future9er24

*cough*Los Angeles*cough*

hmm never thought about using it for industry.

i wonder if you can make plastic with hydrogen?

twincamfxd

I dont think generating electricity is out of the question with hydrogen, as well as anything that requires the generation of heat. The possibilities are endless.

future9er24

thats exactly why we should invest in it :headbang:

Robert

:scratch:

The above message was brought to you by VP Cheney and the Halliburton Group.

Seriously my friend, you'd better take a closer look at the facts...

The vast majority of the most respected environmental scientists from all over the world have sounded a clear and urgent alarm. The international community – including the United States – began a massive effort several years ago to assemble the most accurate scientific assessment of the growing evidence that the earth’s environment is sustaining severe and potentially irreparable damage from the unprecedented accumulation of pollution in the global atmosphere.

In essence, these scientists are telling the people of every nation that global warming caused by human activities is becoming a serious threat to our common future. The Bush/Cheney Administration does not seem to hear the warnings of the scientific community in the same way that most of us do.

Here is what we’re talking about:

Even though the earth is of such vast size, the most vulnerable part of the global environment is the atmosphere – because it is surprisingly thin – as the late Carl Sagan used to say: like a coat of varnish on a globe.

Global Warming is real. Ice core samples taken in the arctic reveal that the past 100 years have shown an extraordinary and irrefutable increase over previous geological cycles - directly attributable to man. It is happening and the anticipated consequences are unacceptable. But it is important to understand that this crisis is actually just a symptom of a deeper underlying cause:

Yet in spite of the clear evidence available all around us, there are many who still do not believe that Global Warming is a problem at all. And it’s no wonder: Because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere.

And wealthy right-wing ideologues have joined with the most cynical and irresponsible companies in the oil, coal and mining industries to contribute large sums of money to finance pseudo-scientific front groups that specialize in sowing confusion in the public’s mind about global warming. They issue one misleading “report� after another, pretending that there is significant disagreement in the legitimate scientific community in areas where there is actually a broad-based consensus.

The techniques they use were pioneered years earlier by the tobacco industry in its long campaign to create uncertainty in the public’s mind about the health risks caused by tobacco smoke. Indeed, some of the very same scientific camp-followers who took money from the tobacco companies during that effort are now taking money from coal and oil companies in return for their willingness to say that global warming is not real.


The Bush Administration has explored new frontiers in cynicism by time and time again actually appointing the principal lobbyists and lawyers for the biggest polluters to be in charge of administering the laws that their clients are charged with violating. Some of these appointees have continued to work very closely with the outside pseudo-scientific front groups even though they are now on the public payroll.

Two Attorneys General have now publicly accused officials in the Bush White House Council on Environmental Quality of conspiring with one of the outside groups to encourage the filing of a lawsuit as part of a shared strategy to undermine the possibility of government action on Global Warming.

Vice President Cheney’s infamous “Energy Task Force� advised lobbyists for polluters early in the new administration that there would be no action by the Bush White House on Global Warming and then asked for their help in designing a totally meaningless “voluntary� program. One of the industry lobbyists who heard this pitch later made an unguarded speech to his peers about the experience and said the following:

“Let me put it to you in political terms. The President needs a fig leaf. He’s dismantling Kyoto, but he’s out there on a limb.�

The White House has routinely gone out on a limb to involve large contributors representing companies charged with violating environmental laws and regulations in the drafting of new laws and regulations designed to let their clients off the hook.

The story is the same when it comes to protecting the American people from pollution. The Bush administration chooses special interests over the public interest, ignoring the scientific evidence in favor of policies its contributors demand.

Consider Mercury, an extremely toxic pollutant causing severe developmental and neurological defects in fetuses. We know its principal unregulated source is coal-fired power plants. But the Bush Administration has gutted the protections of the Clean Air Act, revoking an earlier determination by the EPA that mercury emissions from power plants should be treated as hazardous air pollutants. Even Bush’s own FDA issued warning about mercury in tuna.

