.


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

For us hydrogen seems too remote and too expensive. We would be keen to access any research in this area and support alternatives. It is the mandatory nature that Funnia Lan opposes. Funnia Lan has worked hard to reduce energy consumption since the 1973 Oil crisis. We believe reductions in consumption are the first step to insulating economies for the future.



Marc de Paris
Ambassador to the United Nations
République Populaire de Funnia Lan
Peoples Republic of Funnia Lan

We're for the repeal (We mainly rely on bioethanol to fuel our vehicles, anyway...), but would suggest that anybody who's seriously interested in Hydrogen-fueled vehicles look into "Hydrogen on demand" systems -- which use either catalysts or reactions such as the oxidation of Boron (which can then be "regenerated" in processing plants) to split Hydrogen out of water that's stored aboard the vehicles, while they're on the road [or wherever] -- as a safer alternative to systems that generate the Hydrogen elsewhere and then pump this into the vehicles' fuel tanks...

The original post here needs to be drafted into proposal form and submitted. That piece of garbage posing as a resolution needs to go.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN