NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #18
Proposed by: Valcoma

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

Argument:
COMMENDS the good intentions of the original resolution in seeking to develop new sources of fuel for cars,

RECOGNISES that effort needs to be made to reduce dependency on non-renewable energy sources,

NOTES that many economically developing nations do not use polluting vehicles on a large scale,

OBSERVES that such nations are therefore unlikely to significantly contribute to air pollution through vehicle emissions,

FURTHERMORE NOTES that the development of hydrogen fuel cells is technically difficult and expensive,

OBSERVES that Resolution #18 requires economically developing nations to duplicate the effort made and expense incurred by nations that are in a much better technological position to conduct the research,

REASONS that such funds would be spent more effectively elsewhere on areas such as healthcare and education,

EMPHASIZING that automobile manufacturers are already required to contribute 1% of their profits towards the development of alternative fuels under Resolution #39, "Alternative Fuels", and that this would include hydrogen powered vehicles,

FURTHER EMPHASIZES that a comprehensive emmission reduction program covering all industries is mandated by UN Resolution #126, "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act",

CONCLUDES that the funding of expensive duplicate technologies by economically developing nations is illogical, unnecessary, and harmful to developing nations,

and REPEALS UN Resolution #18 Hydrogen Powered Vehicles

Co-authored by Members of Wall Street

Thank God one of the many repeals for this terrible resolutions has made quorum

We support this. Whatever the benefits of hydrogen powered vehicles, making every single nation research them separately makes no sense. We don't totally agree with the proposal's emphasis on developing nations, given how weak the research constraints are, but the basic idea is there.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

As a request: could a link to the original resolution be added to the OP? It makes it easier for reference.

This has the support of The Self-Serving.

From the desk of The Selfish One

OOC: How do I cast my vote? I don't see a poll at the top of this thread like there was for the recent "Radiological Weapons" issue.

OOC: How do I cast my vote? I don't see a poll at the top of this thread like there was for the recent "Radiological Weapons" issue.
Your actual UN vote you have to submit on the UN page (http://www.nationstates.net/67346/page=un); forum polls are only informal, and not always made.

OOC: Thank you!

We, the people of Seabear70, understand that the development of hydrogen based fuel systems for vehicles can be a strain on the emerging nations. However, the promise of this technology reaches beyond the limits of vehicles.

As emerging nations reach further into the capabilitys of first world nations through expanded trade and investment in these nations, the demand for modern conviences grows. these demands do not start and end at vehicles, but extend to cellphones, satelite television, computers, the internet, etc. All of these require electrical power. And, as we allogen fuel technology extends far past the automotive, and can be applied to generation of electrical power for any use.

In addition due to the number of people in third world nations cooking over open fires, not by choice, but due to a lack of options, huge amounts of polutants are forced into the air damaging both the local and worldwide health of our citizens.

Also note that refrigeration will add greatly to the health benefits of any sweeping health program by ensuring that children do not eat spoiled food or milk.

By insisting that these small emerging nations develop these sources, and by assisting them whereever practical, we ensure a better standard of living for the entire world.

I am entirely in favor of the repeal of this long-standing resolution that chooses one alternative fuel method out of many possible options and treats it as a panacea for serious environmental issues that are far more complex than its limited proposition can address effectively.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

We, the people of Seabear70, understand that the development of hydrogen based fuel systems for vehicles can be a strain on the emerging nations. However, the promise of this technology reaches beyond the limits of vehicles.Have you by any chance actually taken the time to read the resolution being targeted by this repeal. The only thing even resembling an actual active clause is the first sentence which only requires that we start developing hydrogen powered cars. It never says one word about their use.

As emerging nations reach further into the capabilitys of first world nations through expanded trade and investment in these nations, the demand for modern conviences grows. these demands do not start and end at vehicles, but extend to cellphones, satelite television, computers, the internet, etc. All of these require electrical power. And, as we allogen fuel technology extends far past the automotive, and can be applied to generation of electrical power for any use.Nice, but what does this have to do with the resolution at vote.

In addition due to the number of people in third world nations cooking over open fires, not by choice, but due to a lack of options, huge amounts of polutants are forced into the air damaging both the local and worldwide health of our citizens.I may not be from a "third world" nation, but I enjoy food that's been cooked over an open fire from time to time myself. And yet, you're getting further off the topic at hand unless people are using hydrogen to barbecue in their cars.

Also note that refrigeration will add greatly to the health benefits of any sweeping health program by ensuring that children do not eat spoiled food or milk.Uh, hello. Earth to Seabear70, we're not talking about refrigeration, we're talking about hydrogen, powered, cars.

By insisting that these small emerging nations develop these sources, and by assisting them whereever practical, we ensure a better standard of living for the entire world.Oh good, now that you're done trying to drag the general assembly off topic. The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote FOR this long overdue repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

About effing time. If this thing fails, I'm going to personally strangle as many people who voted against as possible.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

We’re firmly in favour of this; it’s about time that this legislative dross is removed forever.