Are you all right with that – the President saying that Mercury shouldn’t be treated as a hazardous air pollutant?

Consider toxic wastes. The Superfund has gone from $3.8 billion to a shortfall of $175 million. The result is fewer cleanups, slower cleanups, and a toxic mess left for our children. That’s because the Bush administration has let its industry friends off the hook; the tax these polluters used to pay to support the Superfund has been eliminated, so that you, me, and other taxpayers are left holding the bill.

Are you all right with that – the country’s worst polluters getting off the hook while you and I pay?

And consider the enforcement of environmental laws. For three years in a row, the Bush administration has sought to slash enforcement personnel levels at EPA. Offices were told to back off cases, leaving one veteran EPA servant to say, “The rug was pulled out from under us…You look around and say, “What contribution can I make here?�

Are you all right with that – the EPA being stripped of its ability to protect our air and water?

I’ll tell you who’s all right with that. A recent review of contributions to the Bush campaign from utility industry executives, lawyers and lobbyists showed that 15 individuals were Bush Pioneers – those who raised at least $100,000 for the Bush campaign.

Spooty

My89Ford some of the things you say are true. Unfortunately any credibility you had is lost because your logic is seriously flawed.

Example:
"There is no proof of global warming at all."
First off there is but even if there wasn't you could counter that statement with "There is no proof there isn't global warming at all." Just because we don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also nobody else brought up global warming. We were talking about pollution. That's two different things. Pollution is a real proven issue. It's obvious you haven't been to a large metropolitan area recently. Once again because you haven't seen something or experienced it does not mean it doesn't exist.

There is the possibility that we are sitting on an unlimited supply of fossil fuels. There has been speculation that they formed at the same time as the earth formed. It has been found that there are clouds of amino acids and hydrocarbons in the galactic medium that stars and planets are believed to form from. If this is true then the known reserves are barely the tip of the iceberg.

Once again there is no proof that is true the same way as there is no proof it isn't true (as you are so fond of reminding us). You have to look at both sides of the coin, not just the side that fits your argument. Even if it is true why not be ecologically responsible and try to find an alternative.

One thing that is an indisputable fact is that right now our available resources of fossil fuel are dominated by foreign countries. They are expensive and getting more so and very quickly too. Why shouldn't we find and develop alternative fuel sources. Just because the technology doesn't currently exist to make it financially viable doesn't mean it can't happen. 200 years ago you could have said we would never be able to talk to someone on the other side of the country using a pair of wires. 100 years ago you could have said that man would never fly. 50 years ago you could have said man would never reach space or put a man on the moon. 30 years ago you could have said that there will never be a computer in each home. That's enough. Anyways in all those cases once the technology advanced to a sufficient level it was all possible. Efficient and affordable hydrogen fuel will be no different.

I don't see why you are so adamant about using gasoline. Do you have the same adversion to diesel fuel? What about alcohol? Did you know that you you can run a car on moonshine? Well when hydrogen (or another alternative) comes along I'll race you any day of the week with my hydro-powered Mustang and I'll blow your friggin' doors off!

That's fine if you want to have that defeatist attitude. Fortunately the rest of us want and will have a better world to live in.

twincamfxd

No doubt there will be a tremendous backlash from industry and the oil companies especially, but it needs to be done.

future9er24

wow, moonshine? thats cool. didnt know that. made some real good points dude. hydrogen is gonna happen anyway people. might as well get it now and be able to further refine hydrogen tach later. seriously.

ManEHawke

I've said this a few time already, but a huge reason why i'm looking forward to an alternative clean fuel is because with hydrogen the government will ease off on emmision laws, and what does that mean to hotrodders? Can you say posibblities on the biggest big blocks ever. Maybe those are just my personal dreams.

twincamfxd

No more emmissions testing for the people with hydro. Build them up and all you'll make is more water lol.

twincamfxd

This thread should be a sticky.....

ManEHawke

Hey im having a hotrod lemonade from exhaust party. Want to come?
Highest revvers who make the most juice win.

