NationStates Jolt Archive

This bill is a way out of our dependency for foreign oil in a seven-year program of doing away with gas-fueled automobiles. This being that the gas-fueled automobiles would be replace by hydrogen fuel cell automobiles. Below is a list of what the requirements for the producers and sellers of automobiles in UN countries.


Year 1 - 20% of all automobiles produced and to be sold in UN countries are to be a hydrogen fuel cell automobile. Plus, all gas stations must have the same 20% of hydrogen fuel for the fuel cell automobiles.
Year 2 - 30% of all automobiles produced and to be sold in UN countries are to be a hydrogen fuel cell automobile. Plus, all gas stations must have the same 30% of hydrogen fuel for the fuel cell automobiles.
Year 3 - 40% of all automobiles produced and to be sold in UN countries are to be a hydrogen fuel cell automobile. Plus, all gas stations must have the same 40% of hydrogen fuel for the fuel cell automobiles.
Year 4 - 50% of all automobiles produced and to be sold in UN countries are to be a hydrogen fuel cell automobile. Plus, all gas stations must have the same 50% of hydrogen fuel for the fuel cell automobiles.
Year 5 - 60% of all automobiles produced and to be sold in UN countries are to be a hydrogen fuel cell automobile. Plus, all gas stations must have the same 60% of hydrogen fuel for the fuel cell automobiles.
Year 6 - 75% of all automobiles produced and to be sold in UN countries are to be a hydrogen fuel cell automobile. Plus, all gas stations must have the same 75% of hydrogen fuel for the fuel cell automobiles.
Year 7 - 100% of automobiles produced and to be sold in UN countries are to be a hydrogen fuel cell automobile. Plus, all gas stations must have hydrogen fuel for the fuel cell automobiles. Also, the gas stations can have some gas for older cars, which will be destroyed and recycled 5 years from this year, or to be collector items.

The placing of hydrogen plants are to be in areas that use hydroelectric energy. These areas should be near the oceans or large bodies of water and use cleaned water from those water sources. These new companies should be given UN help in building these plants and the UN will be repaid afterwards for the help.

During the programs time car companies will be given some tax cuts to help with the transition, and car companies that go over the percent required would be given higher tax cuts. In addition to this, car companies will be allowed to cut their employees wages by 10-25%. Even if it goes against the deal between Auto Workers Union (AWU) and the car companies, it would allow for less job cuts of workers in the industry.




Help by adding or re-wording the above, because its something the UN should look at doing.

Rule 1: Huge type doesn't make you more readable, it makes you less readable.

That huge chunk of bulleted text in the middle adds nothing but annoyance. Can't you say the same thing by stating, "A percentage of all automobiles produced and to be sold in UN countries are to be a hydrogen fuel cell automobiles. All gas stations must have the same percentage of hydrogen fuel for the fuel cell automobiles. This plan must be incorporated within seven years, at which time 100% of new automobiles run on hydrogen, and 100% of fuel sold is intended for those vehicles.That takes care of your formatting issue, but it doesn't address the economic damage this would do. Seven years to totally change the way people drive? Seven years to put two major industries entirely out of business (the automotive industry and the refining industry)? Seven years to achieve 100% replacement of passenger cars, even though many people are driving cars much older that seven years of age? No mention of other vehicles that might not be practical to run on hydrogen (think farm vehicles and big trucks, chainsaws, lawnmowers and snowmobiles), not to mention that some of those may have a useful, amortized lifetime of 20-30 years?

Getting people into hydrogen vehicles may be a good idea. Destroying your nation's economy while doing so is not a good idea. While we discourage real world references in proposal texts, you should take a gander at a real world microeconomics book some time. You'd find it instructive.

Oh, and by the way - the UN has no money. They can't possibly help with the funding. Those tax cuts also have to come from somewhere, unless you want your nations to simply print what it needs and develop enough inflation to destroy the national economy from the other side, you'll need to raise taxes or cut services elsewhere. That's not gonna make you all that popular in the world of NationStates. Better grab a tome on macroeconomics while you're at the library.

It's a laudable goal, but a lousy implementation. Maybe some of the folks here want to help you build one up from scratch, but this one is pretty much doomed as I see it.