We’re failing how to see anybody could vote against this, luckily it’s small regions with no evident grasp of the issue at hand but we did note with some pity that Euphobes has cast their 10 delegate votes against this, we cannot hope to guess how resentful they feel at this moment in time.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

I Strongly Agree We Should Have Hydrogen Powered Vehicles,it Would Cut Down On The Price Of Fuel For The Not Well Off Families And We Have Much More Hydrogen Than Gasoline

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 2003We regret that the last time a repeal of this legislative abomination came to the floor, we voted against, owing to the defeat of a free-trade proposal for which we were still holding a grudge. We will not make the same mistake twice.

The Federal Republic votes in favor.

We are in support of this repeal. The removal of this fluff is just the kind of exemplifying action the UN needs to take. After thorough review of the resolution being repealed (e.g., I read it twice) we have determined that the only active clause, as stated earlier, is the sentence proposing the development of Hydrogen powered cars. Technically, this resolution could have absolutely no effect, seeing as use of the word "proposing" effectively allows any nation to completely disregard this resolution. A firm vote in the support of this repeal.

I Strongly Agree We Should Have Hydrogen Powered Vehicles,it Would Cut Down On The Price Of Fuel For The Not Well Off Families And We Have Much More Hydrogen Than Gasoline

Wow. Crazy Capitals.

If anyone needs any more reason to support this, this was Cobdenia's attempt at a hydrogen powered vehicle:

http://airminded.org/wp-content/img/aircraft/_r101.jpg

and here's what happened:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/museum/flash/hindenburg.jpg

In that case, we'd vote for it if we could.

At any rate, the delegate for Antarctic Paradise will be voting in favour of this repeal.

Lillith Cresil: UN Observer
The Torture Chamber of Lady Deathstrike

Ausserland has voted FOR the repeal. The idea of thousands of nations all researching the same alternative technology just guarantees wasteful duplication of effort.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Of the resolutions still in effect, Hydrogen Powered Vehicles is definately one of the worst. We eagerly await its removal.

Jey votes FOR.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

I fully support the repeal of this bill. Technologically advanced nations would come to see the benefits, both economically and enviromentally, of this technology and will eventually all follow this research in their own good time. For nations less advanced the cost to push their technology level up to the stage where they can even utalise such techology in the form of fuel cells etc would be far too high for it to benefit them in anyway. All countries have a natural progression and forcing them to jump steps without any monetary support or the likes would stunt their overall growth.

If anyone needs any more reason to support this, this was Cobdenia's attempt at a hydrogen powered vehicle:

OMG What happened? I was standing next to two lovely cat girls and suddenly they died? Cobdenia stop using BAD SCIENCE to kill catgirls! (Where did I put my black powder dueling pistols?)

I don't want to get rude here, but if it wasn't for the fact that you coated your vessel with the exact recipe for SOLID ROCKET FUEL that ship would not have crashed and burned. I have the reports of the crash, everyone saw the fire. HINT: Hydrogen flames are colorless, you almost can't see them.

I should point out that a similar vessel filled with helium also suffered a similar fate. Only since it was a cargo vessel it never got press coverage.

Petroleum is far more nasty than hydrogen. I know one example of a truck carrying petroleum going on fire and literally melting the bridge underneath it.

Never the less, we oppose the resolution (and thus support the repeal) because hydrogen is not a fuel! You can't get it from hydrogen mines you have to create free H2 from other sources which requires energy. Thus hydrogen is at best a storage medium and there are far better energy storage mediums than hydrogen. NiMH is one example. I'd rather have a NiMH battery array than a fuel cell array any day of the week.

Never the less, we oppose the resolution (and thus support the repeal) because hydrogen is not a fuel! You can't get it from hydrogen mines you have to create free H2 from other sources which requires energy. Thus hydrogen is at best a storage medium and there are far better energy storage mediums than hydrogen. NiMH is one example. I'd rather have a NiMH battery array than a fuel cell array any day of the week.

Excuse me but it also requires energy to extract all fossil fuels. The whole point would be to use a little energy to create the hydrogen which could then be used to create far more power then was required to produce it. Also it possibly uses far less energy to produce hydrogen from water than it does to mine fossil fuels once the process is perfected.

The honorable nation of Seventh Avenue is proud to cast its vote to repeal this appalling resolution. This resolution contains many flaws. It implies that the only alternative to oil driven vehicles are hydrogen powered ones. It forces small nations to fund expensive hydrogen research projects. Such projects can put small economically developing nations to fall into debt. Therefore resolution 18 is a major drain on national economies everywhere. Therefore we feel it is common sense to vote for this resolution, and take pity on those not intelligent enough to realize that with out a strong economy it doesn’t matter how much oil is left in the world, or how polluted the air becomes, because, as the great Seventh Avenue economist Sheldon Winters once said, "The foundation of any nation is only as strong as its economy, and with out a strong foundation a nation is doomed to fail."