Spooty

Yeah, if you go to the Intro and Car Photos forums you'll see my '66 fastback has Georgia tags.

twincamfxd

I know I dont run too good on moonshine.....

future9er24

no emmisions...an endless supply of fuel...no gas guzzler taxes...possibly lower insurance...no pollution...bigger blocks...geez what more could you wish for!!! think about it! this IS the way to go

WaveMan2k3

Heh, sorry dude I just do that when I begin to rant on about something. My bad.

Anywho, people Hydrogen is the way of the future, so why not get it as an industry going now. Always better safe then sorry. I for one have asthma and I live in a city that when you are driving in it you don't think that it has all that much pollution. As soon as you go out of the city and turn around all you see over the city is a brownish haze. Now, here in Edmonton that is because of two reasons.

1. I live in a city with almost 1 million people living in it and thus the city is huge. It is also full of people driving on the roads from age 14 all the way to people driving in their 80's heck even 90's. Generally here in Edmonton most people have their own vehicles, some even have 2 or 3 (aka hotrod, muscle car, classic, motorcycle, etc...). All of these are adding to the pollution by the minute.

2. Edmonton is also the leading producer city of oil and gas in North America. Our whole North East part of the city is just refineries for both oil and gas. We also have coal refineries here in the city too, or well "had". The coal refineries have all been shut down because people living in the areas around the coal refineries have been dieing at an earlier age of you name it. Mostly cancer and from breathing problems. Now it doesn't take a freaking genious to figure out why they were dieing. Everyone could tell the reason. heck the University of Albereta (one of the top medical schools in the world) even ran a study of the air quality all over the city. They do this every couple of years and they found that people weren't breathing in no wheres near the proper amount of air at all. They were mostly breathing in the built up pollution in those areas. This over a few years would act like a person was taking a drag on a cigarette with every breath they took. Yes, I'm talking most deaths like i stated involves in those areas problems with breathing (aka lung cancer, influsima, and so one). These are things that people all over the city die from and heck people die from it all around the world. I'm just using my city as an example. Fact is, though, that 50% more people in those areas would contract those diseases and alements. Another fact is that Edmontons economy is built on the oil and gas industry. heck, all of Alberta's economy is based on those industries mainly. So they aren't going to disappear anytime soon.

For those that don't believe that pollution doesn't have anything to do with global warming, just check the warming trends of cities with lots of pollution. Check to see what the temperatures and the weather has been like for the last 100 years or so. You can and will see that as you get closer to the present the warmer and warmer those cities would get. The funny thing though is that the temperature would go up, the more pollution there is in the atmoshpere above those cities.

One thing though that theoretically can solve this pollution problem is that we start to use clean sources of energy, like hydrogen for fuels, solar power, wind power, more dams, and if we begin to use the new technology that was invented here in Edmonton last year to produce electricity from water by pushing it back and forth through a screen. This is the technology that we have now. I don't see why we don't just begin usinging.

Another thing that some people have to get out of their heads is the "idea" that burning gas and oil is efficient, because burning both of them is the most inefficient way of creating power on the planet. Proof is in the flame as a result of burning the oil and gas. You burn it, and you can only harness about 30-40% of the total energy transfered. The rest is lost due to heat. So how is that more efficient than using hydrogen to do the same thing? Esspecially when Hydro ICE's can suck in through the engines intake really polluted air and clean it while it is burning the hydrogen. Maybe I'm missing some peoples logic but you can get almost the same power from Hydrogen as you can from gas, and you don't have the hydrocarbons exiting the muffler like you do with gas. You wouldn't even be losing energy do to heat either if done correctly through processes that I've stated over and over in my other posts.

Maybe its just me but I'd rather use a more efficient, slightly less powerful fuel and save a lot of my money on fuel then paying a ton of cash for fuel (like we all are at the moment for gas and desiel) and pollute the atmosphere even more then it already is.