This being that the gas-fueled automobiles would be replace by hydrogen fuel cell automobiles..Here is a case of not thinking of better solutions to power cars. Why hydrogen fuel cells and not some other safer more effecient source of fuel. To just jump from gas to hydrogen without doing the following:
1: Find out if somebody has and is using a better fuel than either gas or hydrogen in cars and whatever they fuel. As at some point without checking one might years from now find a better solution is already in use some place yet nobody bothered to look to see if it place. Thus when it is found they will be repealing this and converting to some new fuel source.. So figure about every so many years this gets repealed and replaced as new better fuels come along.

2: Find out if all nations can convert and not kill of with the polutions from this fuel their own people. As not all nations use gas or could use hydrogen safely because of the side products of the fuel.

3: Find out is hydrogen is safer than gas and in the long run cheaper for all to use it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

4: Find out who will pay to dispose of all those old gas-guzzeling cars and whatever when we switch to a new fuel.

5: Find out if this should also include other forms of transportation such as trains, planes, and ships that use some form of gas.

To just up and say convert to this and not show it will be better than what being done or taking into consideration that some may already be using better and here you make then use hydrogen... while they have better even than that.

Best to just set up some group to find the best solution to this and make sure every nation that wants it has the procedures available to use when they are ready to use them. As some nations are yet to have cars so they don't need this.

A few problems:

1) Guess what I'm going to say here? Yep, that's right, what about Past Tech nations? Give that man a coconut. Cobdenia has only reached 1932. We don't have the technology for fuel cells, and won't for quite some time. If this passes, we'll have to go to the shops on horseback or in Zeppelins.

2) 3rd World Countries. Are you seriously suggesting that in countries where only the rich can afford new cars, and the poor have to chip in together so they can share a £500 Trabant, that they destroy their cars and replace them with new, £20,000 vehicle?

3) What happens if some scientist comes up with something better than fuel cells in year 8?

4) Does this not contradict/duplicate "Hydrogen powered Vehicles" to some extent? Admittedly, that resolution is crap, but still...

4) Does this not contradict/duplicate "Hydrogen powered Vehicles" to some extent? Admittedly, that resolution is crap, but still...
I don’t think so as I believe that it was repealed by Resolution #201, although it’s entirely possible that only happened in my wishful little head.

Heh; you're right. Must not have been paying attention...

The other point's still stand...

"Hydrogen cars won't explode like a hydrogen blimp. Hydrogen is much less efficient for storage than gasoline, meaning that, to get the same mileage per fill, you'd need a tank the size of the vehicle for the fuel cell thing. It also takes considerable energy to convert as much water to hydrogen for fuel cells in the amounts required by most nations.

"Even IF hydrogen wasn't a crock, in my opinion, it'd be nothing more than a stepping stone. Nuclear power (fission now, eventually fusion) and electric cars (with increasing battery technology, including nanotubes to increase the surface area per volume, increasing the amount of charge) will be a much more final solution.

"Actually trying to convert the entire everything to a new automotive technology in 15 years is absolutely ludicrous. The way to convert is to produce the new type in increasing ratios, but it could never, ever be seven years. It would take DECADES, if not a century. And destroying the old gasoline cars is bull, too. Especially after so short a time.

"The Great Commonwealth will take a solid stand against this, because, as stated, hydrogen cars is a crock, and we will never produce 100% of our cars as hydrogen, especially considering that 100% of our cars produced are the final product - electric.

"Oh, and fiddling with our automotive industry's taxes and wages doesn't fly with our citizens, either."

i like this policy, believe targets are essential in reducing this, but as rl shows, the trges are like 20-50 year plans.

it borders on illegal as frisbee says as it inflicts tax on countries.

but here in the zone, we like eco friendly actions and will fight on the dirty beaches to see smelly cars made safer. but realise that any resolution on it must be REALISTIC.

Honred Ambassadors.

My boss, the Rt Honorable Hermes Wright, an arithmetic enthusiast has asked me to pass on the following message:

---------------
Other than the economical impossibility of forcing tha automotive industry to produce hydrogen vehicles, and the technical shortcommings of hydrogen fuel, we have to say that the math in the proposal simply does not add up.

Lets start with some simple assumptions. A nation with 500 million people (really low for what some nations have). Lets suppose we have 150 cars for every 1000 people. Once again a conservative number for industrialized nations. This gives us 75 million vehicles. Lets assume, for the sake of simplicity that for the next seven years, population stays the same and that demand for cars doesn't grow. Lets also assume for the sake of simplicity that every year 20% of cars are replaced, and that the automaotive industry produces exactly the number of cars that get replaced each year. To make it even easier, lets assume that for the entire seven years of the proposed plan, only fossil fuel cars get replaced. After some number cruhching, we can see that by the end of year seven there are still 60 million fossil fuel cars. That is 80% of the toal cars. If by the end or year 6 gas stations must be at least 75% hydrogen, then you have royally screwed four hundred million car/gasoline users.