Official Press Release
Office of the Seventh Avenue UN Delegation

The nation of Blue Dinosaurs votes for this repeal. We don't have vehicles yet, but when we do develop them, we don't want to be handicapped by overly restricive laws about the type of vehicle we can have. It's going to be hard enough building vehicles that can accomodate anything from raptors to brachiosaurs without extra restrictions.

After looking into this matter further and consulting our Energy Research Library we have learned that hydrogen fuel cells do not produce energy, but are rather an energy storage system, and as such still require other fuel sources to provide the energy, so they may not reduce oil consumption. Furthermore hydrogen is the smallest and lightest element, which makes it highly difficult to contain, and is highly combustible with oxygen in the air. Therefore it is dangerous to say that small nations need to develop this technology when they may not have the ability to safely contain the hydrogen.

Official Press Release
Office of the Seventh Avenue UN Delegation

We here in Dupretoria are all for the development of alternative fuels, but we aren't crazy about hydrogen cars for all sorts of reasons and tend to prefer our teeny solar/electric golf cart thingies. Our drag races are slow, but funny. The mandated use of hydrogen based technologies has been a real thorn in our side and were delighted to vote to repeal it.

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild supports this repeal resolution. We have noted that the resolution this repeals is a fuzzy, "feel good" resolution that was poorly researched and does serious damage to the cause of researching alternative fuel vehicles and the elimination of fossil fuels as a primary source of energy generation.

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild will continue to aggressively pursue reducing the all pervasive influence of fossil fuel energy providers and aggressively promote the research and development of practical "green" energy alternatives for both vehicles and primary national power sources.

While we are rarely politically allied to conservative and unrestrained free market nations, it is something such as this that allows us to reach out across the aisle with no regrets.

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Excuse me but it also requires energy to extract all fossil fuels.

It does not require energy to extract hydrogen, it requires energy to create it. In some cases it requires energy to extract fossil fuels stored in hard to reach places (where it's not flowing out of the ground) and it requires some energy to refine it, we are talking about reducing the efficiency of the energy contained in the fossil fuel. There is no inherant energy in hydrogen, you need more energy to create it than you get from it.

Fossil fuels exist - they must be extracted and refined.
Free hydrogen does not exist - it must be created.

It does not require energy to extract hydrogen, it requires energy to create it. In some cases it requires energy to extract fossil fuels stored in hard to reach places (where it's not flowing out of the ground) and it requires some energy to refine it, we are talking about reducing the efficiency of the energy contained in the fossil fuel. There is no inherant energy in hydrogen, you need more energy to create it than you get from it.

Fossil fuels exist - they must be extracted and refined.
Free hydrogen does not exist - it must be created.

Ehm..

You can't create hydrogen. Extracting it is retrieving it from a source, such as water. Electrolysis in water creates H (hydrogen) and O (oxygen). There is also twice as much hydrogen than oxygen.

I support this repeal.

Developing nations like my own don't want to waste money trying to make the air cleaner. We need to focus on our own problems, rather than throw money at something that will only end up hurting out nation in the long run.

"Ok, everyone chill a bit. First off, you two are saying the same thing. You EXTRACT the hydrogen from existing molecules to CREATE "free" hydrogen. The semantics don't really matter. It does take energy to do it, and the energy is retrieved in the recombination process creating H20 once again. Second, hydrogen is an excellent idea, especially in conjunction with fusion power production basically removing environmental pollution from both systems, but it mustn't be left in control of the power/fuel companies, who will undoubtedly, at least in the Commonwealth, try to exploit the masses with it. The only way for a society to actually use it is to ensure its free or extremely cheap use."

OOC: I saw a Discovery channel program where a guy had a working concept thing of hydrogen fuel pumps that could be placed along the roadsides, used for free, that use solar power to extract hydrogen from water autonomously. I think it might have even used the "exhaust" water from the hydrogen cars. Anyway.

IC: "However, forcing everyone down one idealistic path in the sciences isn't a good idea, and the original resolution is just badly written, due to it being a very early one. The Great Commonwealth is in full support of this repeal."

Have you by any chance actually taken the time to read the resolution being targeted by this repeal. The only thing even resembling an actual active clause is the first sentence which only requires that we start developing hydrogen powered cars. It never says one word about their use.

Nice, but what does this have to do with the resolution at vote.

I may not be from a "third world" nation, but I enjoy food that's been cooked over an open fire from time to time myself. And yet, you're getting further off the topic at hand unless people are using hydrogen to barbecue in their cars.

Uh, hello. Earth to Seabear70, we're not talking about refrigeration, we're talking about hydrogen, powered, cars.

Oh good, now that you're done trying to drag the general assembly off topic. The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote FOR this long overdue repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You are ignoring the basic science behind this.