Fact is that people need top begin to weigh their options. Either you begin to clean and help the environment or you add to the people who perfer destroying the environment. I know I perfer savign the environment, and no I'm not a Tree Hugging Hippy. I'm just a 19 year old that loves power under my right foot as much as anyother guy. I'd just perfer having the power but in a clean way.

Spooty

Not to nitpick but:

majority (n) The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.

plurality (n) A large number or amount; a multitude. The larger or greater part.

Sounds like the same thing to me.

ManEHawke

Any of you 18 people who voted no changed your mind? I don't see why not. The only thing I'll miss is the smell of a gas engines exhaust and the smell of gas itself, i know it's not good for you, but when you fill up you can't help but smell it.

FrankBullitt05

Ok, can some of our neighbors from the north help with this?

the energy potential of gasoline is 32 MJ/L

and the energy potential of hydrogen is 119.6 MJ/Kilogram

I know that thats a volume and a mass measurement, but there is a way to convert them both into the same units, I forgot how currently.

As for hydrogen being less efficient, this is untrue. Hydrogen has a broader range of combustion(from 4% to 74% of a volume) while gasoline (I don't have the exact figures) works in a much more defined range, something like 30% to 60%. This means, even if the process used to seperate hydrogen is more energy intensive than gasoline(I'm not convinced that it is) the hydrogen will yield better efficiency in the engine than gasoline.

A great way to seperate hydrogen from water would be sonolumiescence(gotta check that spelling). What the heck is that your asking yourself? Its a process that sends subsonic waves(sono) through water to create light(lumiescence). The light is from a vacumn that forms in the water at microscopic sizes and then quickly collaspes. This results in heat and light. This process requires the water to be kept under pressure to prevent it from breaking down into its elemental parts. So, if ya remove the pressure

[places bottle of water next to subwoofer]

Spooty

Don't forget the taste. BTW, how would you siphon hydrogen?

My89Ford

Majority vs Plurality
Majority is specifically more than half whereas plurality is the greatest number but not necesarily half. ie
10 people in a chat room
4 Like the idea of hydrogen power
3 Are unsure
3 Do not like it
There is no majority because no single group totaled 50+% of the whole, yet the people who favor hydrogen power are the plurality. If, after a few pages of debate, the breakdown were to become:
10 people in a chatroom
6 like the idea of hydrogen power
2 are unsure
2 Do not like it
Then the supporters of hydrogen would be both a plurality and a majority. Of course, when something is a majority, it must also be a plurality.
----
When I said there was no proof of global warming, I was speaking in the context of man-made global warming. The earth is getting warmer, what we don't know is whether it is natural or not. In the big picture, our planet changes climates like we change socks, it even changes polarity (as evidenced by layers magnetic particles found along ocean floors pointing in different directions). This is a very dynamic planet, and things change. I have never seen nor heard proof that pollution is warming the air, only speculation. Honestly though, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a link that documents a valid experiment that establishes a tangible link between pollution and temparature. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm not afraid to admit it when I am.
----------
Of course pollution is 'bad' I'm not arguing in favor of pollution, I just feel that industry is an essential part of our lives and some pollution is inevetable. Studies have shown that pollution is terrible for our health. I've heard that living in Mexico City DF is as bad as smoking x amount of cigarettes per day; I don't remember the number and I doubt it's exact anyway, but you get the general drift. Pollution = Carcinogens = More Cancer. However, as far as I know, studies have failed to link pollution to imminent global duress.
-----
This is all just my opinion. I strongly feel that oil is still the most efficient and economically viable fuel source available to us at this point in history. I think that most people can agree with that- as of today, oil is superior. My arguement was simply that the worlds' oil supply has shown no evidence of being in danger of running out, contrary to popular belief. Of course oil will get replaced; about a decade after a more viable source of fuel is found, world industry will shift over to the newer, more efficient source. However, I think that right now, and for the immediate future, oil is our best bet, and as things are right now, I entertain no notions of switching over to electric, hybrid, hydrogen, hydrogen-hybrid, etc. Just 100% fossil fuels for me.