Hermes Wright
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

------

<Iris Fairchild sighs and shakes her head in evident disapproval>

Ambassador Gordon stands up to speak.

This is an issue that the United Nations has no business dealing with! Whether or not vehicles are to be run on hydrogen, electricity, gasoline, diesel, nuclear power, solar power, water or dirt is no business to the UN. This intrudes upon the responsibilities of the individual nations.

If your country wishes to enact such legislation, go ahead, but don't force it upon everyone else!

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

How do I enact such legislation on my country.

OOC: by roleplay. You just say that you have done it, mention it where appropriate in RP threads that you're involved with, randomly explode cars for no apparent reason, etc, etc. If you want something that affects your nation's stats, wander over to the Gameplay forum and consider crafting an Issue about it.

[INDENT]During the programs time car companies will be given some tax cuts to help with the transition, and car companies that go over the percent required would be given higher tax cuts. In addition to this, car companies will be allowed to cut their employees wages by 10-25%. Even if it goes against the deal between Auto Workers Union (AWU) and the car companies, it would allow for less job cuts of workers in the industry.We believe this is also a fault with this as to cut employees wages against a legal binding deal to set them is a voilation of some law... As this proposal should only effect what fuel sources we might use not give big car companies more power to screw it's workers in the name of some UN proposal. Especialy if that company already has an established pay deal with a union that is binding still.

Also in looking at it consider this that there will be still 3 to 1 gas cars produced as not all non UN nations will convert to hydrogen nor want to thus UN members now producing just hydrogen cars will not have non UN nations as buyers since their nation may choose not to go to hydrogen as gas is already in place and they are doing well with it. Thus figure how much profit will be lost in foreign sales since you can't sale these cars to nations that can't use them... because they still using gas...

1. Why is oil bad?

2. Are you assuming that everyone has hydrogen tech?
3. Are you assuming that hydrogen tech is the best tech?
4. Are you assuming everyone has gas-fueled automobiles?

5. Unrealistic, even moderday countries don't have hydrogen fuel cars
6. Unrealistic, where do we get all of the hydrogen
7. What about the poor

Let me tell you this, You are NOT, I repeat NOT able to make a 100% hydrogen country in seven years. You would need to convert all production to cars, destroying all your resourses and economy.

I too had written a similar resolution however since I have few or no endorsements, I could not post it.

Go ahead with it.

Almost all of the automobiles and other ground vehicles used by our people actually run on either bio-ethanol (with suitable 'catalytic converters' fitted to reduce the levels of ethanal in their exhausts) or bio-diesel, rather than on "gas".
We've only just finished that conversion.
Although this proposal wouldn't require that we do away with those vehicles it would try to stop us building and selling any more of them, despite the fact that they're probably less polluting overall than hydrogen-fuelled versions would be.
We are therefore definitely opposed to this proposal.

And this proposal apparently assumes that all UN member-nations depend on "foreign" oil, which is a bit silly because surely some of them are actually net producers of that substance...
And we regard the requirement to sell ready-produced hydrogen at fuel stations as foolish, because "Hydrogen on demand" systems that use chemical reactions (such as the oxidation of Boron) to produce that gas aboard the vehicles concerned are a considerably safer alternative to this.

And, by the way, we've found a pair of major LOOPHOLES in the wording of this proposal that would let any nations whose governments also spotted them keep on producing and using "gas"-fuelled vehicles anyway...


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this confounded penguin costume...)

Ironically enough, producing hydrogen cars produces more damage to the environment overall than gas and diesel powered vehicles.

How does it do more damage?

Primarily in the manufacturing process, we believe. If we understand correctly, and we are not at all certain on this point, the manufacture of suitable chassis, engines and other vehicular systems suitable for a hydrogen-powered car is a very different and considerably more intensive proposition than is necessary for more conventional liquid fuels. In addition, hydrogen itself is not readily available and so must be 'cracked' from water or the like, which itself uses more power than will be regained by the burning of the hydrogen, which implies some other non-trivial power souce must be applied.

As our country has already moved beyond using oil and hydrogen as fuel sources, this resolution would not have any positive benefits for us. Also, the idea of going all-hydrogen in 7 years is simply impossible.

Good day.

Eros Tatriel
UN Rep. for Subistratica