The most practical way to develop a hydrogen powered vehicle is to use fuelcell technology, the theory of which is redily available. And the science and engineering of which is well developed.

Fuelcell technology lacks only the manufacturing infrastructure to make it practical. And this is not a burden on third world countries or on the first world or on anyone. It is an opportunity. If smaller countries were to build factories for these then they could use this to employ hundreds if not thousands of their own people in a n industry most ly ignored by first world nations due to the catch 22 situation of not having the infrastructure, so they chose not to actively persue the technology.

As for my insistance of this being applicable to almost every aspect of modern life, it's very true. Smaller countries do not have the capitol to string thousands of miles of wire to provide electricity to their citizens, but they do have the ability, if they have the impetus to develope the capability, to provide fuelcell generators, unchanged from the units that would go into vehicles, for small villages, vastly improving the way of life for their citizens.

And no, I have not read the original resolution, got a link?

After looking into this matter further and consulting our Energy Research Library we have learned that hydrogen fuel cells do not produce energy, but are rather an energy storage system, and as such still require other fuel sources to provide the energy, so they may not reduce oil consumption. Furthermore hydrogen is the smallest and lightest element, which makes it highly difficult to contain, and is highly combustible with oxygen in the air. Therefore it is dangerous to say that small nations need to develop this technology when they may not have the ability to safely contain the hydrogen.

Official Press Release
Office of the Seventh Avenue UN Delegation


Do a little more research into fuel cells and how they work, and how hydrogen is stored in them.

I fully support the repeal of this bill. Technologically advanced nations would come to see the benefits, both economically and enviromentally, of this technology and will eventually all follow this research in their own good time. For nations less advanced the cost to push their technology level up to the stage where they can even utalise such techology in the form of fuel cells etc would be far too high for it to benefit them in anyway. All countries have a natural progression and forcing them to jump steps without any monetary support or the likes would stunt their overall growth.


Why not bypass the buildup of technology to the latest state of the art when it would cost less money for developing nations to do so?

Ok, I've read the resolution, and yes, it is stupid, but the effect of the resolution is rather great.

The Only problem with the initial bill is that it assumes that all nations are building their own cars.

If we could guarantee a bill developing hydrogen fuel cell energy sources, then I would be willing to vote for this bill.

It does not require energy to extract hydrogen, it requires energy to create it. In some cases it requires energy to extract fossil fuels stored in hard to reach places (where it's not flowing out of the ground) and it requires some energy to refine it, we are talking about reducing the efficiency of the energy contained in the fossil fuel. There is no inherant energy in hydrogen, you need more energy to create it than you get from it.

Fossil fuels exist - they must be extracted and refined.
Free hydrogen does not exist - it must be created.

I would consider using electrolosis as refining hydrogen from water. Actual extraction of the compound is not necessary because water is freely available. As for there not being energy in hydrogen, it depends what you do with it. If money was invested to making a controlled neclear fusion reaction tremendous amounts of energy would be generated using hydrogen, more specifically deutrium. So it depends how one goes about it.

Why not bypass the buildup of technology to the latest state of the art when it would cost less money for developing nations to do so?

Yeah but doing this would put a significant financial cost on other nations to invest the technology into the nation. They would be unable to jump all these step by themselves and since the UN has no monetary branch this is unrealistic unless some wealthy nation decides to lean a hand.

As Queen of Zendras, I have voted for this repeal. I feel that while this mandate may serve a good purpose, forcing everyone to research this is not a good idea. May we not also try researching other things to help our environment, such as a more eco-friendly way to replace Styrofoam, or protecting endangered wildlife.

Hirota votes for this repeal.

Ok, I've read the resolution, and yes, it is stupid, but the effect of the resolution is rather great.Oh yeah, the effect is great.:rolleyes: Back when we joined the UN in order to comply with the resolution, we assigned a crack research team consisting of a two year old and a monkey,* so far they haven't even figured out the wheel yet.

If we could guarantee a bill developing hydrogen fuel cell energy sources, then I would be willing to vote for this bill.
The best way to guarantee something like that is to write it yourself.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*maybe I should say "cracked research team."

The real issue is that, wonder as hydrogen is, we don't have it naturally on earth. Any fuel cell working with hydrogen is nice in concept as they have zero emissions and such, but how practical is it when we have to make the fuel. A fuel cell ( beyond regualr maintence) need hydrogen to run. Where would we get it? Most likely through electrolysis of water. This raises a problem of what energy do we use to perform this. Typically it is done off the base electrical circuit. In american this would most likely mean being powered by coal. Now where the hydrogen fuel cell itself is clean, getting the fuel through coal powered electrolysis is not. Its like trying to cool a room by opening your refrigerator. You open it and some cool air blows out, but then the compressor kicks it to try and keep it cool and works like mad, actually heating it up more.

The real issue is that, wonder as hydrogen is, we don't have it naturally on earth. Any fuel cell working with hydrogen is nice in concept as they have zero emissions and such, but how practical is it when we have to make the fuel. A fuel cell ( beyond regualr maintence) need hydrogen to run. Where would we get it? Most likely through electrolysis of water. This raises a problem of what energy do we use to perform this. Typically it is done off the base electrical circuit. In american this would most likely mean being powered by coal. Now where the hydrogen fuel cell itself is clean, getting the fuel through coal powered electrolysis is not. Its like trying to cool a room by opening your refrigerator. You open it and some cool air blows out, but then the compressor kicks it to try and keep it cool and works like mad, actually heating it up more.

Actually, it's my understanding that most of these fuel cells use butane or something similar as a method of storing hydrogen.

As for electrical sources for producing hydrogen directly, why not use nuclear? It is by far, even including such notable exceptions such as Cheranobyl and before that Three Mile Island, the cleanest, cheapest form of energy.

This would allow first world nations a piece of the pie in developing this technology, and promote trade between first and third world nations.

Oh yeah, the effect is great.:rolleyes: Back when we joined the UN in order to comply with the resolution, we assigned a crack research team consisting of a two year old and a monkey,* so far they haven't even figured out the wheel yet.


The best way to guarantee something like that is to write it yourself.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*maybe I should say "cracked research team."

Ok, so it works slightly better than the real UN which is still in comittee about that wheel thing.

I'd need a couple endorcements to write my own bill. Care to be the first?

You can't create hydrogen. Extracting it is retrieving it from a source, such as water. Electrolysis in water creates H (hydrogen) and O (oxygen). There is also twice as much hydrogen than oxygen.

Well technically you can, but I don't see why anyone would want to. (When an electron and a protron love each other very much ...) However I'm talking about the molecule not the atom. As far as I am concerned H2 is hyrdogen, O2 is oxygen. Both are molecules and both can indeed be "created." You need to create pure H2 molecules in order to provide "hydrogen powered vehicles." Yes you can skim an filter the atmospheres of gas giants but this isn't what the resolution is about is it?

I would consider using electrolosis as refining hydrogen from water. Actual extraction of the compound is not necessary because water is freely available.

So would I. Unfortunately, that method requires energy. So where are you going to get the energy from to do that process? That's like saying you can pump water up hill and then use gravity to extract energy from the water going downhill.

A fuel has energy already in it. You may not be able to etract all the energy out of it, and it may take some energy to extract the bulk of the energy but you extract the energy already in the fuel. WATER is the final end product of combstion. Suggesting you can then convert it back to hydrogen and then call it a fuel is as moronic as thinking you can convert CO2 into carbon and call that a fuel. (Unless you are a tree, but then you are in fact a solar energy converter aren't you?)

So let's recap. Hydrogen must be created using energy of some kind. Given that you need energy to create hydrogen, and assuming you are not really being a complete moron by burning fossel fuels to create that energy, you need to ask if hydrogen is the best storage medium for the energy. The simple fact is that it is not. Electric motor technology is quite advanced and there are several battery technologies that are exceptionally superior. (OOC: This is Nationstates not the real world, and there is no Chevon Texxaco to hold the patent of the NiMH battery to prevent the development of the elecric car.)

In short: Hydrogen technology is a funny joke, nothing more. This resolution deserves to be repealed. It's bad science. Think of the cat girls! For the sake of the cat girls repeal this trash!

The Kingdom of Frotworth voted for the repeal. I immediately see the original resolution as faulty for its lack of explanation of the reason to use hydrogen specifically rather than any other form of alternative fuel.

About effing time. If this thing fails, I'm going to personally strangle as many people who voted against as possible.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

We prefer defenestrations.

I Strongly Agree We Should Have Hydrogen Powered Vehicles,it Would Cut Down On The Price Of Fuel For The Not Well Off Families And We Have Much More Hydrogen Than Gasoline

And This Guy May Be The First One Out The Window.

Ok, I've read the resolution, and yes, it is stupid, but the effect of the resolution is rather great.

Thus making the effect greatly stupid. Cluichstan stands in favour of the repeal of this pile of dung.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

This repeal is fully suported by Belisaerius. While we recognize the need for alternative fuel sources, we must rewrite the peramiters in which this can be done. The resolution in question curtails our options for new energy and needs to be refined.

An analysis of the underlying physiochemical processes of hydrogen production reveals that there are two commercially viable methods for extracting hydrogen from water: electrolysis, which is extremely inefficient, although it does not pollute (provided the electricity comes from a non-polluting source), and steam-methane combustion, an exothermic process that essentially converts natural gas to a less efficient fuel and producing carbon dioxide in the process. Hydrogen fuel represents a convenient fiction for energy companies pretending to be doing something about alternative energy, and while it undoubtedly has small-scale applications, it will not be the energy source of the future. Deep World votes for the repeal but sincerely hopes that a similar resolution, one with a more flexible policy toward sharing of technological development and with protocols for implementation assistance for developing nations, will be proposed regarding solar power, which is already undergoing a number of dramatic advances in efficiency, affordability, and flexibility of use and which in its many forms holds by far the most promise of any renewable energy source.

i dont see ANY benefit to repeal this. will you prefere the normal fuel, good for economy, rather hydrogen, good for environment? how many nations will turn into deserts if this will be aprooved? whats the benefit in deserts and polluent fuels?

I VOTE NO!

dont be blind, or easly lied uppon a self sided truth, your national animal will suffer if this is repealed! theres more issues we should look instad of repealing good resolutions.

We prefer defenestrations.
/me smacks self for forgetting about defenestrations.

i dont see ANY benefit to repeal this. will you prefere the normal fuel, good for economy, rather hydrogen, good for environment? how many nations will turn into deserts if this will be aprooved? whats the benefit in deserts and polluent fuels?

I VOTE NO!

dont be blind, or easly lied uppon a self sided truth, your national animal will suffer if this is repealed! theres more issues we should look instad of repealing good resolutions.

The problem is that the original resolution is utter crap. There are a host of better ways to promote alternative fuel research than require it of all nations from the richest to the poorest.

Bear in mind I am not fond of the fossil fuel industry. It is run by folks that are selfish, disinterested bastards (especially Exxon/Mobile IRL) who could care less just how much they ravage this planet as long as they are making their unrestricted billions.

If you are concerned about this issue, might I humbly suggest you write a more sensible resolution encouraging alternative fuels research. I'm looking into it (no one keel over from a heart attack please).

Mauribritania sees this issue as one where it is necessary to look at the big picture. I mean come on - let's be realistic. It's pretty much common knowledge at this point that oil supplies are not going to last forever. We also have no way to create our own supply. Now if you look at the world, it would be fair to say that we rely quite heavily on oil. So the way I see it is that we have two options.
Option 1: We can all crash, burn and die a very horrible, painful, drawn out death when the world runs out of oil. I'm not really a fan of option 1 - it sounds a bit uncomfortable and doesn't quite seem conducive to life.
Personally, I like Option 2 a bit more. For Option 2 we can start developing an alternative to oil now while we have the resources and the time. I like to call it planning ahead.
Being honest, I know that it's going to be expensive to create such an alternative - and I accept that it will not be easy. However, in order to survive the future we need to be prepared. Sure, it's true that all of the money being put into hydropowered vehicles could be used for education. But one can make that excuse for anything. There will always be a time in the future to boost education in your country. You can't say the same for developing alternative power sources. Sure, education is important--but also realize that without an alternative energy source, there won't be school buses to get the children to their education in the first place.
Think of it this way - you can't govern your country if you and your people are dead. Also, you could be the wealthiest nation in the world - but all that money won't help when the world runs out of oil.
By the way, do tell. What would make it so expensive to clean the air? You're absolutely right--breathing is overrated anyway. It is very simple to clean the air: you can either shut off all of the machines and allow the atmosphere time to heal, and turn the machines back on again eons later, or you can invest a little time, effort, and money into fixing the machines so this action won't be necessary. Since everyone's out to make a buck off someone, I'm guessing turning of the machines wouldn't increase the competition amongst your nations.

i dont see ANY benefit to repeal this. will you prefere the normal fuel, good for economy, rather hydrogen, good for environment? how many nations will turn into deserts if this will be aprooved? whats the benefit in deserts and polluent fuels?

I VOTE NO!

dont be blind, or easly lied uppon a self sided truth, your national animal will suffer if this is repealed! theres more issues we should look instad of repealing good resolutions.


And how many developing nations economies will crumble trying to produce extremely expensive vehicles, and trying to produce the hydrogen needed.

If you are concerned about this issue, might I humbly suggest you write a more sensible resolution encouraging alternative fuels research. I'm looking into it (no one keel over from a heart attack please).

You are presumably thinking of something more pro-active than the resolution Alternative Fuels (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029854&postcount=40)?

I'd need a couple endorcements to write my own bill. Care to be the first?

Only if you move to my region.*

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*I'm a delegate, so I'm not moving anywhere.

i dont see ANY benefit to repeal this. will you prefere the normal fuel, good for economy, rather hydrogen, good for environment? how many nations will turn into deserts if this will be aprooved? whats the benefit in deserts and polluent fuels?

I VOTE NO!

dont be blind, or easly lied uppon a self sided truth, your national animal will suffer if this is repealed! theres more issues we should look instad of repealing good resolutions.


You are not helping.

Retake basic High School chemestry or seek professional psychiatric help.

Only if you move to my region.*

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*I'm a delegate, so I'm not moving anywhere.


Ok, I'm here.

You are presumably thinking of something more pro-active than the resolution Alternative Fuels (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029854&postcount=40)?

I need to read a lot of resolutions, and I may or may not write a new one. This is presuming I see the need for more legislation.

Developing nations have nither the economical or technological resourses to develope hydrogen powered vehicles,not to mention hydrogen is much more unstable than gasoline.Biodiesel and other nature based energy sourses would solve the problem and put less of a strain on the globle economy.

Hi, has anyone watched the documentary entitled "The Inconvenient Truth" by the ex-president of America, Al Gore? We have statistic showing that the existing fossil fuel is causing a global warming. So why do we want to repell an act that is environmental friendly?

Because it's shit

Hi, has anyone watched the documentary entitled "The Inconvenient Truth" by the ex-president of America, Al Gore? We have statistic showing that the existing fossil fuel is causing a global warming. So why do we want to repell an act that is environmental friendly?

RL=/=NS. That's a start.

Next, we have something presenting facts in a fashion that are decidedly biased, rendering them not 100% trustworthy (Fahrenheit 9/11 anyone).

We will now move on to the actual reso, which fails to address the number of other available alternative fuel sources, the prohibitive costs of researching and developing Hydrogen in the fashion described, the redundancy of having every single UN nation duplicating the same research instead of just sharing what they have, the levels of technology which exist within some UN nations that render hydrogen power obsolete, the nations which do not even utilize automobiles in any form within their nations instead using horse and buggy or zeppelin or roller-coaster or somesuch, or any number of other issues which were not thought of or covered by this waste of paper.

So why do we want to repell an act that is environmental friendly?

Because it's shit

*Sen. Sulla is visibly moved and wipes a tear from his eye*

"Hear! Hear! By Godfrey, I love your eloquence. Sir, I salute you!"

*raised his glass in a toast to the rep from Cobdenia*
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/dave-allen.jpg

"The Inconvenient Truth" by the ex-president of America, Al Gore?

Apart from the fact that NS != RL, when did Al get elected President? I know he won a shiny gold statuette the other night, but the Big Chair? I must have missed that one.

why not try air travel ? we could develop better engines and make aircraft more eco safe also why not try helium blimps to act as cruise ships?:D

Hi, has anyone watched the documentary entitled "The Inconvenient Truth" by the ex-president of America, Al Gore?

By the what?
By the what?
By the what?
By the what?
By the what?
My ... don't even say that in jest.
(It's former Vice President, and vice is the only thing he is ever going to get.)

Hi, has anyone watched the documentary entitled "The Inconvenient Truth" by the ex-president of America, Al Gore? We have statistic showing that the existing fossil fuel is causing a global warming. So why do we want to repell an act that is environmental friendly?


Because Al is dumb as a rock and his only talent is for leading other boulders.

There's also the problem that for a guy so concerned about global warming, he appears to be the one human being on earth that is contributing to it more than anyone else.

why not try air travel ? we could develop better engines and make aircraft more eco safe also why not try helium blimps to act as cruise ships?:D


Personally I likethe idea of blimps, but the velocity sux.

As for more efficient aircraft engines, despite a pack of inconvienent lies, it is in the best intrest of airlines and airplane manufacturers to develop and have the most fuel efficient engines possible. Given the current level of technology and the fuel sources allowed, they are doing the best they can.

Hi, has anyone watched the documentary entitled "The Inconvenient Truth" by the ex-president of America, Al Gore? We have statistic showing that the existing fossil fuel is causing a global warming. So why do we want to repell an act that is environmental friendly?

Ignoring my opinion on the credibility of unnamed hypothetical ex-VICE-presidents, the problem is, it locks nations into a specific solution that isn't neccesarily the best one. My people are pro-environment, but there are other solutions that might be better than hydrogen.

Might we suggest that the honoured supporters of this proposal cease undermining their own credentials as regards basic scientific literacy, particularly in the vitriol they are wasting on a piece of fiction largely notable for its accuracy. Otherwise we are going to have to reexamine the facts as laid before us in favour of this repeal with considerably less basic trust in their underlying accuracy.

Hi, has anyone watched the documentary entitled "The Inconvenient Truth" by the ex-president of America, Al Gore? We have statistic showing that the existing fossil fuel is causing a global warming. So why do we want to repell an act that is environmental friendly?

First of all, there isn't enough empirical evidence to fully support the global warming theory. Earth has existed for over 4.6 billion years, and it has cycled through many variations in climate and global temperature. The slightly varying position of the Earth's orbit in relation to the Sun has the ability to noticeably change temperatures globally. Also, the electomagnetic field surrounding earth causes climate shifts, and we are possibly near one of those shifts today. So, it can still be argued that we are simply entering another warmer age in Earth's long history.

But, even so, just as the Repeal implies, forcing smaller governments to allocate funding to such advanced scientific research and developement is unjust. When small states, who don't have sufficient funding to begin with, are forced to subtract efforts in more important fields such as medical research, education, public service, or military developement, it denies them the right to develop to their upmost capacity.

So why do we want to repell an act that is environmental friendly?

Because the resolution itself is "repelling."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: And in case you haven't figured it out yet, Al Gore is only a former vice president.

Initially, Altanar was opposed to this repeal. After further review, however, it has become apparent to us that the original resolution places an untenable burden on nations that are too small, or too financially strapped, to afford to develop such technology. The original resolution also does not provide any means to aid such nations with the cost of doing so, instead preferring to indulge in overinflated rhetoric and unfunded mandates. We don't like that, frankly.

Also, as the repeal points out, resolutions #39 and #126 are capable of covering this need.

Altanar is now in favor of this repeal.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Okay. Enough jumping of the drive-by poster. This isn't General.

Thanks Cobdenia!
While research into non fossil fuels for transportation needs to be encouraged, it is short-sighted to channel all that research into one particular form - particularly as many nations would be doing similar research. This is uneconomical and results in heavy burdens for those nations least able to bear them.
Accordingly resolution 18 should be repealed and perhaps replaced with osmething more sensible and better thought through.

The whole point would be to use a little energy to create the hydrogen which could then be used to create far more power then was required to produce it. Also it possibly uses far less energy to produce hydrogen from water than it does to mine fossil fuels once the process is perfected.

Uh...you're going to have to show me some kind of proof before I swallow this and discover later that I've got a bad case of hook-line-sinker disease. Please tell me how much energy it takes to create hydrogen and compare that to the, say, 1.3 gallon of petrol for every 1 gallon of ethanol that folks in places where corn is king like to completely ignore.

Knowing when to dump your corn-based-ethanol-related stocks is going be a problem....

Personally I likethe idea of blimps, but the velocity sux.

Thermal Glidoons! They have a heluim core and an outer core filled with amonia gas. Combined with the amonia gas they are lighter than air, but when they hit high altitudes the amonia liquifies and they become heavier than air. Thus they glide between the thermal layers on their wings.

You could substitute hydrogen for helium of course.

OOC: I'm not a mod, but if you want to discuss RL politics, General is that-a-way.

And...now.

The atrocity has been removed.

Huzzah for Wall Street!

Hoorah for Wall Street! Hoorah for national sovereignty and hoorah for getting rid of useless and badly written resolutions!

Yeah, I supose it is hard to defend a guy that is that big a hypocrite.

Not really, but that's irrelevant.

Amazingly I am against repealing the resolution, but then again I actually have real reasons for it as opposed to the me too garbage that most people have.

State your case, then. The repeal has already passed, but if you feel you have legitimate reasons for opposing, let's hear them.

BTW : Care to explain to the class why either...

1. Carbon Dioxide has so little impact on the environment,

CO2 is necessary to the environment. Without it, the earth would die.

yet is so important to global warming.

That's CO.

or

2. Why the oceans have been cooling down for years, yet the earth is warming up?

As the earth warms, the polar icecaps melt, loosing fresh cold water into the warmer salt water of the oceans. The theory is that this will eventually upset the entire ecosystem of the planet.

Now, state your source for the figures that claim either that the NS world is warming, or that the NS oceans are cooling.

I await your reasoned reply with baited breath.

I realize that you weren't asking these questions of me, but I'm hoping you might respond anyways.

"CO2 is necessary to the environment. Without it, the earth would die."

The earth is a rock. Rocks don't die.

Without CO2, most life on earth would die and earth would become a barren icy wasteland.

i comply

"CO2 is necessary to the environment. Without it, the earth would die."

The earth is a rock. Rocks don't die.

Without CO2, most life on earth would die and earth would become a barren icy wasteland.

That was unnecessarily hyperliteral. Congrats! You win the award for Most Useless Statement of the Entire Debate. Have a cookie.

To put it into perspective, the question was regarding the environment, which involves a great many living things. The earth lives.

i complyNo, duh.

That was unnecessarily hyperliteral. Congrats! You win the award for Most Useless Statement of the Entire Debate. Have a cookie.Are you sure that that award shouldn't have gone to PICKER?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The people of the DRRI are disappointed in the outcome of the U.N. resolution to "repeal hydrogen powered vehicles". As a small developing nation, we see new energy technologies not a hindrance to economic development, but as a clear path to gain an edge over more powerful nations. By creating a broad range of alternatives to fossil fuels, we not only liberate ourselves from imperialist capitalism, but can actually lead the way to dominate markets that are far more dependent on energy than ourselves, much as the way oil producing nations did in the last century. Moreover, we can remain true to our values of ecological stewardship. We will continue to develop as many alternatives to fossil fuels as our imaginations and resources allow. As we say in Rhonde: "with justice comes peace, with peace we may have liberty, and where liberty shines prosperity grows". thank you

As a small developing nation, we see new energy technologies not a hindrance to economic development, but as a clear path to gain an edge over more powerful nations.Nothing's stopping you from continuing said development.

By creating a broad range of alternatives to fossil fuelsThe Repealed Resolution did not create a "broad range of alternatives". It tried to create a single alternative, and didn't even manage that.

i do not comply

Once was funny.